Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

	Accreditation
	ARBCOM
	AWB
	Bots
	Functionaries
	Reviewer

	Sep 2008 - May 2009
	May 2009 - Sep 2009
	Sep 2009 - Jan 2010
	Jan 2010 - Apr 2010
	Apr 2010 - Jul 2010
	Aug 2010 - Dec 2010
	Jan 2011 - Apr 2011
	Apr 2011 - Aug 2015
	Aug 2015 - present

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut:
WN:FRRFP
WN:FR/RFP

Please use this page to request the Flagged Revisions permission, putting new requests at the top. Requests will generally stay open for at least a week (unless fast-tracked), after which an administrator will read the comments made by other users and decide whether or not to add the flag.

I	Before a request Before requesting this permission, you must be familiar with key policies, particularly the style guide and neutral point of view. Prior to review of any article, and its subsequent publication, you will be required to copyedit the article for any style issues. This requires a very good understanding of English grammar to maintain the quality of the project's published works. You should have written many published articles with which no major problems should have arose during review lately. It is best if you have already helped to review articles and gave feedback to the author – either on your own, or together with an established reviewer. If you wish to practice under supervision, subscribe here, and reviewers will try to reach you on IRC before review sessions start.
II	Create the request for permission: Users can submit their own requests (self-nomination), or Other users can nominate a candidate. Add the candidate username in the box below and click the `Add a request` button. Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it. Please highlight if you are nominating someone who has not yet accepted the nomination on-wiki. Transclude the request page at the foot of the section below by adding the title of the request page, enclosed by curly brackets e.g.: `{{Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/YourUsername}}` Then inform the Wikinews community of your request.
III	Questions You may be asked questions by other users so they can review your request. Please try to provide full answers.
IV	Community decision The request must remain open for at least seven days. An administrator will close the request and will also add the flag, if there is consensus. Closed requests are moved to the Archives.
Note	If a request has been open for over a week, please leave a note at the talk page of an administrator.

Requests for reviewer

Note for this section, "{{Support}}" means "support the request", and "{{Oppose}}" means "oppose the request".

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs – Edit rights), reviewership

I request reviewership. I keep seeing a huge backlog in the newsroom. Worse, it's a backlog that includes many well-written ready and nearly ready articles. I believe my years of drafting here have given me a strong track record with Wikinews' style, neutrality and sourcing policies.

The review system is where Wikinews adds value. We use publicly available sources, so we're not giving the readers information they couldn't get elsewhere. What we offer is an answer to the question, "Why should I believe what I'm reading?" in the form of "Because at least two people with a publicly accessible record of neutrality and no ulterior motive examined it." This has significance in the era of fake news and echo chamber algorithms.

Stats

Links for Darkfrog24: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Comment I'll begin the comment/vote by noting the project clearly needs more active reviewers.

I've seen Darkfrog24 assist others on multiple occasions. Their help at User_talk:Melledelle stood out for its patience and willingness to support both Wikinews and Wikipedia.

@Darkfrog24, to help us understand how you would approach reviewing, please use {{Pre-review}} on one or more articles in Category:Review as if you were a reviewer. If you have questions about the template or the process, feel free to ask here. Seeking clarification is not a flaw—it shows good judgment in recognizing when to ask for help.

Please link the article or articles you pre-review here for easy reference. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would approach reviewing using the Empok Nor system. On the eponymous episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Chief Miles O'Brien divides tasks into "must have," "could use," and "would be nice" categories. I would draw a clear distinction between must-have article changes and could-use/would-be-nice changes. I define must-have as changes required by factual reality, Wikinews policy, or longstanding Wikinews precedent. I consider this parallel to the English Wikipedia's rule that sources do not always need to be cited but do always need to exist. The reviewer does not need to link to a Wikinews policy or precedent in every reveiew but does need to be able to if challenged. (If the reviewer is convinced that a change is necessary but cannot find a policy/precedent, then it may be time to write a new policy.)

The could-use and would-be-nice categories would include things that might make the article more informative or more interesting OR constructive criticism in the case of drafters who are still learning to write but are not necessary for publication. They would be clearly marked as such.

