Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

This page is an official policy on the English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When making changes to this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut:
WN:FRRFP
WN:FR/RFP

See also Wikinews:Requests for permissions

Wikinews is currently running MediaWiki with the flagged revisions extension. Article validation allows for reviewers to approve articles and set those revisions as the default revision to show upon normal page view. Readers can also give feedback. These revisions will remain the same even if included templates are changed or images are overwritten. The text with expanded transclusions is stored in the database. This allows for MediaWiki to act more as a Content Management System (CMS).

Flagged revisions is used for quality control at Wikinews. In order for an article to be published, a reviewer must approve of the article (commonly referred to as sighting the article). See template:peer reviewed for more information on the publishing process. After an article is published, any subsequent change must also be approved by a reviewer. Articles waiting for review are listed at CAT:REV.

While Flagged revisions adds a new tab and info box to pages, the wiki does not work any differently for Logged in users. Users who are logged in will continue to see the most recent version of the page (Referred to as a "Draft"). Users can opt to view the stable versions by default instead ("My Preferences" > "Stability" Tab > Check "Always show the stable version..." > Save). The major change of Flagged revisions is what Anonymous users (those who are not logged in) see by default. They will see the most recent Stable version (The revision that has been marked as "Sighted"). If there have been additional changes to the page since the last "Sighting", there will be a small infobox informing them of a new draft of the page, and if they edit the page they will be presented with the latest draft.

In addition to the above rights, "Reviewer" status also comes packaged with rollback, a tool that allows an editor to revert the last edits to a page in a single click, without even having to check the diff first. This is primarily meant to deal with blatant vandalism.

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

• When adding a request, please use {{User-rights|<username>}} as a L3 heading for the request, and note if you are putting forward a nomination for someone else who has not as-yet accepted the nomination on-wiki.

If it has been over a week and no one has gotten back to you about your request for Reviewer access, feel free to drop a note at the talk page of an administrator.

Archived requests

Recently closed requests

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm, somewhat cautiously, closing this as successful. It's been open for a month. It has garnered three supporting votes from established English Wikinewsies, and — despite protracted discussion in the Comments subsection — no opposing votes. That would be marginal support for a non-reviewer requesting the bit under non-fast-track circumstances; however, this is a request for reconfirmation. Since self-nominator was evidently looking for feedback, I might note a subtheme running through much of the discussion is continuing to seek to improve. --Pi zero (talk)

SVTCobra (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I have been on Wikinews since 2006. I was made Administrator in 2007. In 2008, when flagged revisions were introduced, I was "grandfathered" into having Reviewer status, as were all Administrators at the time. My level of involvement with the Wikinews project has been sporadic over several years, but I have never been unreachable via cross-wiki pings. However, I was recently told that I am unfit to be a Reviewer. I certainly hope that is untrue, but it came from a very trusted and prolific member of the community. In light of this, I feel compelled to ask you all if I should retain my Reviewer status. Thank you for your time, --SVTCobra 04:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, in my view, you grok the fundamental principles of the project which puts you way ahead. Reviewer is a skill that wants practice, but all reviewers start out without that experience (not that we haven't wondered how we might arrange for "practice" ahead of time, but I digress), and knowing that new reviewers start out grokking the fundamental principles is the best we can do. In fairness to everyone, I should look back over the reviews you've done recently (and atm I'm taking a shot at a review), but that's my starting point. --Pi zero (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have compiled a list of the articles I gave a passing review in 2018 (complete as far as I know, but there's no easy way to search this). The possibility remains that my failing reviews are the fault. --SVTCobra 05:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the way to do it would be to (1) call up your Special:Contributions, (2) select some non-standard number of edits to show, so that the url will include the specification of how many edits, (3) hand-edit the url to specify 5000 edits (I think that's the maximum the software will accept), and (4) do a string search for "easy peer review". Supposing you did all your reviews through the gadget, that should conjure all the reviews of pages that haven't since been deleted. (One would have to look at deleted contributions to pick up any others.) --Pi zero (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean Special:Contributions/SVTCobra, I don't seem to be able change the number beyond 500 or search for words within that result. Sorry, but voters are certainly free to explore my history across all Wikimedia projects. --SVTCobra 00:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It's a handy trick to learn, imho. Are you using a laptop, with a web browser where the url is visible to be manually edited? (In my experience, all web browsers are like this, on a laptop or desktop, i.e., non-mobile.) The highest it offers you is 500; so, select that, and the url is then some longish string something like

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SVTCobra&offset=&limit=500&target=SVTCobra

The important thing to notice in all that is where it says "limit=500". Just manually edit the url by adding a zero on that, so it says "limit=5000", and hit enter. And then wait, because it's going to take a while for the server to provide, and your internet connection to receive, all that information; for me, trying it just now, it took about twelve seconds, though some of that may be a slow internet connection. Then use the browser's string search function (for me, that's ctrl-F) to search the browser tab for "easy peer review". --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(Btw, limit=2200 seems sufficient atm to include all your recent reviews, which go back to December 31.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I found one more article, well probably the New Year's Eve one. And then I added my 2016 review. For deeper history, follow Pi zero's instructions above. Here's the list again User:SVTCobra/RecentReviews. --SVTCobra 01:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Comments from the "accuser" which is the bottleneck for this decision, as I understand:

There are two things; I did not ask SVTCobra to stop reviewing articles, or give up reviewer bit; if I could, I would have done that for all those who don't help the project with the rights they possess. Nothing personal, btw; just that if an admin/reviewer is not active; wh let them have special rights? If they start editing again, they can very well request it.

