Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→User:Mountaincirque: granted |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* {{rfplinks|1=Mountaincirque}} |
* {{rfplinks|1=Mountaincirque}} |
||
:I have been making minor edits for referencing and grammar for a few years, around 1500 edits, I am especially keen to use reviewer rights to check and review locked pages for [[Premier League]] footballers as that is one of my main focuses. Hopefully you will see from my contributions that I keep things simple, get rid of vandalism quickly and generally keep things tidy and it's in that vein that I request this right. [[User:Mountaincirque|<span style="color:#A3A3BF">'''Mountain'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:Mountaincirque|<span style="color:##CEE0F2">'''cirque'''</span>]]</sup> 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
:I have been making minor edits for referencing and grammar for a few years, around 1500 edits, I am especially keen to use reviewer rights to check and review locked pages for [[Premier League]] footballers as that is one of my main focuses. Hopefully you will see from my contributions that I keep things simple, get rid of vandalism quickly and generally keep things tidy and it's in that vein that I request this right. [[User:Mountaincirque|<span style="color:#A3A3BF">'''Mountain'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:Mountaincirque|<span style="color:##CEE0F2">'''cirque'''</span>]]</sup> 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:{{done}} — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype">xaosflux</font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====[[User:WurmRider]]==== |
====[[User:WurmRider]]==== |
||
* {{rfplinks|1=WurmRider}} |
* {{rfplinks|1=WurmRider}} |
||
Revision as of 18:14, 31 May 2014
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Reviewer
- Anand.Hegde (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over 5 years now. I watch several pages for vandalism and copyedit articles. My aim is to provide the right information to the readers of Wikipedia and clean up things that do not have supporting data or reference.|*| Anand.Hegde|*|Talk to me 19:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Recent mislabeling of edits as vandalism worries me that constructive pending changes could be rejected. Otherwise no huge concern here. Passing on to another administrator. — MusikAnimal talk 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Winkelvi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- WinkelviHave been around for a while, do a reasonable amount of recent changes patrolling as well as looking into articles that seem to need help in the way of referencing. Also look for articles that need help paring down on extraneous verbosity, POV content/wording, and the use of unencyclopedic prose -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) User has rollback rights, and over 2000 edits to the main namespace. User seems vigilant at differing from vandalism edits vs constructive ones, and actively uses the 'rollback (good faith)' function of Twinkle quite well. Endorse. Tutelary (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn endorsement. Leave to any reviewing admin.- Is this a joke? I wouldn't trust this user to review anything for accuracy. Argumentative, and wrong so many times I can't count them. See discussion at 2014 Oso mudslide article. He argued about a fish and even when corrected by the author of the featured article on that fish about his erroneous assumptions, persisted in providing out of date and unreliable "evidence" to support his claims. Under no circumstances should this editor be trusted to review anything here for reliability.--MONGO 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from MONGO's obvious attempt here at sabotaging my request based on the personal attacks and edit warring he started and perpetuated until he left the referred to article in a huff, there is a thing called learning from your mistakes. Which I did. It's my understanding that editors are expected and encouraged to learn along the way, not demonstrate perfection from the jump or even at the time when they request additional permission statuses such as reviewer. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewers should be able to know the difference between what is and what is not a reliable reference. There was no evidence in that article you had any intention of working colaboratively with others, nor with accepting that the references you presented did not stand up to scrutiny. Others tried to reason with you such as here, but you insisted that you were still correct, when you were not. All I can do is examine contributions and arguments made and at present, I do not see that granting you reviewer rights is the best thing for the pedia. This isn't a past thing...this was an argument within the last 90 days. I would wait another year and try again.--MONGO 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- One can learn from mistakes made 90 days ago, a year ago, a minute ago. I stated I learned from that incident, and I did. I'm asking for permission to be a reviewer, not anything as weighty as an administrator. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm basing my judgement on the issues that face reviewers. Based on my experiences with you on that particular page (2014 Oso mudslide), I do not feel you are yet trustworthy enough for reviewer status. Perhaps that article is the only one where you may have had this difficulty...I don't know as I have not been following you. I do know that on that article prior to the fish argument, that we also tangled about whether the mudslide was a mile-wide or one square mile in area...the more recent references I had indicated the latter, but you kept arguing for the former even though that was based on slightly older references. This earlier issue was minor since it was a current event and the news was constantly updating the storyline. But you did not seem to want to examine the dates and references in this matter either, so the combination of these things gives me worry. If any admin adds this feature to your wiki-resume, then that's their decision.--MONGO 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and this is still plenty weighty; we'd appreciate evidence that you've learned. Perhaps an especially good diff? Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Origamite:I don't have a diff to demonstrate I have been and will continue to be looking more closely at policy in regard to references, MOS, and the like. I don't have a diff to prove my personal resolve to look more closely at policy and be certain of it before making any decision in a reviewing (and editing) capacity. I freely admit I was wrong in my approach at the Oso article regarding the issue MONGO brought up. I have not only admitted I was wrong regarding policy on references coming from "locked" sources (those only available at subscription archives) at the the Simon Collins article, but I demonstrated my admission and understanding about being wrong by doing what was asked without hesitation: returning the locked references I removed as well as the associated content (seen here in the following restoration edit at the article in question: [1]). That's the best I have for you in response, Origamite. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and this is still plenty weighty; we'd appreciate evidence that you've learned. Perhaps an especially good diff? Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm basing my judgement on the issues that face reviewers. Based on my experiences with you on that particular page (2014 Oso mudslide), I do not feel you are yet trustworthy enough for reviewer status. Perhaps that article is the only one where you may have had this difficulty...I don't know as I have not been following you. I do know that on that article prior to the fish argument, that we also tangled about whether the mudslide was a mile-wide or one square mile in area...the more recent references I had indicated the latter, but you kept arguing for the former even though that was based on slightly older references. This earlier issue was minor since it was a current event and the news was constantly updating the storyline. But you did not seem to want to examine the dates and references in this matter either, so the combination of these things gives me worry. If any admin adds this feature to your wiki-resume, then that's their decision.--MONGO 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- One can learn from mistakes made 90 days ago, a year ago, a minute ago. I stated I learned from that incident, and I did. I'm asking for permission to be a reviewer, not anything as weighty as an administrator. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewers should be able to know the difference between what is and what is not a reliable reference. There was no evidence in that article you had any intention of working colaboratively with others, nor with accepting that the references you presented did not stand up to scrutiny. Others tried to reason with you such as here, but you insisted that you were still correct, when you were not. All I can do is examine contributions and arguments made and at present, I do not see that granting you reviewer rights is the best thing for the pedia. This isn't a past thing...this was an argument within the last 90 days. I would wait another year and try again.--MONGO 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from MONGO's obvious attempt here at sabotaging my request based on the personal attacks and edit warring he started and perpetuated until he left the referred to article in a huff, there is a thing called learning from your mistakes. Which I did. It's my understanding that editors are expected and encouraged to learn along the way, not demonstrate perfection from the jump or even at the time when they request additional permission statuses such as reviewer. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Harrybrowne1986 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- Hello, I have been a regular now for quite a long period, and as per my contribution list, you might see that I am a regular {{vandal}} beater, and also a regular contributor to lots of articles, including soundtracks to movies. I also try and make sure that I am requesting Speedy wherever needed and also that marking edit tags, warning users, IP's, Welcoming new users and letting them know of their right or incorrect edits, etc. If I would get the reviewer access, like I have on WB, it would assist so that my edits do not require any checks (as far as I know, all of my recent contribution to WP have been better ones than of-course my past ones). I have been a regular at WP, however, I am currently most active on WB, as I am developing the German book over there, and contribute time to time for WP. Kindly review and let me know. Oh and I am not too sure, when it states 75 pages created criteria [2], which I believe I will never fulfill, as I never create any pages, but I make edits to the ones already created. Also, to let you know, I am seeing review action on recent changes page everyday, as in every time I login. So, am not sure why? Again, awaiting decision. Danke Vishal Bakhai - Works 16:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Under 200 main namespace edits; also, please don't copy-paste the request for other rights as it gives the appearance of WP:HATSHOP. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 03:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Origamite. However, my intentions have never been this. If you look at my contributions, and the anti vandalism that I do, just like in WikiBooks, I am used to doing good for Wiki, and not just showcase that I have got the power, fundamental. I do good without these rights, and in future will continue to do so, with or without these privileges. Only reason I wish to have them is to make myself more useful for the betterment of this vast place, which can afford to have one more reviewer. Hope, I have made myself clear. Danke Schôn. Vishal Bakhai - Works 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Under 200 main namespace edits; also, please don't copy-paste the request for other rights as it gives the appearance of WP:HATSHOP. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 03:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Mountaincirque (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I have been making minor edits for referencing and grammar for a few years, around 1500 edits, I am especially keen to use reviewer rights to check and review locked pages for Premier League footballers as that is one of my main focuses. Hopefully you will see from my contributions that I keep things simple, get rid of vandalism quickly and generally keep things tidy and it's in that vein that I request this right. Mountaincirque 13:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Done — xaosflux Talk 18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- WurmRider (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I would like to be a reviewer because some pages that I am watching for personal reasons are vandalism prone. I would like to make sure that this is stopped and/or discougage. WurmRider 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here, reviewer doesn't do anything about vandalism on pages without WP:PC. Also, if you are watching the pages, you can still revert edits to an accepted version on vandalized pages, no reviewer necessary. Also, you have a total of 5 mainspace edits. Lixxx235 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)