Wikinews talk:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 1

When are users
When are users allowed to make requests on this page. There seems to be consensus for this at the Water cooler. Anonymous101talk 12:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but see also Requests for permissions. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No actually I think if anything there is more of a consensus to make "editor" a discretion promote. The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion to other permissions page
I think there's no need for lots of request pages. This should be happening on Requests for permissions.  Majorly  talk  16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you see, this is sort of in the vein of w:WP:ROLLBACK, and since the Editor function will be given our fairly liberally, it doesn't really need to get meshed into the RfA discussion page. (Unless it turns out not to be that active a page, in which case, nevermind. :) ) Cirt (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at the moment WN:RFP requests users here, but I am not averse to giving this some more thought and changing my mind, of course others feel free to please give input as well. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Any objections to this formally being made policy and the way that users get Editor status in the future? Cirt (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much believe that at least three days are needed for any objections to someone being granted Editor status coming to light. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see? I just made that change, actually. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't most of this de facto policy because that is the version of MediaWiki we are running? As far as the waiting period for editor status, I am not sure that I agree. I think that there can be cases where that should be circumvented. As far as the section on gaining 'Reviewer' status, I don't think we should include that here until the "Who are the Reviewers" discussion has been resolved. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented out the Reviewer part for now. What suggestions to you have for altering the page otherwise? Cirt (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I have a problem with is setting the waiting period for 'Editor' in stone by making it policy. I feel the risk is limited, if one Admin makes a bad judgment and grants 'Editor' to someone who abuses it, it only takes another Admin to remove that status. 'Editor' shouldn't be thought of as a permanent thing, or even one that takes a whole 'de-editor' process. "Easy come, easy go." --SVTCobra 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be just like handing out candy, but I do sympathise with concerns that a cast in stone waiting period may not be the best approach. Patrick's comment in the below voting section is something else though, just taking away editor status seems like a road to conflict. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a solution could be that if an Admin removes the Editor status, that too should be required to be posted on the Requests for Permissions with a reason. That way others can see if they agree, and voice their opinion. But yes, I do see your point that it all can be a road to conflict.--SVTCobra 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, an admin that does remove a user's status must be able to explain why they did it and really, it should only be removed when it's completely apparent why it should be removed such as allowing an article that is competently wrong. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Lets do it already. We've already forced the use of flagged rev's.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per . Cirt (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per others. Anonymous101talk 13:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I agree with everything in the policy except for the three day waiting period. If an admin feels that a user should be given editor status, then they should do just that. I really feel that this thing should be no big deal. Likewise, if a admin feels that a editor screws up, they should just remove it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it comes and goes so easily, then will it really serve much good in terms of preventing vandalism? "Oh, I feel like I should give this users editor"  A few sighted vandalisms later, a few published & sighted hoax articles (onto the front page that Google News picks up... "Oh, I guess I shouldn't have given that too him, oh well".  There goes our google news contract -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 07:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Polls suck. This should be policy because no one has disagreed with it yet (or if someone disagrees, we should discuss, modify, etc). Policies should not be created by virtue of a vote, they should be a summary of current practices. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Can this be made policy already? I don't like having users directed to this page when it is only "proposed". Gopher65talk 04:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed this from Proposed Policy to Policy. If people disagree then we can revert and bring it back here for discussion. But really this has effectively been policy for months now, so this change is simply a reflection of the current status of the page. Gopher65talk 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing quality
I've said what I want on this one. Please look at the as-reviewed version linked to in that talk page section. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of removing it as the top main lead off the Main Page. Please note that in doing so I made the replaced it with the most recently published article which I happened to write; my intention was not to make an article I wrote more visible and I'm happy for anyone to replace it with another article. I put the third most recently article (Ex-cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov dies; Soviet space pioneer was 83) as top left lead, a slot previously occupied by said Former Iranian vice-president sentenced to six years; released on bail pending appeal article. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was on Lead 1? I never noticed that; certainly wasn't good enough to go there. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion needs to be moved to the articles talk page or broadened beyond the one article. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was the issue on this particular article, and the points to bring that up to scratch should be dealt with on it's talk. However, various of the issues - such as conforming to the style guide and being cognizant of an international reader audience - are more important to bring up here. If not already present in rules/guidelines for reviewers they should be incorporated into such. Scattering the various "sub-standard" review issues hither and yon is probably a bad idea; it leaves the knowledge and experience needing found through 'wiki-archaeology', instead of all being in one place. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was basically my point. There are other articles (IDK which) that have similar issues. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mjroots
I'll make this quick; need to be elsewhere soon, but is anyone planning on closing Mjroot's request for editor status anytime soon? It's been there for two weeks, and nothing's come of it; probably be a good idea to not let it fall through the cracks. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He failed. Just nobody wants to close it :-P --Diego Grez let's talk 01:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconfirmation
Is there any objection to adding a reconfirmation section to this page? It doesn't seem like a big deal, since reconfirmation is voluntary &mdash;just a convenience for the self-nominator, really&mdash; but I figured I ought to give folks an opportunity to object, to avoid an embarrassing revert in case somebody does see a problem with it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think a request for reconfirmation section here is a really good idea. What I think is worth discussing is what details a reconfirm should include. Off-the-cuff, I'd say a list of all articles reviewed in the last x weeks, or all noticably post-publish correction work on others' review work. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Close rfp on phearson
I have been waiting for awhile for this to close so that I may begin editing again. Phearson (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
can someone grant me reviewer rights? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idnamesay (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. You have no earned reputation here on which to justify a request for them.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)