I would not like to stop my peers from helping Wikinews grow as a project, especially those, from whom I learnt how to write, passively. So, I do not understand the point of this discussion; I am not clear. Is a reviewer applying for asking the community for another green flag to continue their operation, or an ex-reviewer, who gave up their rights is re-requesting them?

Of this, if anyone is applying for a reviewer status, I would expect them to possess the qualities which other experienced editors and reviewers don't always show. (They might forget certain things, sometimes -- this is a very subjective matter) One of them is writing for global audience.

And believe me, I know people who do not know president of their own country, can't name more than five presidents of the US (who also forgot that Donald Trump is US president), those who don't know where Philadelphia is or if California is a state, so knowing capital of California, or knowing where Los Angeles is out of question.

(See Talk:US: FBI's work with Orlando shooter's father is not grounds for mistrial in wife's case) The reason why I said "Wasn't wrong when I said you are not fit to be a reviewer" is clearly stated in the later part of the sentence which read "since you don't care for the global audience". I am not saying anyone who did not explain an acronym should step down as a reviewer. There is a lot to learn, and after becoming a reviewer, one learns a lot. They should be open to suggestions, and a straight "NO!" is not at all helpful. There are tonnes of examples where I failed to take care of international audience; but when I realised it, I made sure that problem never repeats.

There are two things, a reviewer ignoring global audience purposefully -- they should not have the rights at the first place. That is not the case with SVTCobra. But when they say "no" for improving further article; that is something serious. Why is it a straight no? And is it important? Well, Wikinews avoid making mistakes MSM makes, and a poor headline or not taking care of global audience is what they love to do. Anyone who says attempts for helping global audience with acronyms is not needed hasn't understood basic principles of Wikinews, and thus, can not be trusted with reviewer rights.

Agree and show signs of improvement, I support SVTCobra. But a straight no; that is not what I am expecting from anyone applying for reviewer.

Others who feel this is too trivial (I don't think they are fit for reviewer rights either) to be even discussed; they can say by what authority am I saying this: I wrote ~35% of articles published in 2017, the same year I learnt to see things from another angle to improve content for global audience. I am not from a first world country and I know people who would not understand such things written for and by people of the first world. Headline is another important thing to mention: Talk:Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open Place where the editor in question did not want Australian Open to be called AusOpen (though the tournament identifies itself as #AusOpen on twitter, URL is AusOpen, and many news orgs call it Aus Open) and then, over here, Talk:Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner banned from 2018 Indian Premier League after ball tampering incident, the whole discussion of why an incomplete headline would be good, just because it is small.

I am sorry, I am not going to explain it. So, instead of listening to my version of the problem, why don't you read it for yourself and then decide?

I repeat, if reviewer is ready for suggestions and to improve instead of a straight 'no', I do not have a problem; but a straight no is not acceptable.

And if I have to find examples from archive to please others about the problems, I am not going to do it -- it is not productive. Dive into the archives to learn something, not to demote someone from their rights.
•–• 13:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from SVTCobra: I could perhaps have been clearer in that I am seeking re-confirmation that I still have the community's trust because I was simply given the reviewer status in 2008 and there was never a vote. And I have been absent for long stretches. I took the "you are unfit" comment as a vote of "no confidence" and I thought the best solution was to go through this formality. It is often done in parliamentary systems and I don't think it is uncommon on Wikis, either.

As one can see from the above comment, our disagreements often center around headlines aka titles of articles. The Australian Open article which was reference was one of the first I worked on upon my return to truly active editing. (It got us of to a bad start as far as interpersonal relations.) It and the FBI article are probably the perfect examples to illustrate some philosophical differences. I am a big proponent of keeping titles a reasonable length. Not so short that they say nothing, but also not so long it becomes unnecessary to read the article.

First example Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open, I changed AusOpen to Australian Open. In my opinion, there is no reason to shorten it here. It does not make the article title too lengthy. I have watched a fair amount of tennis over the years, and I have never heard AusOpen spoken, Aussie Open, yes, but never the super short version, twitter handle notwithstanding (but we'll come full circle on that in a bit). I defended my decision (and what I see as the right of a reviewer) to rename the article. It got a little heated, to be sure. But I would also like to point out that Wikinews has never published an article with AusOpen in the title.

Secondly, we have the US: FBI's work with Orlando shooter's father is not grounds for mistrial in wife's case article. I think it is obvious, this is already a fairly long title. When asked if I wanted to explain the use of FBI, instinctively knowing it was about the title, I replied "NO!" (I didn't mean to capitalize the 'o' but the exclamation point was intentional, but I digress). The title could have been better, as Pi zero has mentioned. It should have indicated it was 'undercover' or 'informant' work. Nevertheless, that was not Acagastya's problem with the title. It was that FBI is not known to the global audience. Now, I will say that careful examination of policy shows it is acceptable to say "FBI" instead of "Federal Bureau of Intelligence" if for no other reason than sheer length. Also, articles in Category:FBI show that Wikinews uses that acronym in titles, even throughout 2017 when I wasn't active. And, as I promised, we will mention Twitter here: @FBI is the official handle. Twitter shouldn't have any bearing on anything, but since it was brought up as a point in the comment ...

I thought the use of FBI in a title was so perfectly acceptable, it needed no explanation. It was self-evident, in my opinion. I saw the questioning of the use as needling, perhaps over a grudge. And since the Australian Open article has come back here, perhaps I was right. Despite my initial "NO!", I did go on to explain and defend the use of FBI at length.

I have openly called some of Acagastya's argument hypocritical. That's certainly not a nice thing to say and it was probably unpleasant to read/hear. Sorry, but I feel the role Acagastya is taking as the defender of the 'global audience' is a crutch to needle me. As we see here, how is "AusOpen" better than "Australian Open" for the so-called global audience?

