Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice is automatically updated by MusikBot (talk) and will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests and they are all under 7 days old. |
Pending changes reviewer
- Mstrojny (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I would like to request for the pending changes reviewer user right. I have been reverting vandalism for the past few months. I currently have rollback rights. Having this right would allow me to expand on what I currently do and determine whether the pending changes are reasonable. I have read WP:RPC multiple times so that I understand how I can and cannot use this right. I appreciate your consideration. Mstrojny (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Done CVU course graduate, good track record and evidence of asking for help when needed. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)- Done Forcing archiving as done, MusikBot doesn't like that you've been renamed. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wing gundam (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I've been editing Wikipedia for about a decade, and I'd like to help with the pending changes backlog. I believe I have an appropriate grasp of the general criteria (re. examining for obvious vandalism, copyright infringement, copy-pastes, threats, libel, BLP issues, etc). Thank you. —wing gundam 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Given you only have some 200 edits in the past two years, I had to go a bit back, but I find this edit extremely concerning, especially given you did not respond to an inquiry about it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Wing gundam: Direct ping to make sure user is aware of comment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the direct ping. I did respond at first but I never saw Marbe166's second post. I've replied again, "Wasn't me. I can only speculate it was made from one of my computers left unattended (unlikely but possible), or else from a login session I left active somewhere (very unlikely, but possible). Thank you for catching it!"
- I would guess the former, but I genuinely have no idea. It was done without my permission, it's the extreme outlier among my edits, and I'm glad it was noticed and fixed. —wing gundam 20:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Wing gundam: What have you done to increase your account security since that incident if you didn't make the edit? As a holder of advanced permissions, people can cause a lot more damage with your account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually in the past year, I've since switched to mandatory password entry on all my devices. Previously my primary laptop and phone could be unlocked without a password if I'd recently authenticated them with a fingerprint, but no longer. (This was primarily for work reasons, related to obtaining a US security clearance.) —wing gundam 02:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Wing gundam: What have you done to increase your account security since that incident if you didn't make the edit? As a holder of advanced permissions, people can cause a lot more damage with your account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done for one month. Please reapply after that time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- DrewieStewie (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I've edited on here for five years, have been editing more often lately (though I do have a good track record over the past years), understand that malicious, inappropriate, attacking, bad-faith edits are vandalism and that edit warring, while inappropriate, is not vandalism because it is good faith. I am familiar with BLP, it's necessary so that defamatory, incorrect statements aren't added onto articles. Wikipedia needs a neutral point of view so articles stay unbiased. Original research is inappropriate because it can be unverifiable and reliable sources are required. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not censored, a forum, or a collection of trivial information. Copyrighted material should be avoided unless its in fair use, but free material is preferred. I have read the reviewing policy, and I feel I am qualified to hold this right. I have occasionally reverted vandalism when I have seen it, and I feel that this will give me something to do here to help out on Wikipedia. It'll make me more knowledgeable as well, because I will be reviewing revisions of articles on many topics, learning about them, and seeing if it qualifies to be accepted and published. Thank you so much for considering my offering of services. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBot talk 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)- Can you provide a brief summary of what happened with this block? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad: Somewhat long story so please bear with me: Back in 2010, at the age of nine, I created an account, called Pixiemasters (now renamed to obscurity here, see the talk page for information: {1} ). I repeatedly attempted making BLP pages that weren't bad-faith or vandalism, but rather incomplete, nonsense, and incoherent (For instance, an entire article would go "Jane Doe (born ) is"). I got indef blocked by Materialscientist, and at the time, my young immature self couldn't understand what was being asked of me to get unblocked, and then in the middle of 2012 talk access was revoked for a year. A year later, when I felt I had matured and met WP:CIR, I made an unblock request after the access was restored, but my talk page access was almost instantly revoked again by Beeblebrox, that time indefinitely. Eventually, in April 2014, I created this account in an act of block evasion so I could improperly WP:CLEANSTART, because I was desperate to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Over time, I began growing up more and maturing more and more, and by the time I entered high school a year later in 2015, I was beginning to become tired of