Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Removal/William S. Saturn

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 unsuccessful.
- Consensus was not reached. Four votes were cast and there was one oppose vote.
- The contributor who opened the request abused multiple accounts elsewhere and raised points elsewhere which indicated the request may have been done with potentially disruptive intent.
- PeP discussion and/or revision may be needed, subject to consensus, to include/clarify cases when reviewer is active in non-reviewer capacity, as deleted review actions may be present.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

William S. Saturn has not reviewed an article since January 2012 (more than 12.5 years ago) and has not used the reviewer permission at all since October 2016 (nearly 6 years ago). Per WN:PEP, reviewers who do not use their permission for 2 years will have the permission removed. George Ho has notified them about their inactivity as a reviewer around 1 year ago as well as 2 months ago, with no useful response and no reviews done. As such, I am requesting removal of their reviewer permissions. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Links for William S. Saturn: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Comment I would like to clarify that WN:PEP does not explicitly state that 'reviewers who do not use their permission for 2 years will [emphasis added] have the permission removed.' I also do not feel that PeP is to be used punitively or coercively against those who do not use the permission.

Per the policy, I instead encourage William S. Saturn to re-involve themselves in the reviewing process.

I would further note that William has been otherwise active recently and has had articles of original reporting published as recently as a few weeks ago[1] and another currently under review,[2] albeit under long review. Their last review was well after the latest reviewer standards came into effect in late 2008 to 2009.

I share the frustration with the lack of active reviewers. However, given PeP's stated goals of 1. to ensure familiarity with current practices and 2. to mitigate the risk of compromised accounts, I don't believe removing permissions in this case is either productive or warranted.

I'll wait to see what, if any response we get from the user as well as others. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.C.Wright I "also do not feel that PeP is to be used punitively or coercively against those who do not use the permission." Nobody is saying that. William S. Saturn has been encouraged multiple times to reinvolve themselves, and I would be quite happy if this request resulted in that. "Their last review was well after the latest reviewer standards came into effect in late 2008 to 2009" - 12.5 years without reviewing an article will mean you will forget somethings (even if it was true that nothing has changed since early 2012). I believe this is an issue with goal 1. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's the point? the project is basically dead--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@William S. Saturn whats the point of what? You reviewing articles or this request? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without reviewed & published articles, it certainly will be, if it isn't already. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 19:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael.C.Wright I think were on "the project is dead maybe somehow we can kind of revive it" at this point. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'll do. If you can find someone to finish the review of On the campaign trail in the USA, June 2024 then I'll do some reviews.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is way beyond my knowledge area, I will ask around. Gryllida (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@William S. Saturn thats not stale (even by your own 8 week standard). Besides, review is not (and should not be) quid pro quo, if you are only reviewing to get others to review your articles, I am very worried about that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thus the end of my participation here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@William S. Saturn To be honest, I think you should read this Wikipedia essay, this one as well as this one. You might also want to see this one, this one, and this one. Just replace "Wikipedia" with "Wikinews" and these essays describe what you are doing and what is wrong with it better than I can. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even understand what William was saying (that he was quitting because the project is dead, exemplified by the June campaign trail article supposedly being stale) or how freshness applies to that article (it's still fresh). So you have a lot of nerve to tell him about en.wp essays he should be reading. Heavy Water (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heavy Water What I do understand is that this user threatens to quit every time they don't get their way, and will demand special treatment. And thats forgetting about seems to think that review is Quid Pro Quo, and threatening to leave if their On the campaign trail in the USA, May 2024 was reviewed by the start of July. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, I saw this and postponed it in my mind given the more urgent task of publishing. May take more than a day to resolve. Your help copyediting new submissions, helping others copyedit, and adding (and discussing) Reviewer nominations is welcome. --Gryllida (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Me Da Wikipedian: attempted to create an imposter account to then do this: Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Removal/Bddpaux. This really makes it difficult to think they weren't doing it out of spite (despite saying otherwise). This seems to me an attempt to rile up the mob.
•–• 03:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support I now see no reason to leave advanced permissions in place, as Saturn has outright quit the project.[3] I would also support reinstatement of privileges after a period of re-acclimation with the project, per WN:PEP. Saturn's recent, original article titled "On the campaign trail in the USA, May 2024" continues to generate a high number of page-views compared to other, recent articles in the same, primary category.[4] It's a shame to loose another author and reviewer. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Besides never using the tools for at least two years, William's jadedness, attempted conditionality here, and sudden retirement from this project prompt me to favor this proposal more. Also, he didn't seem to want to review any more articles unless someone else can review his own. Did I get that right? —George Ho (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to oppose this because what appears to me is this nominator seems to be doing it out of spite. The reviewer right/user group isn't just about reviewing articles to begin with; those articles which do not pass the review and therefore deleted aren't preserved in the logs, and I see no reason to bully WSS out of reviewer role.
•–• 16:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Didn't I see him say that "this project is dead"? Call it a spite all you want, but a reviewer who hasn't reviewed one article for years but instead has expressed desire to keep the tools and never do much onward is the last thing this project needs. Admins are no exceptions. George Ho (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about anyone saying "project is dead" makes it a sufficient condition to strip them off their privs? •–• 06:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you think about this conversation been William and the other user? George Ho (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that user needs to understand not all ORs and interviews go stale just because it has been six weeks. And if I understand correctly, Campaign Trail is not going to lose its freshness so quick. And I guess, those who are questioning it also should understand ORs on enwn. •–• 06:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya I honestly don’t see why a disagreement over whether or not that article is stale is a reason to oppose this… Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GH asked if I had seen XYZ, and my response was related to that. •–• 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing this out of spite. Nobody is bullying anyone out of everything. @Acagastya you are an admin and can see deleted stuff, right? I’d encourage you to look if there is a not ready review in the past 2 years, but giving that there’s been no passing one since Jan 2012 I think it’s unlikely, Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - frustrating but I think it's telling if (i) admins literally have to be begged not to resign and (ii) how wrong the opposers to global sysops/stewards operating on this wiki were, as they - for good reason - do all the practical admin work now. Leaderboard (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing work is not related to admin work. •–• 06:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get the point. Leaderboard (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on speaks of admin-related activities which are not related to reviewer bits. •–• 10:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still relevant in that the discussion on this page applies equally as well to the inactive admins problem this project has been having for a while. Just that here it's about the reviewer right. Leaderboard (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.