P.S. I have ignored the comments about California, Philadelphia, etc. since I don't think they pertain to any article I worked on. Trump did factor into one article which I authored, but we fixed the title before it came to publication.

I don't know if any of you will read all of that, but Acagastya is a large part of Wikinews, so if I don't have their trust, I need to have the trust of a great deal of others if I shall continue as a reviewer. Personally, I think I am meticulous in my reviews. Reviewing is far more arduous than writing. Thank you for your time. I am sorry if this all seems like "drama" for the sake of drama. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 — not the best examples of how to write a good headline; but Wikinews did publish headline with “Aus Open”. Well, I am looking for: are you ready to listen to what a reviewer from third world country is saying about global audience, and keep it in mind and reflect when necessary even without needing to be reminded instead of a no for anything asked or requested? That whole paragraph for Philadelphia tgat was primarily for what Darkfrog24 had told me before college tests, and believe me, there are people whom I know on the first name basis who do not know those details.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. When I looked I was searching for "AusOpen" without the space in the middle because that was what was being debated. Still, I stand by my decision to use the full version because it did not make the title too long. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

the article talk has a space between “Aus” and “Open”. But this is not a discussion for if Aus Open is suitable or not; as if you could just answer the question about “Would you listen to, and there upon, try to include the general audience; and listen to suggestions in general instead a straight ‘no’?”
103.254.128.130 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK ... we digress on the 'Australian Open' issue, as you say ... My answer is: "Yes, of course, but ..." and I will elaborate. The question to which I emphatically replied "NO!" was "Care to explain what FBI is?" The question, as phrased, does not express what the concerns might be. The article has a full explanation of what the FBI is, as per WN:SG, and Wikinews has a long (and recent) history of using FBI in titles. In other words, I felt neither a need nor a desire to explain, which is simply what the question asked. I think a better formulated question would have elicited a fuller response from me. As we can all see here, I am quite verbose, and keen to express my thoughts. As I have stated above, I felt the use of FBI was well established and self-explanatory, and especially so when the article is framed as one about the United States. So, no, I didn't care to explain. The question asked nothing more and that was my simple answer. It irked me that the question only came after the article was published when it had been in development for two days with FBI in the title. So, this could be why I was so curt. You all probably have figured out where I am geographically, but I really do think I go out of my way to write articles about the whole world. (See: SVTCobra/MyList) I honestly believe that I do not hold a bias in my writing or reviewing. I do make efforts to keep general audiences in mind. I do answer legitimate questions in full. So there are a lot of "Yes" answers to 103.254.128.130's question. --SVTCobra 17:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

<dropping in> Sometimes discussions, such as the one about that headline, can get distracted by questions that aren't quite at the heart of the matter. As noted somewhere above, the headline could have been improved; it seems that what most needed explanation was not "what does FBI stand for" but "what sort of work was involved". Knowing what the FBI is might help with deducing the sort of work, but explaining the work directly might be shorter and perhaps clearer.

Perhaps there are situations where a headline reference to "FBI" is okay because the reader can deduce from the headline as much as they need to know, for the headline, about "FBI", while in other situations it would make sense to spell it out in the headline. I recall headlines that did spell it out, as well as ones that didn't. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit disappointed in your use of 'perhaps' in this instance. You know I respect you a great deal (and I think most of us do). You, yourself, published no fewer than four articles in 2017 alone with FBI in the title. How can you be so vague? And I defy you to show me a single article with the full "Federal Bureau of Investigation" in the title. --SVTCobra 19:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Could have sworn I saw one about somewhere, but it does look as if there are no examples of spelling it out in a headline. Distribute "perhaps" across the entire sentence. Anyway, my hope is to find an approach everyone agrees to live with, because in news production there isn't time for side debates. --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, but why was FBI ok in 2017, but not in 2018? --SVTCobra 20:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm looking for a solution.

I think my spurious memory of a headline that spelled out "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is because at some time in modern history, during a review, I considered how to construct a viable headline that did that, and ultimately gave up and concluded it couldn't be done. If it can't be spelled out, and the reader is apt not to know what the FBI is — and I'm fine stipulating the latter — that would seem to leave us with two choices: either craft the headline so that all the reader needs to know about the FBI (before getting to the lede) is provided by the headline, or don't mention it at all in the headline. If the no-mention isn't acceptable, the explain-what's-needed must be made to work. (In the article that started this, of course, explanation was wanted, it just wasn't solely about explaining "FBI".) --Pi zero (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Anyway, folks, I think the comments have clearly turned into a Policy debate, rather than a reviewing debate. So, whether you read all of the above or not, it is going to boil down to "do you like me" ... well, isn't that democracy? Nobody has accused me of outright and material violation of policy (sorry, but I did have to qualify that) and the real issue is my reviews and if I am fit to make them. Here's that list again for convenience User:SVTCobra/RecentReviews. I am embarrassed at how long the comments and my replies got. I feel I wasted a lot of people's time.