I will now choose an article at random for pre-review. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the one about the rally in Bangladesh: [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this parallel to the English Wikipedia's rule that sources do not always need to be cited but do always need to exist.

Wikinews does not have a similar rule. In fact, our policy WN:Cite explicitly states: "every piece of information in a Wikinews article must be referenced and verifiable."

Are you suggesting that this policy should be changed? Or do you believe your approach is compatible with the current Wikinews sourcing requirements? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this policy should be changed. Allow me to clarify: I am not talking about the content of Wikinews articles but rather changes suggested/demanded by reviewers in review statements.

When the datum is fact in Wikipedia article the source that must exist (cited or not) is reliable source from outside Wikipedia. The point: Wikipedia editors can edit even if they do not create a reference tag every time (but must be able to do so if asked).
When the datum is "do this or else the article cannot be published" in a Wikinews reviewer review the source that must exist (cited or not) is Wikinews written policy or precedent. The point: Wikinews reviewers can review even if they do not insert a link to a Wikinews guideline, policy, or precedent every time (but must be able to do so if asked).

My belief in this parallel has nothing to do with the reader-facing article text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose Uncooperative uncollaborative behaviour with wordy unspecific articles. I have not succeeded at publishing many this year after the block expired. When requesting edits I noticed the candidate engages into argumentative discussions. I do not think this amount of rules lawyering is susceptible to training at this stage. As examples: this diff with "no, we dont need any clearer 'When' than 'this week'" and two "I don't feel that's necessary, but go ahead and change it however you like" points. The latter indiates being unfamiliar with that a reviewer cannot do it because would be disqualified, and other users availability is very very scarse; and lack of any willingness to address the comment in any way. The discussion at this page is, while timely, involving refusing to add citation for a non-current background info, with the back and forth taking more time and causing more delays than adding a source. Further, https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Darkfrog24/Speed#Bad_reasons_to_tell_other_Wikinewsies_to_do_extra_work includes "I am a reviewer. Writing articles is beneath me". I think this is utopical thought for ideal world when reviewers are plentiful. It indicates the unwillingness to work with current situation. The users who volunteered to enslave themselves at {{pingrr}} , who are enormously helpful in my review and publish rates since around a month ago, would possibly not write nor agree with such a quote as noted above. I think it is required for reviewer to understand the current situation, be able to compromise, and to do fixes which are quicker, not more stubborn. I hope this perspective is helpful. Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gryllida, you quoted DarkFrog24 as saying, "no, we dont need any clearer 'When' than 'this week.'" I wasn’t able to find that exact phrasing in the diff, the talk page, or the history. I wonder if you may have been paraphrasing this statement instead: "The time is indeed given: 'This week.' That is verbatim per listed sources. It is not as precise as we'd like, but it is fully accurate."

You also quoted DarkFrog24 as saying, "I am a reviewer. Writing articles is beneath me." That line appears in a draft essay, in a section titled "Bad reasons to tell other Wikinewsies to do extra work." In that context, it seems intended as an illustrative example—not a personal claim or reflection of their own views.

Another quote cited was, "I don't feel that's necessary, but go ahead and change it however you like." I interpreted this as a case where DarkFrog24 disagreed, but deferred to others’ judgment rather than pressing the point—an approach that could be seen as pragmatic or conciliatory.

Regarding your comment: "I think it is required for reviewer to understand the current situation, be able to compromise, and to do fixes which are quicker, not more stubborn," I’d like to gently suggest that labeling someone as "stubborn" can come across as attributing intent or rigidity, which might not reflect the full picture.

In fact, I believe some of the examples you referenced show flexibility. For instance, in the statement: "I don't feel that's necessary, but go ahead and change it however you like," I see a willingness to compromise. Similarly, after publication, DarkFrog24 wrote: "If I'd have had more time, I might have liked to add factual sources to the effect of 'There is scientific evidence that...'"—which seems to acknowledge both editorial trade-offs and the value of timely publication.

