This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 7(talk | contribs) at 00:43, 22 June 2010(archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:43, 22 June 2010 by 7(talk | contribs)(archive)
Reason for requesting Reviewer rights I contributed to some of the entries on martial arts and combative sports, and the entries on wrestling and boxing get abused. Joseph Svinth (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Question- Why should we give you reviewer, which is completely for trying out a script, when you fail to follow directions well enough to place a request on this page correctly? You placed it under its own section header instead of the same way as everyone else. Administrators- if you disagree please tell me. Mr. R00tTalk03:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{not done}} Sorry, but you are neither an established editor nor have you indicated, and correctly for that matter, why the right would be useful to you. I think you may be looking to request the rollback right instead. -FASTILY(TALK)05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
On this one, I'm inclined to agree with Fastily, though if Joseph Svinth could assure us of his understanding of the policies that pending changes is trying to uphold, BLP in particular, I'd be happy to see it granted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The user is not particularly active but their contribution history indicates a good level of clue. –xenotalk14:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not thrilled to see my decline modified. Not cool. Second, I think I have already made my opinion clear on this matter. If someone still insists on granting the right, I suppose there's nothing I can do, is there? -FASTILY(TALK)18:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on emerging consensus [that the bar for receiving this userright should be set very low] at that thread, I have Y granted this request. The requesting user has been contributing for years without incident, and just because the request was somewhat malformed/confused is no reason to deny granting the userright. –xenotalk18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Long-time editor. I used to spend an hour or so each day patrolling recent changes, then moved on to new pages patrol, and now do fact-checking for around five hours per week. In regards to the recent block for edit warring, I am convinced that the ABC Television program Lateline is a discussion forum, not news, and should not be used in BLPs. This matter has not been resolved, I will challenge the block soon. Ottre04:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{notdone}} You want to challenge your block for 3RR with regards to BLP? I'm sorry, but I am rather hesitant to assign the reviewer right to you. -FASTILY(TALK)05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Granting of the reviewer permission simple enables an explicit ability that nearly all users previously had passively - to tacitly approve (by not undoing) non-autoconfirmed edits - it should not be denied to users based on previous blocks. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#Automatic granting of "reviewer" bit, and reconsider your position. –xenotalk13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have been inclined to grant this one, since the block was for 3RR (not vandalism or BLP or anything sinister), it was a month ago and the editor seems to have a sound understanding of applicable policies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Further to the above, the ANI thread [1], and the general discussion linked above, I have Y granted the userright to Ottre. –xenotalk18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Originally intended as a joke, not a very good one. Not a very innocent act either, although it is the only thing I've done to Wikipedia that can be classified as vandalism, I'm pretty apologetic about that. Spawned out as a result of melancholia while I assure it won't happen again in the future. I'm dedicaded at reverting unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, but if you feel that I don't deserve the granted right, well... Er-vet-en (say) 17:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since joining, I have regularly contributed to various Wikipedia articles and I believe that I have good judgment as far as deciding whether something conflicts with Wikipedia's policies and standards. I've reverted any acts of vandalism that I've come across, as well as fixing grammatical errors. I feel that having Reviewer rights would better enable me to clean up vandalism on an even wider scale. EWikist (Talk to me) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting this status because I am specifically interested in becoming involved with the Wikipedia trial at Wikipedia:Pending changes. Should this trial progress to become a project of Wikipedia, I would like to continue my involvement and contribute to this project within its scope. Whereas such status may in fact impart authority beyond my experience level I assure, with the bond of my word, that I would never abuse such a trust. It would not be my intention to use this privilege beyond what is necessary to efficiently participate in this trial, unless specifically asked and obviously appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I remove obvious vandalism whenever I find it, and I regularly seek out pages with poor spelling and grammar so that they can be corrected. Drpickem (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