• Comment Hi Acagastya. If you have issues with a particular person, such as their lack of care for global audience, these are best placed on their user talk page, where they may be discussed separately from the work on the article. This allows to speed up work on the articles themselves. --Gryllida (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you don’t know where all this happened, and when all this happened. The whole conversation took place after that article was published. But you decided to suggest things without knowing, anyways; SCTCobra, asking why it was okay in 2017 but not in 2018; it is same as asking why slavery was okay a few centuries ago but not now? Archives are full with good examples, great examples and poor examples. I suggest you to pick up good articles for considering and as a case study to improve upon. Two wrongs won’t make a right. My mind throws a headline “WWF creator Vince McMahon says climate change isn’t real”; which WWF would you infer? What kind of organisation’s creator are we discussing about? In any case, I would want an answer about this hypothetical headline and after that, some time to observe how much do they live up to their manifest to take care of global audience.
223.237.203.247 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

and actually, discussion for article not written in the favour of global audience must happen on the article talk; because it is not something to be taken lightly.
223.237.203.247 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I go by what I said previously. If a post-publish rename is necessary, it is best discussed on article talk, leaving personal discussions elsewhere (such as a user talk page). Gryllida (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Support - unless someone can point out a genuine reason not to. WN is small enough to not need disputes of this nature. Green Giant (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Where is that accusation found? Gryllida (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I challenge whoever wrote that accusation to visit this page and voice it here, providing grounds for it. Unless that happens, and the accusation has a valid ground, you have my Support. --Gryllida (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To further clarify to my previous comment: I've not seen SVTCobra outside of the last 2-3 months of their editing. Either they were not here, or -- which is more likely -- I myself was not here and was not looking at what was happening on this site. In these just a few weeks of interaction, I've found SVTCobra to be an intelligent person who reacts to comments quickly allowing newsworthy information to be identified and written via article and user talk pages as well as editing content. Their comments go beyond stating the obvious (their interpretation of the SG and CG) but instead they actively research the surrounding content looking for missing information or information that is relevant to the event being reported. Their judgment is sound. The text they write is clear and concise, both at the talk pages and in the articles themselves. Their expression on talk pages is highly expressive and balanced. The articles they write are sufficiently newsworthy, entertaining, bias-free to be a pleasure to read and edit. They also are a technically advanced contributor who is willing to point out errors in software which prevent adequate editing of pages. They read the water cooler regularly and participate in editing of various entries in the news room, those in the review queue as well as off the review queue. They also are able to coordinate review priorities with other reviewers, and their review comments are clear. They have the ability to follow up on the work done on their previous review. I've not seen SVTCobra err in their reviewing; when they did err in their collaborative work, they were readily willing to admit their mistakes. All of this are valuable reviewer qualities. I commend you to keep up the outstanding work. --Gryllida (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Looking in detail at some recent articles, I see a careful, thoughtful reviewer who gets the underlying principles and is making a sincere effort to apply them. Didn't get a sense of stagnation. I've seen the community take away reviewers' privileges for unfitness, and those were ugly cases; I don't see anything like that here.

  This discussion was requested, I note, by SVTCobra. Reviewer isn't a static task, it's a continuous learning experience, and I wouldn't hold it against someone that they find it daunting — I'd be far more worried about anyone who didn't find it daunting. Cf. impostor syndrome. --Pi zero (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as premature. Consistent feedback from experienced community members. --Pi zero (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Micael D. (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hello, I want the statute so I can help Wikinews English, I believe I have the ability to have the statute in question, since I am sysop in the Wikinews in Portuguese. Micael D. (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

@Micael D.: Reivewer here requires much knowledge and experience with English Wikinews. You need lots of accumulated experience and reuptation. The offer is appreciated, but you don't have the history here for reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Micael D.; though other Wikinews has reviewing model, however each project is unique in itself and you should spend some time for grasping concepts and policies on enwn.
223.237.199.161 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose I feel this request is premature. In addition to familiarity with local policies, it is crucial for a Reviewer to able to copy-edit in English with a high degree of knowledge of diction and grammar. My advice to Micael D. is to demonstrate such skills as a regular editor and earn the community's support through those efforts before applying. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It is necessary to practice reviewing and copy-editing and fact-checking first. A good way to practice is by performing these tasks to others' submissions in the newsroom. (I welcome you to leave messages on article talk pages, providing a review of the article state similarly to how reviewers do it, even if in a non-reviewer capacity). Gryllida (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful, per fast-track principle. --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mikemoral (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I'm reapplying for reviewer. I was a reviewer, but it was removed due to my lack of activity per the expiration policy. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 09:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• By the letter of the fast-track restoration clause, we want support from two users with "similar or greater" privileges. I've got reviewer privs. --Pi zero (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Obviously. Already experienced with this permission. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 11:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support No problems here. --Pi zero (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• A reviewer with admin rights can work more easily. I would like to see their content which could be in a tone for general audience (we learn each day, especially when we have the reviewer bits). Vote from second reviewer, after Pi zero completes the clause.
  •–• 13:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Full confidence. --SVTCobra 01:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. Welcome back! --Gryllida 01:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful, following fast-track principle. Supported by three reviewers. --Pi zero (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Comments

• The nominee voluntarily resigned the bit, and has had a change of heart. It seems to me this might reasonably be tried similarly to the fast-track procedure described at WN:PeP#Regaining privileges.

Votes

• Support I'm comfortable with the nominee wielding the bit. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support As long as the nominee does not continually resign and regret, I don't see a problem. --SVTCobra 22:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Green Giant (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I met him at TTT2018 and feel that he is a decent guy. So that i would like to support his request. — TBhagat (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful. —mikemoral (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I think it is the time when I should request for the reviewer permission. I have been editing this project since May 1, 2015 — 22 months roughly. I agree there are certain things I do not know, or understand about the project, and I have learnt 'why' over the time, but I have gone though many archived discussions, proposals and guidelines.
acagastya 13:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• The user is quite active and is knowledgeable about project policies, however, I am not sure if I would have experience reviewing other articles. Before voting I would like to see opinions of other more experienced users. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Acagastya has shown a consistently cautious attitude toward review, as well as a very solid grasp of principles. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support --RockerballAustralia contribs 09:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 05:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support —mikemoral (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This clearly isn't coalescing on consensus to grant, and has been open for more than five months; and garnered significant discussion. Keeping it continuously open longer isn't going to result in a clear consensus unless opponents change their minds, and when an RFP is open long enough for continental drift in attitudes to play a major role, it's just gone on too long. Best close this now as "not at this time", and if discussions take place elsewhere, let them do so without the distraction of an open RFD hanging over them. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I was going to hold off on requesting WN reviewer status for a while but right now there are twenty-four articles in the hopper and only one or two people to work on them. I feel confident that I can check for plagiarism, remove facts not supported by sources cited, correct English usage and assess newsworthiness. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

{{flag}} I think this discussion needs just a little more input at the moment from the community. —mikemoral (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm thinking, tentatively, it may be good to keep this nom open for a while, give plenty of time for folks to chime in (though perhaps things will go entirely differently than I imagine).