In the example from Talk:New York county clerk says Texas cannot fine abortion doctor, DarkFrog24 was responding to Bddpaux, who had written: "Here, there is the PROFOUNDLY delicate dance surrounding 'Neutrality' in our coverage. Sometimes, we have to use the (arguable lesser tool of 'balance' — it's a complicated dance and always will be."

I was also involved in reviewing that article and, like Bddpaux, found the discussion thoughtful and constructive. I didn’t find DarkFrog24 to be argumentative or obstructive in their responses. In fact, one of their comments struck me as a strong example of meeting the standard you outlined. In response to my feedback, they said: "By all means, phrase it as you see fit for our international audience. Or take it out. I prefer things as I had them, but I prefer getting Wikinews timely content more." In that debate, no one insisted "their version" must be published (and the debate is on-going, there is now a pending correction to the article).

To be clear, I’m assuming good faith—that these are simply differing interpretations of tone in text-based discussions, rather than intentional mischaracterizations of DarkFrog24’s statements. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. You have interpreted my essay correctly.

To be fair to Gryllida, there is some history here. Gryllida and I have talked about this issue together enough for me to feel confident that this is what's going on: Gryllida doesn't only want the article text to be a certain way; G also wants the drafter (me in this case) to be the one to change it. G wanted me to put in the time, look up the sources, click "edit," replace what I saw as good text with what I saw as either bad or not-bad-but-not-worth-it text, and then take full responsibility for that new version of the article. By saying "Change the article however you like," I am indeed also saying, "I'm not going to change it for you." Gryllida is not imagining that.

I do not like this aspect of the review process. I believe that as long as Project Wiki's official policies and guidelines say "every editor(/Wikinewsie) is responsible for the edits made on their account," then every Wikinewsie must be allowed to walk away from reviewer instructions, even if that means the article does not get published, and I would incorporate this into my role as a reviewer. Wikinews does not have an "I was just following orders" defense. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ask you to be the only one to change it. The {{pingrr}} experiment involves asking others to change it also. I do, however, prefer that you make an edit if you're available, because it saves time. This is more constructive than writing something that means "I don't agree with you and I will do nothing, and will look/walk away.", in my view. Gryllida (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote that part as I think it is important to highlight,

every Wikinewsie must be allowed to walk away from reviewer instructions

I disagree with this position and I anticipate this will cause issues with interaction of the candidate with other users at the site, be they authors or reviewers. Gryllida (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is flexibility involved. In case of disagreeing, "deferring to others’ judgment" causes delays and frustration. This is the opposite of two people being collaborative. Gryllida (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've hit the nail on the head in one spot: It's about judgement. I am not always impressed with the reviewer's judgement. Reviewers are not always right, and it's not always a matter of opinion. Sometimes reviewers want correct English changed to incorrect or say the article should contain information that doesn't really exist. If the drafter does what the reviewer says just to be obedient, then, by longstanding Wiki precedent, the mistake is the drafter's fault.

For Wikinews to have a healthy culture, it must acknowledge that reviewers sometimes make mistakes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there may be lack of consensus between you and reviewer, when you are an author. What needs to happen is an attempt to discuss and reach agreement. Not only this is faster than waiting for someone else to edit, but it also helps to avoid the same issue in a future article that will be written or reviewed. Walking away leaves these two issues worse off.

I have my concerns that in a reviewer role this would translate to walking away or allowing others to walk away, it be authors or reviewers, in controversial situations. Such approach does not look constructive or useful. You cannot obligate others to stay glued to their keyboard, but you could start by finding a way to constructively engage yourself in response to apparent mistakes to keep progress happening. Gryllida (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now think of scenario "reviewer1 says "not ready, requires A and B fixed", author fixes A and resubmits, Darkfrog24 publishes it saying "Hm, requesting B was a mistake".

Or: Darkfrog24 fixes A and resubmits, making no effort towards addressing B beyond "I do not think it needed".

Just illustration to the points above. It is undercommunicative and causes delays.

I could use adjectives like "uncooperative," "dismissive," "defiant", or "resistant" to characterize such user behavior. Each of these terms conveys a sense of unwillingness to engage constructively with feedback or collaborate on improvements. Gryllida (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gryllida, would it be accurate to summarize your position as follows?

