Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut:
WN:FRRFP
WN:FR/RFP

See also Wikinews:Requests for permissions

Wikinews is currently running MediaWiki with the flagged revisions extension. Article validation allows for Editor and Reviewer users to rate articles and set those revisions as the default revision to show upon normal page view. Readers can also give feedback. These revisions will remain the same even if included templates are changed or images are overwritten. The text with expanded transclusions is stored in the database. This allows for MediaWiki to act more as a Content Management System (CMS).

While Flagged revisions adds a new tab and info box to pages, the wiki does not work any differently for Logged in users. Users who are logged in will continue to see the most recent version of the page (Referred to as a "Draft"). Users can opt to view the stable versions by default instead ("My Preferences" > "Stability" Tab > Check "Always show the stable version..." > Save). The major change of Flagged revisions is what Anonymous users (those who are not logged in) see by default. They will see the most recent Stable version (The revision that has been marked as "Sighted"). If there have been additional changes to the page since the last "Sighting", there will be a small infobox informing them of a new draft of the page, and if they edit the page they will be presnted with the latest draft.

In addition to the above rights, "Editor" status also comes packaged with rollback, a tool that allows an editor to revert the last edits to a page in a single click, without even having to check the diff first.

Please use the below page to request FlaggedRevs permissions, putting new requests at the top. Requests will generally stay open for a minimum of 48 hours, after which an administrator will read the comments made by other users and decide whether or not to give out the flag. Before requesting this permission, you must be familiar with key policies, particularly the style guide and neutral point of view. Prior to review of any article, and its subsequent publication, you will be required to copyedit the article for any style issues. This requires a very good understanding of English grammar to maintain the quality of the project's published works.

Archived requests

Requests for Editor Status

If it has been over a week and no one has gotten back to you about your request for Editor access, feel free to drop a note at the talk page of an administrator.

Adi4094 (talk · contribs)

I will start by saying that I'm new but I have got the hold of the policies. Many good articles often go unreviewed for a long time. Wikinews definitely needs more Editors and so here I am. I am not really keeping my hopes high and if I am rejected someone should explain me my mistakes and I will try to improve. --Adi4094 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Could I ask about the two images you've uploaded to Commons, File:Pune - German bakery blast, 2010.jpg and File:Babri masjid 20090630.jpg? I note that File:Pune - German bakery blast, 2010.jpg appears at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7235462/India-Pakistan-peace-talks-threatened-by-bomb-blast.html and elsewhere, and is credited in the Telegraph article to "AFP/Getty Images". It can be found on the Getty Images website here. Would you be able to comment on that at all? I'd also appreciate it if you could clarify the source of File:Babri masjid 20090630.jpg. Where does this image come from? Thanks. Adambro (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  That was a disaster. My friend had borrowed my camera last month and he lives nearby the blast site. He gave me that photo and told me many other people were taking pictures and so his will look similar to some other ones. Sorry for that. And I had forgot about Babri I thought it was deleted (see my WP tp). As I said I was new and was confused by the policies. My only edits were to the w:Babri article. I have learned since then. Thanks for asking. --Adi4094 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for helping to clear these things up. I've deleted File:Pune - German bakery blast, 2010.jpg, should I also delete File:Babri masjid 20090630.jpg? I've not been able to find any discussion about that on you enwikip talk page but is it safe for me to assume that should go as well? Adambro (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish Mafia (talk · contribs)

This is my account for use on public computers. I think the risk of compromise is low enough that granting it editor status is compatible with 'easy come, easy go' and I have no intent to get admin access for it, so it can't do much damage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support — I'm willing to go with this. I never use my account on public computers due to the risk of it being compromised, but if others have a regular need to access wikinews from such computers, then a separate account that still allows them act in a fairly normal fashion is probably a good idea. It's a lot easier to undo the damage caused by an editor account than it is to undo the damage caused by an admin account:P. Gopher65_talk 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Current admin on this project, acknowledged alternate account for legitimate purposes. No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus. A firm, resounding 'Meh'. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising (talk · contribs)