  The current glut on the queue is something that will be dealt with, one way or another. Perspective: these are students; they're aspiring journalists, on the other hand they haven't necessarily already made their mistakes, making them far above the average in some ways yet not in others; I believe they get some sort of class credit for successful publication on Wikinews. It's important, in this sort of glot, to not let things get through that shouldn't; in the past week alone, in addition to a great deal of "copyvio" material (often copied-and-scuffed-up, which requires closer examination to pick up on early in the review process, and is more properly plagiarism than actual copyright violation — pretty clearly not malicious coming from these students imho, but it takes them a while to realize copy-and-scuff is not the way to use sources without plagiary), I've had an article that may have been fake news trying to work its way in from the fringes toward the mainstream press (I discussed the problem in review comments, including warning signs something might be fishy, and asked for more details and stronger sources), and another that was about somebody claiming an elliptical feature on a moon map was evidence of alien moon bases (I discussed the suspicious features of the story, significant features of the sources, and such). It'll probably take a while to clear the glut since, when an article does go stale waiting on the queue, as some of these surely will, I like if at all possible to point out other problems so the author can get some learning out of the submission — not omitting copyvio problems because it's really important for authors to recognize that before they write more articles with the same problem.

  Being acquainted with the nominee from years back on another project, I'm going to wait a bit to write my own vote (I mean to support, but want to think through my brief remarks to go with). --Pi zero (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, in my deeply distracted way (with all the student articles on the queue), I've been slowly forming a thought that I'd like to ask Darkfrog24 a question here, but haven't got to the point of actually framing it clearly yet. --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't happen to be in a hurry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I know I should be moving faster on this. A remark in the interim: my difficulty is that I have doubts/concerns about your perception of neutrality policy on the project, and would like to ask some really insightful question(s) of you, but since I've been quite open for years about my disapproval of how poorly written our NPOV policy page is, and I've been meaning for a year or two to write an essay on practical news neutrality and haven't gotten to it, I find myself wondering if I should be trying to get the essay written either instead of or at least before drafting questions about it here. Which really doesn't help to make either happen faster. --Pi zero (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Question Your recent article (though I agree it's interesting science, which is relevance) had only one source corrobrating the focal event, didn't say when the focal event happened, and it turned out to have happened six days before submission. What is your view on your own ability to catch such errors when other people make them, and not-ready those articles? --Pi zero (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Response: It wasn't an error so much as a decision. 1) "When" is "in the last issue of MEPS." 2) I expect the next source to cover this will be mainstream news, which tends to lag behind scientific press releases since many of them are updated weekly or less often. 3) This is a report about the release of a paper covering a professional scientific study. Sad to say but if we held them to the normal schedule we'd probably publish very little science news. It's pro journal or conference, then press release, then newspapers. The upside of working from the press release is that we can actually get the information to the public before the Guardian or New York Times. The answer to what I'd do with other people's articles is weigh it on a case-by-case basis. For most kinds of news, no this wouldn't be a suitable choice but if it's a professional paper that hasn't hit mainstream yet? Cost of doing business. Even then, it would depend. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And now that the sun's up, to address what I think you were really getting at, drafting an article and editing an article that someone else has drafted take two very different viewpoints and perspectives. It's easier to see that kind of detail from arm's length instead of elbow length. You and I both worked MoS for years and we've both had other people catch typos in our posts easily. Basically I'd be wearing my "find a reason to say no" hat instead of my "find a reason to say yes" hat. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually composed my comments below at the same time you were drafting the second "now that the sun's up" part of those remarks (yes, it took me a long time to write that comment, as I was trying to give it a sense of nuance and at the same time keep it short, a moderately impossible combination). I've been uncomfortable and hesitating to express my discomfort since this nomination started; and I find myself rather in that position still. The second part of your remarks are good to hear, and if I'd seen them before writing the below I probably would have just been stuck back in my awkward hesitancy. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a long night. Any chance you could be more specific about that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Here's what I've got right now. When you're drafting an article, the time and freshness factors are so pressing that the best thing to do for an article on the bubble is toss it into the review tank and see what someone else thinks. It's just as easy for something that looked like it might be a problem to turn out fine as for something that looked fine to be recognized as a problem. The reviewer, however, must be critical, not hopeful. That's why we don't have people doing their own reviews. It's a pretty big gear switch. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think my perspective on the writing side of the collaboration has been changed by seeing it all from the reviewer's side (not entirely unlike, I think, the difference between listening to a complex piano piece and playing it); indeed, if there were a way to give writers (well, the sincere ones, anyway :-) an opportunity to see articles from the reviewer's side — without compromising site standards, obviously — that seems like it could be a great way to help deepen their grasp of the principles (and of course it'd help prepare them for later reviewership and help us assess when they're read for the review bit).

