Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer/Historical

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions‎ | Pending changes reviewer

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 20 June 2010 (m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reviewer (add request)

Shortcut

User:Goochelaar

Editor for a long time, rollbacker for some time, I like to give my small contribution to WP. [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Pitt

Autoreviewer with rollback privileges, occasionally active in vandal checking and disambiguation, have been a wikipedian for well over four years and would like to contribute further Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khfan93

Long-time member who has been in and out of wikipedia. Primarily I work to revert vandalism, so this would be an appropriate power. I will not be offended if I do not receive it, however. :) -khfan93 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nakon 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arnoutf

Long time editor, familiar with policies, patrolling many pages for POV and other problematic edits trying to resolve without conflict. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold, Can you please explain your block log? Since the block was for edit warring, I'm a bit hesitant to assign the reviewer bit. Nakon 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Note this was a year ago. The situation was a case of clear and obvious and vandalising (POV pushing) thourh sockpuppeteering, by a sockpuppeteer (User:philscirel) with a long history on this specific article Fethullah Gulen. However the sockpuppetry case took 3 weeks (!!!) to be even looked at after which the sockpuppet was banned. While the sockpuppet procedure did not respond at all I kept reverting the sockpuppet (claiming his edits to be vandalism), but so did the sockpuppet with my reverts (i.e. claiming those as vandalism) and reported me for 3RR violation. Since the sockpuppet had basically prepared a completely different version of the article in some distant past , the vandalism of the sockpuppet was not very obviously vandalism for the admins who were not familiar with the history of the specific article. The patrolling admin blocked both me and the sockpuppet for a short while to restore rest. A little while later the sockpuppet was blocked (and reappeared a while later again and again, but that has nothing to with the case here).
Indeed I may have overreacted to trolling of a repeating sockpuppeteer, this has learned me some restraint and just wait for the proper procedures (even if they take an absurd amount of time as in this case..... 3 full weeks to respond to a sockpuppet notification). Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend

Most of my work these days consists of vandalism reversions, MOS compliance, etc. AussieLegend (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SatuSuro

  • Watching the alphabet soup on my watch lest - S is near the middle/end of the trial period?... Interested in status if it is available, despite recent slowing down edits due to real life issues. SatuSuro 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zach425

Long-time editor (though I often take a break for several months) who focuses in part on vandalism. —Zach425 talk/contribs 00:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  7  01:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joseph Svinth

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)[reply]
  • 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. R00t Talk 03:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
Please see my comments below in re: User:Ottre and reconsider. –xenotalk 13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The user is not particularly active but their contribution history indicates a good level of clue. –xenotalk 14:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The template was nullified to prevent archiving while awaiting response. –xenotalk 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've initiated a thread on this question in general here: Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xenotalk 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ottre

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. Ottre 04:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done 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)[reply]
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. –xenotalk 13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please see above. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is not blocked. I don't see any meaningful worries in granting this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've initiated a thread on this question in general here: Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xenotalk 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schmloof

I routinely revert vandalism using Twinkle and am kind of a stickler for sources. I also truly believe in assuming good faith. This sounds like an excellent idea and would love to give it a shot. –[[::User:Schmloof|Schmloof]] (talk · contribs) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laveol

I've been around for quite a while now - more than 3 years, I think. I regularly check on quite a few articles and would like to contribute as a Reviewer as well. Laveol T 13:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artem Karimov

An established English Wikipedia editor for over 4 years that abides by rules and guidelines. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BalthCat

I believe that in order to be successful, this process will require sufficient reviewers in place. I have edited for some time, including the occasional recent changes patrol, I have read WP:Reviewing and the various policies, and believe that I could contribute this way.

User:Hoo man

It would be fine to have the availability to test those changes here. Of course, I know, that I'm not much active over here, but I got much experience with those rights from dewiki (I've reviewed over 750 version there, so I know if somethings wrong). Hoo man (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Active cross-wiki, not concerned. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bellagio99

Reason for requesting Reviewer rights

I am a longtime reviewer with over 3600 edits. I check my 90+ article watchlist several times daily. In addition, I often do "drive-by" edits (my term) when I am reading an article for my information and I catch (too often) syntax issues. I have had rollback rights since they began. I do a fair amount of vandalism rollbacks as well as asking for citations. I think the reviewer trial is a good idea in principle and hope that the experiment works out in practice.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bob Castle

I regularly keep a watch on BLP articles and use the recommended Wikipedia guidelines regarding NPOV, referencing, etc. I currently have rollback status. Bob talk 19:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nakon 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kenosis

20,000+ edits since the beginning of 2006. Obvious vandalism has long been one of the things I look for on my watchlist. Kenosis (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SusanLesch

Rollback and autoreviewer, I have been a editor for four years. With luck I can help you with this two-month project. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done by User:Courcelles. Nakon 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89

Rollbacker on two Wikipedias, 4000+ edits, no blocks on this Wiki Purplebackpack89 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:RayAYang

One of the pages I watch has been added to the trial. RayTalk 20:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:December21st2012Freak

I've been on Wikipedia for almost 1 year now, familiar with the policies and guidelines, I know what is and what is not vandalism, and I have a reasonable edit history. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 21:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alistair Stevenson

Two pages on my watchlist are now subject to Pending Changes, I would like to be a part of the trial. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mifter (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ltwin

Been here several years. While my work is primarily on Christianity related topics, I read alot of articles and revert vandalism when I see it. Ltwin (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:UB65

I have added content to articles and fixed spelling, grammar and vandalism. UB65 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Bungle

Editing for a few years; although I have not done a huge amount of editing recently, I regularly check on a number of articles Mr Bungle | talk 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mifter (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colipon

Have been editing WP since 2003, consistent record in NPOV and very good understanding of WP policies. Colipon+(Talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — ξxplicit 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jæs

I have had a (demonstrated) interest in genuinely trying to help protect WP:BLP articles, and this seems like an obvious way to continue helping from time to time. jæs (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rockvee

Rollbacker; Know most rules/policies after being around for over 3 years. Rockvee (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatGallacher

I think I can make a responsible contribution to this process. PatGallacher (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lunchscale

Edited on WP with Rollback for many years. Have over 2k edits, most of which are vandal reverting. Lunchscale Talk! Contrib! 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Checker Fred

Reason for requesting Reviewer rights Checker Fred (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an editor for awhile. I have been reviewing vandlsim. Also have been useing roll back for awhile.

User:Moxfyre

Long-time editor, frequently involved in copy-editing and removal of vandalism, never been involved in a content dispute that wasn't resolved amicably through discussion with other users. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Pending_changes_reviewer/Historical&oldid=369184574"