On the recommendation of Blood Red Sandman I would like to request Editor access. I've been active on my english Wikipedia account since the fall of 2007 and started editing Wikinews today in response to the Austin Echelon plane incident. I have a record on Wikipedia of thorough research and active participation in policy debates. I promise to review the policies and procedures of Wikinews and follow them appropriately. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Despite the user being so new, he clearly grasps the basics already. Partly, this is based on me trusting the user not to sight things without checking policy first. Remember; editor is easy come, easy go, and I do believe this user is capable of using the tool sensibly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've sighted their edits and those as far as I can tell are within within policy. --Mikemoral♪♫ 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support on the basis that Editor status is "easy come, easy go". Standards for receiving this tool have become too high recently, imo. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have encountered this user on en.wikipedia when he teamed up with a compatriot of his, User:Ash, in an attempt to keep a poorly sourced article on a biography of a living person in main-article space. More on this here [1]. The article was about a gay porn star Paul Carrigan. The user Stillwaterising seemed to voice an overriding concern of retaining poorly sourced material about a living person, and the page indeed even had material that was not sourced to anything at all. One quality that Wikinews definitely shares with Wikipedia is a concern for sourcing, to make sure we source our facts and get things right and factually accurate. I do not think that we should be so quick to promote an individual that has displayed a lack of regard for sourcing information about a living person on a controversial topic. I would also like to see more experience on Wikinews than one single article contributed, and one day of time elapsed. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral to weak oppose. This is partly influenced by reading the discussion Cirt linked to above; I would be concerned if someone were using the wiki to 'collect dirt' or similar. WP:BLP does not apply here; we've flagged revisions - which prevents unreviewed publication. I would be inclined to say, "please demonstrate more familiarity with this project". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral but solely because I would like to see a little bit more time/experience on Wikinews. the wub "?!" 12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please see look at the revision history and edit statistics for w:2010 Austin plane crash. I'm a major contributor who is known for sourcing every line. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: First contribution to this project was an unsourced contribution - and it was only made ten days ago [2]. User has contributed to a whopping total of one article on this project [3]. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever other concerns there are here, {{Broadcast report}} is not unsourced. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, yes, that template. I'm very, very reluctant to accept that from any new contributor unless I am also able to access the broadcast. I require people build a trust reputation before relying on it to any degree whatsoever. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Per Cirt I removed my support and am now neutral. --Mikemoral♪♫ 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful, no objections in several days. Congrats Tempodivalse [talk] 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PSD27 (talk · contribs)

I have been a member of Wikinews for over three months with nearly 750 edits to my name. During which time, I have created and written 30+ published articles (many of which have been featured on the Main Page) in addition to having contributed to and edited many others. I feel I have a good understanding of policy. I furthermore feel that I possess a firm grip on how articles should be written having read both the Wikinews style guide and Strunk & White's guide very thoroughly. I am also confident in my overall ability to copy-edit. If given the opportunity, I would like to be of assistance with the reviewing process as well as fighting against vandalism. In turn, I could assist in keeping things moving efficiently and in a timely fashion by reducing the workload of other hardworking editors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, PSD27 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I have seen strong work from this user, particularly in article creation, which appears to be conveniently listed, at User:PSD27. :P Cirt (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support You know what you're doing, and if you've read those guides you'll have no problems knowing what to sight when. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I have to admit, I thought you already had this! the wub "?!" 10:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, and closing as successful per unanimous support and no objections in four days. Don't know how I missed this, i always vote in RfEs. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Editor status

Post requests here regarding any user who you consider has abused editor status. Provide a justification for the removal, preferably providing examples of where the privilege has been abused. Note for this section, support (or remove) indicates you believe the user should have the privilege withdrawn, oppose (or keep) indicates you believe they should retain the privilege.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dumb bag of rocks de-editored. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs)

For the same reason as we don't let this bot be an administrator - it causes damage. Edits like this need to be checked out by humans rather than flung to the masses. The correct process would have been for the bot to remove the image, and whoever decided to sight would look for a replacement. I also notice this bot is actually currently unapproved to boot. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I am not so sure that we'd keep up with removing potential copy-vios if we were merely 'notified'. There are some images that Commons must remove and they could well be used on Wikinews. Of course, there are cases where Commons removes images that we could preserve under fair-use, but if they remove stuff from the older articles, it becomes impossible to know what they removed. It's a tough one. --SVTCobra 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support removal of privs, stuff like that should be brought to the attention of editors so they can find a suitable replacement. (side note, editor privs were granted by Adambro during the initial stages of flaggedrevs, many other users were flagged as well without any consensus during that time too). However, I still think it would be best if we could avoid this bot altogether and use WN:CommonsTicker instead, any chance that can be reinstalled? Tempodivalse [talk] 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support de-priv. This bot is, from a Wikinews perspective, dumber than a bag of rocks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Certainly agree with Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), and quite a funny way of putting it, too. :P Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "it causes damage". Oh? Where? You linked to a properly executed removal of an image and I'd much rather have CD remove the image all together than have the redlink in the template. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• You honestly reckon my version - someone has to replace before sighting - is worse? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I dont know what you're trying to say. I clicked on the link you provided, and it shows CD removing an image. In this case, CD is cleaning up usages of an image that has already been deleted. So flagged rev's be damned, the image will be red linked. So yes, I'd much rather have a nice clean template with no image and no redlinks, than a template with a red link in it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• And all without a single human even knowing it's gone. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I say we let it edit just minus privs, so any edit it makes can be replaced before it's sighted and flung to public as BRS said. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - removals need to be sighted first. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - agree with TUFKAAP. Most of the time it does a reasonable job, but proper sighting by a human won't take long. the wub "?!" 10:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As Tempodivalse notes, I was responsible for granting editor status back in 2008. I cannot recall the reasons behind doing so, it could have been I didn't fully understand the status at that point or there could have been and still be a benefit of doing so, I don't know but not that I can think of. The main problem with this bot having editor status that seems to have been highlighted is that it doesn't give the community the opportunity to review the removal and search for alternative images where appropriate. I completely appreciate that issue and so have no objection to the status being removed. As I understand it, this change will make it easier to review image removals whilst resulting in red links appearing for longer. I think that is acceptable considering the potential benefits of alternative images being located. Adambro (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.