I would be interested to hear your thoughts somewhat more specifically on how you would envision, as a reviewer, applying neutrality principles to a submitted article; and also, applying freshness and sourcing. Also, still more specifically: You suggest a writer might be more willing to try something and see what a reviewer thinks of it. A day or so ago you submitted an article that, I found on review, had only one source corroborating the focal event, and the focal event had happened six days ago. So, if someone else had submitted an article with those characteristics, and you were reviewing it, how would you deal with that situation? --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If it were regular news, I'd probably have said "not ready." If it were science news and the focal event were something like the release of the study, neither of these things would have been a dealbreaker.

There actually is a mechanism by which you could give writers that view. Establish a novitiate. Any prospective reviewer goes through a one-month trial period that automatically expires. The prospective reviewer can then apply for permanent reviewer status no earlier than X weeks after that expiration date, and the application involves a writeup of what they learned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My (imho appallingly ineptly put) comment below was trying to get at two points both of which are brought up by this example. Both points relate to a basic meta-principle, which is afaik most nearly explicit on-wiki in the quote from Strunk's Elements of Style at WN:IAR — where it comes up in the context of the page's explicit recognition that some rules here are non-negotiable. The meta-principle is that you need to have a really good intuitive grasp of the rules before it's safe for you to start doing stuff that may appear (to a less informed eye) to be "breaking the rules". When you contemplate letting an article like that through, you clearly don't have an appreciation of the magnitude of the policy violation you're talking about, and the fact that you're willing to just do something that extreme one you get the review bit shows not just an unawareness of the weight of that rule but a failure to take the rules seriously enough; review is about enforcing the rules, not making them — you need to develop an intuition before you know when and how to do unusual stuff, you need to be able to tell when you're not yet up to that, and certainly the very beginning of knowing when you're not up to it yet is realizing, to start with, that you're not up to it yet. I don't think you've realized that, and I truly do not know how to communicate the point to you.

I notice you didn't mention neutrality.

It's not safe to give people a temporary reviewership, even if it does expire in a month. You're underestimating the responsibilities of the position. When we publish something, our reputation is on the line, the thing cannot be retracted (the adage that you can't un-say something has become much truer in the internet age), it goes out globally with the same trust-worthiness status in the google news aggregator as articles from BBC or AlJaz — that is, it's counted as news, not blog output), and if somebody ever got sued over something published on Wikinews the targets would be the reviewer and the writer. It's not something to hand out casually, not from anyone's perspective. (I remember a long-ago discussion with Jimmy Wales in which, when he finally realized what we were saying about the responsibility of reviewers, he pretty clearly concluded we were utterly insane; of course, I don't think he ever did really grok that the whole social, and workflow, dynamics of Wikinews is profoundly different from Wikipedia's.)

I do think something might be done... but not a trial period; something more like "training wheels", maybe (although that's a commonly-used metaphor that I think exceeds the reality on which it's based; I once had a bicycle with training wheels fitted on it, and my experience was that it didn't work for any purpose; the bicycle was substantially unusable that way and it wasn't like riding a bicycle). --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You didn't ask about neutrality. Would you like to do so now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh. I guess it is easily missed; it's in there, though, in my now-second-to-last comment, buried between more general remarks and a much more specific question. Although, my remark from about nine day ago is still true: that I'm not really sure how I ought to be scheduling inquiry here about neutrality versus writing an essay on neutrality. Recalling: "I would be interested to hear your thoughts somewhat more specifically on how you would envision, as a reviewer, applying neutrality principles to a submitted article". --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought about what you said (benefits of the slow pace we have here) and it sounds like your key objection to the science article in question is that you think it would have worked better as a Wikipedia article. You used the term "poaching." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about whether it would work as a Wikipedia article; my remark in that regard (on your talk page) was that stuff that isn't fresh is within the purview of Wikipedia. That's just a matter of partitioning of responsibilities, not judgement of viability. Freshness is a basic element of the concept of news, and tbh you don't have enough of a sense of the underlying principles of Wikinews to be contemplating throwing out one of our major policies; moreover you apparently don't have enough of a sense of the underlying principles of Wikinews to recognize which principles are the major ones, and it seems you don't appreciate how weighty the major ones are. Wikipedia doesn't have any principles as weighty as the major ones on Wikinews, which goes hand-in-hand with the fact that in principle there's nothing irreversible on Wikipedia (with perhaps the obscure exception of a history merge); and Wikipedia also socially lacks a concept of expertise as profound as we have on Wikinews, which goes hand-in-hand with the difference between Wikipedia's egalitarian emphasis on treating everyone the same and Wikinews's meritocratic emphasis on accumulated reputation. --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Truthfully, I feel the nominee isn't nearly ready. There was a remark above that a reviewer should take a more conservative approach to what they let through. That suggests thinking of the writer-reviewer relationship as adversarial; on the contrary, the writer should be trying to do the same thing the reviewer is trying to make sure was done right; review should be a double-check that it went okay. Any writer who treats the process as adversarial is generating make-work for Wikinews reviewers, and making it more likely reviewers will miss something else because they were busy fixing things the writer should have known not to do in the first place. This is why it's vastly more work to review an article by an inexperienced writer; an experienced writer is already doing what a reviewer is trying to make sure is being done, and only occasional flubs need to be caught. It can be quite relaxing, as a reviewer, to review the work of another reviewer; but (I'm being very honest here) I don't feel relaxed like that when reviewing the nominee's submissions. Their most recent article, for instance, was submitted the first time without a focal event in the lede; and the resubmission (which set the article way behind schedule — it should be almost unheard of for an experienced writer to require multiple reviews) still had analysis in it, which I fear may have distracted me from properly considering other bias issues in the way the story was presented. I'm seeing a failure to instinctively fall back on the core technique of presenting objective facts for the reader to be more informed, as a way of completely sidestepping almost all "analysis" issues rather than ever trying to "balance" them at all — not even starting to play the game that Wikipedia gleefully spends months or years squabbling over. --Pi zero (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Votes

