Misplaced Pages

:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:29, 17 August 2014 view sourceT Cells (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,996 edits →User:Wikicology← Previous edit Revision as of 21:30, 17 August 2014 view source Armbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits backlog clearedNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Requests for permissions}}{{adminbacklog}}<!--If the backlog is cleared, than change this to {{noadminbacklog}} and vice-versa.--></noinclude> <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Requests for permissions}}{{noadminbacklog}}<!--If the backlog is cleared, than change this to {{noadminbacklog}} and vice-versa.--></noinclude>


==={{anchor|rperm-reviewer}}Reviewer=== ==={{anchor|rperm-reviewer}}Reviewer===

Revision as of 21:30, 17 August 2014

Requests for permissions
Common
Uncommon
Logs
Special

Reviewer

(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts

User:Wackyike

Hi there. I would like to request the reviewer right as I believe I meet the six criteria on the reviewer page and since I'm currently using STiki to revert vandalism. Wackyike (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done — MusikAnimal 15:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Param Mudgal

I would like to become a reviewer so as to remove vandalism from Misplaced Pages to an extent.I understand Misplaced Pages and its policies and rules. I ensure you that i will work hard for improving the quality of content in Misplaced Pages. Param Mudgal (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Param Mudgal: If you would like to remove vandalism, I suggest you apply for rollback. Being a reviewer only allows you to review pending changes. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would apply for rollback but i want to gain some more experience on wikipedia by reviewing pending changes first.But, Thank you for your observation.--Param Mudgal (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester

I'm applying for this right again, after having withdrawn my request last month. At the time, some editors were concerned about my one previous block, related to a squabble over grammar and WP:ENGVAR. I admit that the circumstances of that block were not ideal, and that I overreacted to in that particular instance. However, I do think that in my nearly three years of being here, I've shown that I know the difference between vandalism, disruptive editing, and content disputes. I've tried to be as productive as I can be, and I'd like to help out with pending changes reviewing. I think that I am well suited to the task, I'd ask that I be granted the reviewer right in good faith. I am open to recall, and if I'm seen to use the right in a way that is unacceptable, it should be removed at once. I do not think that will happen, though. I understand what it is for, and I understand how to use it. Please do consider this request. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment The above mentioned request from last month can be found there. Armbrust 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I support this request. I've seen far far less experienced editors than RGloucester get the reviewer right. While he has had a few issues in the past, I fail to see how they dosn't meet the criteria for the right. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done No concerns. Little damage can actually be done with the reviewer right. Being autoconfirmed their edits are already automatically accepted, so I don't see how the reviewer right would play a role in the edit warring issue. — MusikAnimal 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Eman235

I believe I meet the criteria. While I probably not frequently use this permission, if it is granted, I will not abuse it. Thank you. Eman235/talk 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 Not done While you're certainly on your way, it may be a tad bit too soon to grant the reviewer right. Track record looks good, but I think a little more editing experience in the mainspace showing a fair understanding of the basic policies and guidelines is needed. I might add that vandalism should be indisputable, and that it is standard practice to warn users appropriately after undoing their vandalistic edits. Twinkle can expedite that process. — MusikAnimal 20:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gdfusion

Hi again! I requested this right a month ago, but was too inexperienced at the time. Since then, I have made some mistakes, but I have also been productive, and I still want to help with the pending changes. I've read and reread the relevant guideline, and I know the vandalism and copyright policies. Thank you for your time! --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done. — xaosflux 14:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikicology

I hereby request your permission of a Reviewer right with all sense of commitment and responsibility as an editor in good standing, who had been reverting and reporting cases of vandalism. Granting me this user right will enable me to review pending changes as well as improving my efficiency and output.Wikicology (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Wikicology's last request was declined on 23 July. Armbrust 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wikicology: How would a user right that lets you review a small pool of edits "improving efficiency and output"? Additionally this is not vandalism, and you are far too quick to assume bad faith label edits as "disruptive". Often with PC, unless the edit is clearly vandalism, it is far better to accept it, and wait for someone more farmiliar with the article to come along and take a look. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: first of all, let me correct an impression that some edit counts are small. No edit count small. They are task like any other task on wikipedia, carry the same weight as any other edit as well as forming part of editors edit count. If they are indeed small, no one will ever violate any policy. Secondly, since reviewing become neccessary on wikipedia and form part of the daily activity carried out by several wikipedian, then an editor in good standing shouldn't be denied of such right. Thirdly, the mistake you spotted above is bound to happen in a setting like this. It could be intentional or unintentional as no one is above mistake and i have learnt from my mistake. Even at times an administrator can commit a blunder ordinarily not expected of an autocomfirm user. How do we explain this? afterall the right can be revoke if used in bad faith and could lead to the block of the user, all these I knew having read the term and condition of use. With all sense of humility,Let me also mention that the rollback right/tool was recently given to me by Acalamari (talk · contribs), a Beaurecrate. Such highly experienced wikipedia personel would have check my contributions before granting the right including the one spotted above.it is very easy for him not to grant the right if am not trusted since rollback tool is an administrator tool. Lastly, I don't think the date of my last request should be a barrier, I don't see any significancy in that. No limit for request in life and no WP:Consensus stipulated the limits on request of this kind. A declined request of yesterday is independent of today's request. Afterall I had not been away ever since my request was decline. It is not how far but how active and how well. I had been puting in my best despite the challenges of poor internet network and poor electricity in my own country. I thank you all for your observations, all this had always been my driving force. Wikicology (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology, I'm actually now uncertain as to whether or not granting you rollback rights was a good idea, given the concerns from other users above and because of this request for new rights so soon after receiving others; however, I'm willing to let you keep them provided that you don't make any mistakes with them. I suggest withdrawing this request and stick to your existing tools for now; there's no hurry and I am certain that another admin will decline this request, anyway, and this request being declined will work against you next time you request this right. Acalamari 18:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 Not done I was waiting to see another admins assessment (or any user, really), and I agree in questioning several recent edits that you treated as vandalism. Granted, as far as I can tell, you haven't even used rollback since attaining the right, instead using Twinkle's rollback option, which allows for a custom edit summary. This then would technically not qualify as misuse of rollback. Nonetheless, I think giving anti-vandal efforts some more focus may be good practice for what the reviewer right would entail. Just be careful when differentiating good faith edits vs bad faith. The Counter-Vandalism Unit is always a good resource for learning more in that regard. Familiarity with the WP:BLP and WP:CV policies are also integral in reviewing pending edits. Thank you for your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages — MusikAnimal 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I thank you all for your comment. I ppromise to use the right/tool I have contructively. Anti-vandalism is what I enjoy doing and I won't relent my effort and will surely learn from my mistake. I love you all.Wikicology (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Molestash

Already have rollbacker rights and am looking to look into pending changes on a few topics Molestash (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done — MusikAnimal 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)