You prefer that authors take action on reviewer feedback themselves when available, rather than defer.
You consider polite deferral or passive disagreement unhelpful to collaboration.
You view walking away from requested changes as detrimental to the review process.

Please let me know if that reflects your view or if you'd phrase it differently. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "defer" is not an accurate word. I can defer because I wana sleep. I am objecting "defering because I think the reviewer's request looks unreasonable to me". So I would phrase this as: I prefer that, in case author is available, they do not use "I disagree with you" as an excuse to defer. Other excuses, whether written or not (i.e. sleep, dinner, etc) are still valid. It is preferred to leave a 'I am going to not be here, please work it out in my absence' note, rather than disappearing silently. So in order of priority: 1. constructiive respobse be it edit or rebuttal 2. note "i will be away for a bit sorry honestly could not be available now" 3. note "i will be away for a bit cuz I disagree with you [but maybe I will still be on wiki for a few hours, I just do not wish to talk with you]".

2. Polite deferral is acceptable. It is item 2 in the quote above. Ignoring disagreement and not working to solve is unhelpful. So "polite deferal" is ok bit "passive disagreement" is not.

3. Walking away is unhelpful if the reason is "I disagree and do not wish to work towards agreement". Walking away is OK if a reason is "I will be busy with some other commitment and would be happy to work with you and with the article if I could, but unfortunately I cannot".

4. Discussions like this are OK in Wikipedia, where good faith is assumed and work is not time sensitive. At Wikinews it is not the case. Discussing content is much more constructive use of time here than discussing behaviours. If there is a need to discuss behaviour and obtain communication skills for with unreasonable reviewers, the Wikinews home page has a list of sister wikis where this may be pursued. I would suggest Darkfrog24 to check them out. Gryllida (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MCW, I think what's going on here is that Gryllida-on-Wikinews operates in a mental space in which there is no such thing as a bad or shouldn't-be-done reviewer suggestion/order, and I don't. I don't know whether Gryllida sincerely beieves there is no such thing as a bad/SBD review comment, whether Gryllida believes that drafters must pretend there is no such thing, or whether there is some third rationale in play. That is the difference between Gryllida and myself that you and our fellow Wikinewsies should consider with respect to my request for reviewership. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────┘
I wonder if the disconnect comes from a shift in review philosophy, where more reviewers now suggest editorial changes rather than focusing solely on mechanical issues such as verifiability, neutrality, balance, and grammar. If that is the case, it may be time for the community to discuss and clarify its expectations of reviewers. What are your thoughts on editorial suggestions from reviewers? Do you see any editorial suggestions in your pre-review (thank you for doing that)?

I agree with your point that no one should be expected to endorse an edit they do not support. In the case of New York county clerk says Texas cannot fine abortion doctor, I did not want a particular statement published under my name, while you preferred it remain unchanged. Reviewers can have the final say in such cases by publishing an article with their preferred edits, but with that comes responsibility for the version that is ultimately published. I often feel that corrections stem from a reviewer failing to catch a critical issue. On that point, I believe we are in agreement. I think you handled the situation well. You gave me the green light to make the change, making clear it would be mine to implement and appear under my name. The outcome is still uncertain, and perhaps a correction is less desirable than if I had made the edit myself at the time—but in that moment, I was also deferring.

That said, I now see more clearly that Gryllida’s concern may not be about deferral in general, but about whether deferral actually helps move the collaboration forward. A response like “I don’t feel that’s necessary, but go ahead and change it however you like” avoids blocking the change, but it does not resolve the disagreement, especially when the issue involves policy or factual accuracy. From that perspective, it seems Gryllida is encouraging more active engagement, not just a willingness to yield, but a commitment to helping the article reach a publishable state through dialogue and shared responsibility.