* Support I was about to ask for the permission, but if Darkfrog24 is ready for this, xhe has my support.
acagastya 07:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC) that reason is not enough, I think. I would like to reconsider if it is a support or oppose.
acagastya 03:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose knowing how to write an article doesn't mean one is fit for this role. I don't know when the user would be ready, but clearly it is not now. Crossing swords against project mission and the pillars is not acceptable.
  acagastya PING ME! 05:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think the user has an understanding of the requirements that Wikinews articles must meet. In addition he takes part quite frequently giving his views about the articles and which in my opinion are always quite right. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I feel this user has a good grasp on the requirements of Wikinews writing and would do well as a reviewer. —mikemoral (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose To be clear, I consider the nominee a great asset to the project as a writer; I wanted to get that out up front, because I'm not going to gentle my remarks on the nomination. I hesitated at first to articulate my concerns about this nomination (it sounded harsh; still does, but I'm sometimes too reluctant to say harsh things).

Reviewers have to have a conservative approach; and there's also a deeper level beneath that. A reviewer needs a sure sense of the core living dynamic of the rule structure, giving them an appreciation of which are most important and a respect for the 'why' of them. (You can't put the spirit above the letter unless you grok both.) I don't get that at all from this nominee; neither the sense of the rule structure, appreciation of which are most important, nor the respect for why. I think this nominee's attitude toward the rules is one of feeling free to ignore them if they don't like them. That's not the profile of a reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try this again, and see if I can actually coherently express some of the important points I failed to last time. I believe (at this time; I'm open to further discussion) the nominee is not at this time ready for the reviewer bit — I Oppose granting the bit at this time. This is not, directly, about disagreement on the specific issue of freshness of articles about scientific papers; it's about attitude toward acting on such disagreement, and underlying attitude toward and understanding of the "rules" (review standards/principles/practices). Exactly because of my accumulated experiences with the nominee, I have no doubts whatever about their integrity and, hence, simply asked what they'd do (above, in the Comments section). I also know they tend to hold strong beliefs and stick to them, which encourages weighing their thinking on review very carefully for this nomination. Reviewers do have to exercise judgement, including judgement about one's own judgement and about precedent and consensus, and I think at this time they haven't grokked in fullness what they'd need to grok. (Yeah, if I knew how to articulate it all, I would.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User needs to gain experience on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Commander1987 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hello, I am a user that has a high level of trust by the users of Wikinews. I have read all of the policies and guidelines. I know what is vandalism and what's not. Commander1987 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Commander1987: You do not have any trust by the users of Wikinews; you've never even edited here before. If you read the policies and guidelines of this project you will find that reviewer on this project is mostly not even about vandalism. If you're interested to contribute here, I recommend you read WN:PILLARS, then WN:WRITE, learn to write an article (it may take you more than one attempt to get one actually published; that's part of the learning process), and write some articles. Don't worry about reviewer privs; if you eventually reach that point, likely veteran Wikinewsies will ask if you would accept nomination. --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. --Commander1987 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User needs to gain experience, and reputation, on Wikinewsie. --Pi zero (talk)

Axelhovorka (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hello Wikinews. I'm here to request reviewer rights. My field of expertise is in History; specifically The American Revolution and the War of 1812. I can keep an eye for vandalism. I can make a basic Inkscape vectors and edit photos with GIMP

Reviewer isn't a thing for newly arrived users. It represents a very high level of trust by the community and specialized knowledge of Wikinews policies and best practices. --Pi zero (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pi zero, when or what should I do to become a reviewer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axelhovorka (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 May 2016‎ (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Reviewer status

Post requests here regarding any user who you consider has abused editor status. Provide a justification for the removal, preferably providing examples of where the privilege has been abused. Note for this section, support (or remove) indicates you believe the user should have the privilege withdrawn, oppose (or keep) indicates you believe they should retain the privilege.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This seems to be excessively focused on one article; I have moved the discussion to its talk page.

Please don't, ever, take article discussions to permissions pages. This drains volunteer resources excessively; we attend to the article talk pages in the copious free time. There is no emergency, or grounds, demonstrated in this request.

As a formal requirement, I recommend to not re-open this request for the next 6 months. --Gryllida 00:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Pi zero (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

' Remove' User:Pi zero- request removal for gaming the system. Continually states that a source is invalid, despite the source being legitimate a public record. Also continually makes spurious remarks that content does not meet NPOV requirements, which appear spurious, in light of the standard as applies generally in journalisim. I feel the user has some sort of personal issue, and is enforcing the letter of policy without accounting for the intended meaning of policy. See the applicable [1] page for more information. ScruffMcGruff007 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep I do not find anything wrong with the review. The article doesn't follow the style guide. The LEDE is poor. Neither it mentions a word regarding when did the event happen, nor does it addresses 5Ws and Hs. As some people may or may not have heard in some other news sources... I would say it is the worst lede I have ever read. Wikinews is not a blogging website. To comment about your original reporting, you must provide notes. I see some e-mail on the talk page. But what is the proof that it is authentic? I notice that you have listed a Wikipedia article in the sources section. Wikinews doesn't consider Wikipedia as a reliable source. Yes, regarding your claims about JumpShare, Wikipedia may claim that it is a free online encyclopaedia, but for the Wikipedia article 'Darknet', Wikipedia is the publisher. The 'pub' parameter of the {{source}} template has to be filled with the website who has hosted the content on its server. If Congress leader tweets, Twitter is the publisher even if it claims it is micro-blogging website. (Now don't come up with no, Twitter claimed that it is now a need service or something)

The article needs several fixes. Please follow the inverted pyramid structure of the article. The reviewer has spent valuable time behind you. Appreciate it and fix the story.
acagastya 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Keep - I've had a look at the relevant article and it's talk page and have come to the conclusion that ScruffMcGruff007 (talk · contribs) has not took the time to look at and/or consider the how's an why's of Wikinews policies and conventions. Xe seems to be more inclined towards how other outlets do things. Wikinews is not other outlets.