{{not done}}- I see very little vandalism reverting in present contribs list or any warning of vandals. Plenty of editing and spellcheck is a useful contribution. Mr. R00tTalk21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Done (above decline was by a non-admin) - no obvious issues I can see, user has made some decent and sensible contributions over a fairly extended period. We're deliberately being very liberal giving this right out. ~ mazcatalk22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been a regular editor since 2007 and rollbacker since 2009. Actively I have reverted vandalism and fact-checked Wikipedia articles over my time here. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Rollbacker since November 2009 with ~12,000 edits, I regularly revert vandalism, patrol recent changes and new pages, and touch up articles when I happen across them. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been a user here for a little over a year, and have had rollback rights since August of 2009 and have used it responsibly for fighting vandalism and I believe that having Reviewer rights also will only further in helping me in the quest of fighting vandalism SteamIron07:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Question: While it may seem like ancient history - can you please expain your block log and what (if anything) you would do differently. Thanks. 709:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been long time editor. I mainly add interwikis and {{Commons category}} templates but sometimes I revert vandalism or fix typos. I'm familiar with the basic content policies. I've been administrator on the Czech Wikipedia for more than 2 years. Sevela.p11:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in seeing this in action during the trial. I think this could be a great way to keep the founding principals of WP intact while still allowing extra protection on controversial or commonly vandalized pages. Colincbn (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am a long time Wikipedia editor and I agree to contribute towards controlling vandalism and following all policies here. I volunteer to help at Wikipedia. Becoming an authorized reviewer would allow me to contribute in this way too. SaltyBoatr get wet15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am a regular editor in Wikipedia and pretty active in roll-backing vandalism and i want to involve in the Wikipedia trial at Wikipedia:Pending changes RahulChoudhary17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Long term contributor interested in helping out more. Although I mostly add to wikipedia, regularly I fix vandalism or correct spelling/grammar mistakes too. Pelotastalk19:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a long history as an editor, including servicing semi-protected edit requests, and I'd like to participate in the trial. Celestra (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been curious to see this system implemented for some time, and I'm hopeful that it will help weed out vandalism, violations of WP:BLP, and similar issues. I've been editing for several years, focused on bringing neutrality to highly polarized, controversial topics, while removing material that falls outside of Wikipedia's principles. I'm constantly reviewing page histories for problem edits, so having another tool to help protect those pages from vandalism can only help. ← Georgetalk06:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Question: While it may seem like ancient history - can you please expain your block log and what (if anything) you would do differently. Thanks. 709:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I had to go archive-diving to remember what that block was about. :) I had reverted some unsourced (or poorly sourced) edits by one of Klaksonn's sock puppets, some of which I viewed as violations of BLP (for instance). We reverted back and forth, I requested protection for the page, and we were both blocked for edit warring. I requested an unblock, explaining that I thought removing the BLP violations took precedence over 3RR, but the request (and my block) expired before anyone took action on it. I lambasted the blocking admin, but really it was just a way to let off steam. What I learned from this was to not jump at every single thing I view as a policy violation; to back off, cool down, discuss the issue, and get feedback from uninvolved editors. I won't lie—I felt I was protecting Wikipedia from BLP violations and "bad" edits with my reverts—but I was edit warring, and exhibiting ownership. I've realized that if something is really a violation of Wikipedia's policies, I don't have to be the one to revert it. If I can draw attention to the issue, explain my reasoning, while weighing feedback of others, I can build consensus for changes while operating under a personal 0RR (or 1RR) policy. ← Georgetalk20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with flagged revisions since on my home wiki, Hungarian Wikipedia it has been in use for more than a year and a half now. I had been a reviewer from almost its introduction, until I was elected as administrator on huwiki. Recently I started to edit and fight vandalism on enwiki and I'd like to contribute to the trial. Csigabi (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a good candidate for reviewer rights because I already have rollback, I vandal fight, and I am a reliable editor. Pepper∙piggle22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedian for over four years. While my edit count is modest, I try to fix spelling and grammar errors, revert vandalism and improve articles whenever I can. WakiMiko (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
granted this request. The requesting user has been contributing for years without incident, and just because the request was somewhat malformed/confused is no reason to deny granting the userright. –xenotalk 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Done ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Question: While it may seem like ancient history - can you please expain your block log and what (if anything) you would do differently. Thanks. 7 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)