@Gryllida, just to clarify, is your view that when a reviewer requests an edit, that request carries any authoritative weight? Or is it simply a suggestion that the author may challenge, as long as they do so constructively? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I as reviewer am recently more lenient than normal. I copyedit. I request changes only if an essential item was not done like answering 5W, plagiarism, or neutrality. In half cases I publish anyway and ask for the supposedly essential edit to be made after publishing. So I am not sure where the first paragraph about editorial changes and requesting community discussion came from. If anything, I am not being tough in my requests, I am going easy.

Does a reviewer request carry authoritative weight? It has a few characteristics. 1. On one side it is usually correct. Not always. But usually. 2. That reviewer did 90% of the leg work to review and almost publish, bar the requested edit. More likely than not, this will be the same reviewer who continues to review the article. Avoiding interaction with that reviewer slows things down. 3. Maybe reviewer was wrong. More often than not, they are open to dialogue. If they are not approachable, or are unreasonable repeatedly, I welcome you to make a request to revoke their reviewer permissions. 4. If another reviewer does review a next revision, they need to tick a "I checked talk page, and all concerns from it were addressed to my satisfaction". Basically it means unless there is a good reason to dismiss a request from a previous review, the reviewer2 will expect it to be addressed. -- So from points 1 and 2, and 4, I like to treat request from rwviewer as "needs some effort to address it fully". It is not authoritative in the sense like you must listen to (police officer, school teacher, parent), but you should come up with a reasonable response. You are not going to jail if you don't, but you may get either blocked or your articles put to the bottom of a reviewer's to-review list if you consistently ignore reviewers. Some kind of penalty will eventually follow. Ignoring a request from a reviewer is a bad idea.

Same applies to any note on a talk page, such as that made in non-reviewer capacity. If it has meaning, a next reviewer will honour it. There are some foolish users with foolish requests. It is best to write a rebuttal to them. Not to write "I disagree, I await someone else to do it".

Hope it helps. I cannot check specific diff from the smart phone easily, as it will unload this tab. I will follow up on this later. Gryllida (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any editorial suggestions in your pre-review Less of a suggestion than a comment, I refer to the drafter's choice of "20 thousand" vs "20,000." The closest thing to an editorial suggestion that I used was noting that the article really should say whether the attendees were men or women. You will note that this is marked as a could-use under the Empok Nor metaphor. If this had been the article's only flaw and I had been its reviewer, I would have hit "publish" in favor of getting it to the readers in a timely manner. However, since the article did have other problems, I made note of it for the drafters to fix. (And since I was not its reviwer, I fixed it myself.) This issue came up for me a lot as a drafter: The reviewer would ask for information that the sources didn't have. The "the article doesn't say when"/"It does say when; 'this week'" is a mild example of this.

but with that comes responsibility for the version that is ultimately published Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

avoids blocking the change, but it does not resolve the disagreement There is no short-term way to resolve the disagreement. During the Pi zero era, which is when Gryllida and I established our opinions of each other, 1) showing the reviewer proof that they were wrong did not work because the reviewer or a third party would pick a fight (example: A link to Purdue Owl showing which English usage is correct; link to previous Wikinews article that that specific reviewer had either drafted or reviewed), 2) on two separate articles, I humored Gryllida and did what G wanted even though I didn't believe in it, and that resulted in my annoying and being embarassed in front of an interviewee and in an escalation of unreasonable demands, respectively, 3) using Wikinews' official conflict resolution system did not work because it's pretty much an empty relic and didn't bring in a single respondant. (Counterexample: On the English Wikipedia, it's possible to call a request for comment, and people who don't know either party show up to it within a reasonable time.) Walking away may not be a good solution, but all the others resulted in fights and other trouble. In my experience, reviewers from the Pi zero era were not "open to dialogue." If they are now, then that is a good change.

There are some other things from G's comment that don't match my experience, but this thread is not a referendum on the state of Wikinews from 2016 to 2020.