I advise the person who submitted this request that other reviewers on this site, myself included, would have failed said article. The Terms of Service, or equivalent, mean nothing to a reviewer checking an article. Ledes are meant to tell the reader the 5 W's and an H in the first sentence or two if it is indeed possible. In the article forming the basis of this complaint it does seem possible to do just that.

ScruffMcGruff007 (talk · contribs) would be well advised to take the advice xe is given and contribute constructively. Links provided on the article talk page would be good places to start. --RockerballAustralia contribs 06:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:acagastya Rockerball Collectively, there are a few questions I have for you concerning your comments. First you state with respect to the lede, "...It does seem possible to do just that..." Considering that statement, I have some SPECIFIC questions that I would request that you provide SPECIFIC answers for: (1) Which specific questions (Where,When,What,Where,Why,How) do you allege the lede does not address, which are not more appropriately developed elsewhere in the story? ( From what I see, the "Who" is addressed (Congress), the "What" is obviously addressed or that entire first paragraph couldn't even be construed to make sense with the rest. "When" is developed at more relevant points in the story, "Where" is largely irrelevant, but is also quickly inferred. Finally, It appears "How" and "Why" are largely irrelevant to the story. Your also forgetting that generally speaking, you can't construct a proper paragraph with less than four sentences, based on the proper rules of English.

(2) As to the issue of the legitimacy of the source material, it would be one thing if the veracity of the document itself could possibly be seriously called into question. However, in this particular case, the document bears a signature, and is a government public record, which would make it extremely difficult to say that it isn't true source of information. In reality, this would makes the issue with sourcing a functionally moot point at best, so the question I would pose is are you prepared to offer any specific indicia whatsoever that the document shouldn't be trusted? The main purpose of citing a publisher is for what reason? to be able to LOCATE the larger body of work with which the given material is contained. That is the SOLE AND ONLY FUNCTION of citing a publisher. Websites are NOT publishers within the meaning of the term. Websites are only technological intermediaries, and it doesn't work well to cite them, because URLs can change from time to time. Therefore, that seems to make the point on the matter completely meaningless.

Authenticating a source is best served by locating and asking the original source itself. That said the Wikipedia article is meant only for clarification of, and background information on, the general meaning terminology, specifically the term "Dark Net" which the majority of people are not familiar with, So while technically included as a "source" for the purposes here, it is more accurately described as "reference" material. The remaining sources are outside news publications. and for the record I am MORE INCLINED toward INDUSTRY-WIDE STANDARDS, which have had MUCH LONGER tenure than the entire existence of this site, than to specific "policy" of any one outlet, as I am particularly wary of the policy of an outlet that does not seem to have as much exposure and general credibility as the universally-known outlets. (In essence, I give more credibility to outlets such as the NEW YORK TIMES than I am willing to so much as entertain giving to something like this site, under any circumstance, much less when that outlets "policy" is at apparent odds with industry-wide standards. This is Because the notion that the industry as a whole doesn't hold a reasonably high standard, or has a fundamentally flawed way of doing things is something that merits extreme caution if one is to entertain it.) Therefore, the "policy" itself, if this was the intended meaning of it, (which I'm guessing it probably wasn't intended to be construed as such), especially when given the counter-policy on "gaming the system" which incorporates that the SPIRT of the policy, rather than the letter is what is to be followed, which is exactly what this individual did, cut and dry, as much as you'd like to tap-dance around that fact, has issues in and of itself, that make it blatantly unacceptable to the industry of journalism as a whole- which is a major factor in the reputation of an outlet. One of the reasons one might choose an outlet is because it actually provides "NEW" content, rather than regurgitating another outlet's work, which seems to be the majority of what goes on here. As for authenticating an email, it is appropriate to consider that a scanned copy of that email was also submitted, and that email is subject to verification by public records request at any time. Now unless you want to go to the patently absurd length of saying that anyone would be stupid enough to forge an instrument of the federal government, knowing that the issue is easily discoverable with a FOIA public records request, then I really don't know what to tell you, but to close your blinds, hide under your bed, and consider everything suspicious. That is nothing more outright paranoid thinking. But yes, if you can Specifically address these areas of concern, then and only then, will I be willing to entertain what you appear to be trying to say. ScruffMcGruff007 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Not even for background information.

B) Paragraphs should not be four sentences long in news stories. In books and other media yes but not news. All newspapers I read use one or two sentence paragraphs. This is what gets taught at universities in Australia

C) The W's and how need to be answered within the first two sentences - the news lede.

D) Paranoid huh? Research defamation. It's something we don't want to get sued for. Some jurisdictions are very strict on this.

E) If you wish to change policies, there are proceedures for that. --RockerballAustralia contribs 09:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment URLs may change, I agree. For example, Manchester City's website changed from mcfc.co.uk to mancity.com. But that doesn't change that it is owned by Manchester City. In the terms of website, they mention who owns that website. You don't have to use the website's home page in the publisher which I see, you did in your article. For engadget.com, the pub parameter should contain Engadget. Are we clear about it?
acagastya 11:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.