editing dishonestly. I was happy to make good contributions to Wikipedia, but was unhappy at how I got that account. For 3 more years, though, I didn't confess, because I was afraid to get blocked again, at the time believing that no mercy would be shown. Eventually, at the beginning of my senior year in August 2018, I decided that it was time for me to come clean, realizing that Wikipedia listens to reasoning and assumes good faith. I admitted to my sins over at the Teahouse (link to the exchange on August 19 here, at the bottom of the page under the section "Question regarding handling of past behavior: {2}"). Teahouse host Cullen328 blocked this account following my confession, and restored talk page access on Pixiemasters for me to appeal. (Jim [aka Cullen] and I have since formed a friendship). I logged on there and made my appeal (refer to Vanished User talk page linked at the beginning of this paragraph). There, after community consensus was requested by Cullen via the Admin Noticeboard, I managed to earn near-unanimous support for an unblock on this account, with the reasoning that at this point, CIR has been long met and that a block would be purely punitive and not preventative of the actions I made when I was nine years old. Pixiemasters was renamed to obscurity, and I was allowed to continue on this account once it was unblocked by Cyberpower678. As you can see in the block log, Cyberpower put the reason for unblock as "Block evasion forgiven per community consensus". Now, I will be 18 years of age in a week. That's what happened with that block. I hope my childhood past won't bite me when it comes to applying for Reviewer status here on Wikipedia. At least I'm applying for it after this fact and not before the confession, as I am presenting myself as myself and not hiding my past. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is true that I have had a few friendly interchanges with DrewieStewie. I have learned more about him and wish him the best. He lives fairly near where my family lives. I believe that it is very likely that this editor has abandoned disruptive behavior and is here now to build the encyclopedia. I hope so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jim, thank you for your comment, apologies in case I disrupted your schedule or Wikisession at all bringing you here. Elaborating on what he said, I have always shunned vandalizing behavior, and refraining from disruptive behavior is a strong conviction of mine. This account has never been intended for that, and while I made an uncivil speech at Village Pump before (which I extremely regret, I wasn't in a great mood at all when I typed that, I instantly apologized and have refrained from doing such a thing ever since), I have a great track record on here, and most of my edits have come on pages in the pro wrestling Wikiproject. I'm not exclusive there though, as I do edit on other articles and other Wiki pages too. The help and support I have received from fellow Wikipedians has been highly uplifting, and because of them I am interested in expanding my role further and doing more for Wikipedia, and I feel that this will give me something more to do. I feel I have made enough necessary edits, vandal protection to an extent, and been on long enough to qualify for this right. If you choose to grant the permission, great, thanks! If not, then I understand and will come back when you feel I would be ready to. Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, I haven't got the energy to dive into this tonight, and any other admin can feel free to review in the meantime. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DrewieStewie: I'm pretty satisfied with most of the explanation, I just can't find this mysterious AN/ANI thread you speak of that I looked for even before you mentioned it. Do you have a link? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad: Somewhat long story so please bear with me: Back in 2010, at the age of nine, I created an account, called Pixiemasters (now renamed to obscurity here, see the talk page for information: {1} ). I repeatedly attempted making BLP pages that weren't bad-faith or vandalism, but rather incomplete, nonsense, and incoherent (For instance, an entire article would go "Jane Doe (born ) is"). I got indef blocked by Materialscientist, and at the time, my young immature self couldn't understand what was being asked of me to get unblocked, and then in the middle of 2012 talk access was revoked for a year. A year later, when I felt I had matured and met WP:CIR, I made an unblock request after the access was restored, but my talk page access was almost instantly revoked again by Beeblebrox, that time indefinitely. Eventually, in April 2014, I created this account in an act of block evasion so I could improperly WP:CLEANSTART, because I was desperate to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Over time, I began growing up more and maturing more and more, and by the time I entered high school a year later in 2015, I was beginning to become tired of editing dishonestly. I was happy to make good contributions to Wikipedia, but was unhappy at how I got that account. For 3 more years, though, I didn't confess, because I was afraid to get blocked again, at the time believing that no mercy would be shown. Eventually, at the beginning of my senior year in August 2018, I decided that it was time for me to come clean, realizing that Wikipedia listens to reasoning and assumes good faith. I admitted to my sins over at the Teahouse (link to the exchange on August 19 here, at the bottom of the page under the section "Question regarding handling of past behavior: {2}"). Teahouse host Cullen328 blocked this account following my confession, and restored talk page access on Pixiemasters for me to appeal. (Jim [aka Cullen] and I have since formed a friendship). I logged on there and made my appeal (refer to Vanished User talk page linked at the beginning of this paragraph). There, after community consensus was requested by Cullen via the Admin Noticeboard, I managed to earn near-unanimous support for an unblock on this account, with the reasoning that at this point, CIR has been long met and that a block would be purely punitive and not preventative of the actions I made when I was nine years old. Pixiemasters was renamed to obscurity, and I was allowed to continue on this account once it was unblocked by Cyberpower678. As you can see in the block log, Cyberpower put the reason for unblock as "Block evasion forgiven per community consensus". Now, I will be 18 years of age in a week. That's what happened with that block. I hope my childhood past won't bite me when it comes to applying for Reviewer status here on Wikipedia. At least I'm applying for it after this fact and not before the confession, as I am presenting myself as myself and not hiding my past. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Gangster8192 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- Hello, I am requesting the reviewer flag to help revert vandalism. I currently use Huggle and Twinkle to revert vandalism. I have a righteous understanding in what is vandalism and what is not, shown by the CV patrolling, and the rollback rights. I use the AIV noticeboard (and others) correctly, and I feel like I can use this flag to benefit the encyclopedia. Gangster8192 02:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Elfabet (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I would like to contribute to the community by being able to approve or help improve suggested changes to protected articles. I've found that grabbing random diffs from 'recent changes' has been too rapid fire for my taste, and the orderly submitted que of 'pending changes' will be a good fit for me to review the changes in a timely fashion. The vast majority of my edits have been for Typo Team/moss thus far, but that has still exposed me to the various types of issues I'm likely to see with this permission. Thank you for the consideration. Elfabet (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe i'm reading them wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned about your level of tact in this edit summary and these two edits. Considering your in a vandalism reverting job, facing new comers, is there any reassurance you can give about how you will handle new users after declining their edit? (Please note, i'm not at the point of declining it, and this seems like a minor point, but leaves me queasy nonetheless.) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- To the first, it was meant to be in a silly a voice - inspired by the article subject - something that (in hindsight) doesn't translate very well. I'll take it to mind to remember that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To "Two" I didn't understand the edit they made as it appeared to go against policy, so I was requesting information about their thought process. That question was posted entirely in good faith and innocence. Is there some other process I should have followed to get more information about a change? To "Edits" I consider
edthe user my friend. I saw, through TPS and shared Watched Pages that they were having a bit a rough time. I left them the equivalent of a 'Hey, take it easy, you're valued here, have some tea, etc. (Except I knew/know they don't like tea, so I used the template for beer instead). It may not have been recieved in entirely the way I imagined it, but it seemed the message got through... (whether it was followed or helped at all is up to interpretation.) - New users are important to this project, and, to be honest, I'm still probably one myself. I think the ability to be a bit lighter and less serious, to interject some humour into what could otherwise be a very (unnecessarily) stern affair to be valuable. If still granted this permission I'll strive to work on my empathy in understanding where the requestor and their thoughts are coming from. If it is felt to be necessary, I can be convinced to use only templates via Twinkle for my revisions, as it is (apparantly) when I attempt to interject my humanity into my responses that I raise concern.
- If you find these explanations to be unsatisfactory, I'll take time to reflect on that and would like to rescind my nomination. At the very least I'll be pleased to know the throughoness with which potential users are vetted. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- To the first, it was meant to be in a silly a voice - inspired by the article subject - something that (in hindsight) doesn't translate very well. I'll take it to mind to remember that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To "Two" I didn't understand the edit they made as it appeared to go against policy, so I was requesting information about their thought process. That question was posted entirely in good faith and innocence. Is there some other process I should have followed to get more information about a change? To "Edits" I consider
- Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe i'm reading them wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned about your level of tact in this edit summary and these two edits. Considering your in a vandalism reverting job, facing new comers, is there any reassurance you can give about how you will handle new users after declining their edit? (Please note, i'm not at the point of declining it, and this seems like a minor point, but leaves me queasy nonetheless.) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aviartm (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I will like to have pending changes permissions because I am currently a very-large contributor at Mueller Report and since unregistered users from time to time make edits, it impedes other edits from registered users going through. Another reason is that I revert vandalism if I want to go on vandalism patrol and it would be nice to regulate and monitor pending changes and such. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies among other things. Thank you. Aviartm (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)