There is a long-term solution. When the reviewer makes a shouldn't-be-done review comment, then that article might time out, but maybe the other party, or a bystander, might see the proof offered and quietly refrain from making a similar review comment on a future article. Because no one would ever know, there is no risk of I-told-you-so.

especially when the issue involves policy or factual accuracy In those cases, I propose linking to the policy or to proof of the factual issue—the Empok Nor system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article saying "Police arrested Rob. Rob is awaiting court." does not align with WN:TENSE? And comparing with other articles is part of not being collaborative - this is a valid thing to do when challenging a policy, but not when editing an article. Gryllida (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose , Sorry. Thanks for volunteering. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Support. I think you are passed! @Darkfrog24 Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings. You've got a right to an opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md Mobashir Hossain, would you be willing to share your reasoning? Explaining your oppose vote may help others make a more informed decision. Thanks. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.C.Wright Really, I am agree with @Gryllida's logics. But I am promising @Darkfrog24 that if he contribute and show his skill's in this 1-3 days, I will think about changing my vote. Thanks for volunteering again. And sorry for bad English. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This intrigues me. Pre-review, as MCW asked, or something else? What are you most curious about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 Sorry for late answer. Really, I am curious about you activeness and helping. And also I have a request also please mention me next time if you want to give me any kind of message. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Michael.C.Wright. I understood now why you mentioned editorial edit requests. You weren't asking me, you were asking Darkfrog24. I didn't realize that at the time of replying. Sorry.

I looked at the pre-review linked. I would say that the Darkfrog24's reviewing feedback is a mixture of immediately actionable items and English language impressions and American English impressions, the latter two being a mixture of requirements and not requirements. Some curiosity and inquisitive discussions are attempted. I find issue with that they are like an art drawing. They are a messy mix. I believe that Darkfrog25's articles have the same feature.

"On first pass, this draft seems very solid. The choice to say "20 thousand" instead of "20,000" stands out to me as an American, but it is probably very digestible to international readers. What strikes me as a flaw is the absence of a key piece of information: Were the protests all/mostly men, both men and women, or all/mostly women? Because this article is about women's rights, that's very relevant. The only reason to let it go without saying would be if that information is not available to us. -- Upon reviewing the sources, I see that they do indeed not give this information in the body text, only in the photographs that show what appear to be exclusively male faces. The best thing to do would be to add such a photograph if one is available to us or to say, "Photographs of the event published by [entity] show a [male faces]." However, given the borderline nature of this issue, I would not refrain from off on publishing this draft for this reason alone."

Meaning:

"1) Our style guide requires writing 20,000 instead of 20 thousand. This is a minor note. I didn't check what the style guides says, there is no action required for this point.

2) Essential information is missing about gender composition of the protesters, which appears relevant in context of protesting against women's rights. This needs to be specific and the source of this information needs to be attributed as there is no official count. This is a request for a major edit involving change of content meaning.

Please revise and re-submit for review."

The articles written by Darkfrog24 feature somewhat similar dynamics. They are wordy. There is an attempt at adding analytical element. For example, in that protest there is no official count whether they were male or female. It seems like an attempt at analysis to highlight gender participation. There is something that bothers me about it. While it is a newsworthy and fresh information, it is rather controversial. And it is not that essential. If it is written 'Who', answered as '1000 protesters' or '900 males and 100 females', it makes article more specific, but this is not required to include. In this situation with all other issues answered I would publish first and say that this information can be added within 24 hours. There is no official 'publish asap if 5Ws are answered, no copyvio, style ok - no delays - all bonus info added later', but this is the workflow that I am using for now.

I am concerned that this way of thinking affects clarity of reviews in the sense that the author requires effort to understand what work needs to be done, and the content of the articles becomes affected as it is not absolutely consistent.

On a side note, that particular article is missing essential information that there was recent new election and the protesters were appealing to the new government hoping it would reverse the charges against some of the people in the community who were protesting. I cannot phrase this more clearly. The talk page of the article includes a note to that effect from Wikiwide. So these additional details can be obtained by reading talk page and checking article edit history.

I hope that this feedback about pre-reviews is interesting to @Md Mobashir Hossain as he suggested Darkfrog24 to do several pre-reviews as part of application for reviewing. I will need to go through the articles edited by Darkfrog24 and review those that were not already published.

To be continued. Gryllida (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to reconcile your willingness to publish articles that, by your own admission, contain unverified claims, bias, or copyright issues, with your strict insistence on policy adherence in this reviewer request. Coupled with the recent misquotation of Darkfrog24, this raises concerns about consistency in your application of standards.

That said, I’m interested in understanding what, if anything, would lead you to reconsider your oppose vote. Would you support a probationary period, where DarkFrog24 performs pre-reviews under closer oversight before receiving full reviewer privileges? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) That is actually not what I meant. I checked the style guide before making that comment, and drafters are not required to write "20,000." I was paying the drafter a compliment.

2) That is also not what I meant. I specifically said that I would not refrain from publishing on that issue alone, and I don't consider it a major edit.

I think Gryllida and I have difficulty understanding each other. This is a longstanding thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the following reasons:

Darkfrog24 has a contrarian streak that I believe can be productively channeled to improve Wikinews processes—particularly around reviewer-author interactions. I’m echoing Bawolff’s comment[2] that we should let the next generation shape the way forward. To move forward, we desperately need disparate views.
They are clearly no one’s fool.
They’ve been with Wikinews a long time and have seen multiple generations of contributors and the evolving norms that come with them. While they’re an "OG" Wikinewsie, they clearly don’t think like the "OGs."
They’ve already volunteered time to help others and shown a clear willingness to support both authors and the project.
I would also support a probationary arrangement—such as a period of supervised pre-reviews—if it would help build consensus or address concerns. I’m happy to volunteer my time to help Darkfrog24 with the mechanics of reviewing: where to find things, how to apply policy, and so on. That kind of support was missing when I became a reviewer, and the transition was harder because of it. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Support: We first interacted at the Bangladesh article mentioned above, where I found some of their suggestions to be very odd. For example, they added a note about the rally participants being exclusively male, even though none of the English-language sources made any mention of the gender demographic in the event, and reframed the lead paragraph to say that opposition to women's rights was not their main demand, despite most sources clearly emphasizing that point (I'm not insinuating that my article was great).

However, there are four main reasons that tipped me into supporting:

1) This appears to be an isolated lapse in judgement. I looked at the other pre-review, and it appears solid. They have been helpful to some new editors such as ThePhyMan and especially Melledelle;

2) Darkfrog24 is a long-term editor, with over 9,000 edits since 2013. They are active here for far longer than I have been on either Wikipedia or Wikidata. They have also written over 300 articles. It's hard to write that many articles without gaining a lot of insight into the creator-reviewer interactions;

3) Darkfrog's opinion that reviewers are not always right is one which I happen to share. Self-reflection is an important trait on the part of both drafters and reviewers. I think the peer review process would be significantly improved if we had more regular editors and reviewers scrutinizing each other's edits, which leads me to the last point

4) en.wn absolutely needs more active reviewers. Yeah, I know that this is not really a comment about Darkfrog24's character or competence. But it's hard to overstate the dire situation this project is facing. They would be enormously helpful in crushing the backlog.

Overall, while I have some misgivings that Darkfrog24 may insert undue editorial commentary into the articles and/or approve articles containing such commentary, I think they will have a positive effect as a reviewer. Dsuke1998 AEOS (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Reviewer status

Post requests here regarding any user who you consider has abused reviewer status. Provide a justification for the removal, preferably with examples of where the permission has been abused.

Note for this section, "{{Remove}}" means "support removal of permission", and "{{Oppose}}" means "oppose removal of permission".

Microchip08 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Microchip08's last article to review was six years ago, and last review log was five years ago. This is neither a challenge to the user's admin tools nor a challenge to his overall (in)activity. Rather, per WN:PEP, just the user's reviewer tools and ability to understand and select which right article to publish are put into question. Microchip can still be an admin without reviewer tools, ya know. I notified this person almost one year ago about having not reviewed one article within the past year at the time, and I re-notified just one week ago. Furthermore, this user has been notified about lack of reviewing activity and invited to review articles. I've not yet seen one review done by this user ~~within the past year to now~~ since the notifications and invites. I'd like to hear word from this nominated user. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC); amended, 07:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]