Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer/Historical/Declined/Archive 2

User:AboundingHinata

 * AboundingHinata · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I would like to help out Wikipedia more by reviewing edits on articles. AboundingHinata (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have about 100 edits; I'd prefer it if you made more (especially to the mainspace) to demonstrate better knowledge of policy. Some vandalism reverting might help, too.  — fetch ·  comms   02:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamersedge

 * Gamersedge · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I'm always on Wikipedia, and I despise vandals, and discourage those who do at my school from doing so. I figure I can help out the cause by preventing vandalism and incorrect information with these permissions. Thanks, Gamersedge (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not been very active of late, and you have relatively few edits, so I'm not sure you are aware of all the recent policy changes, particularly those pertaining to pending changes.  — fetch ·  comms   02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jellykaya

 * Jellykaya · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * Reason for requesting Reviewer rights Jellykaya (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help with the reviewing process. I am good with the current news about math and the sciences.
 * Currently you only have 12 edits. Keep on editing, and work up enough edits for us to able to definitively evaluate you. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 02:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Humaliwalay

 * Humaliwalay · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I am sincere contributor and have reverted Vandalism many times and have created and edited many articles with proper citations, whereever I received instructions from Wikipedia I arranged my actions accordingly. I keep tracking biased edits and revert them ASAP and as much as possible. Thanking in anticicpation. Humaliwalay (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I have some concerns about this editor and his understanding of policies relating to what Vandalism is - see this (removed just after this request here) and his post to my talk page this morning here. Codf1977 (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I find Humaliwalay disruptive, removing sourced content from pages and edit-warring., --AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 (talk) - Removed this message which I posted in morning and halted the conversation without reaching a consensus. was removed without explanation, this user accuses editor for lack of knowledge however when asked to justify gets away from the discussion.Humaliwalay (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AllahLovesYou (talk) - This editor vandalizes and distorts all sensitive articles, removes sources like did here and then laments that article is POV pushing without authentic sources without any reasoning on the talk page.Humaliwalay (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the contributions should be checked of all of us derive at a decision who is true.Humaliwalay (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sorry, but the ongoing disputes you are involved in are much cause for concern, as is the currently-pending SPI case . —DoRD (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: SPI case closed as ❌. Please reapply some time after the dispute has been been resolved. —DoRD (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Amartya ray2001

 * Amartya ray2001 · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I would like to help with article editing as a reviewer, please. Thanks & regards... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your block log? - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Levijustus

 * Levijustus · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I am multilingual and can contribute actively to Wikipedia. If given a chance i will do my best to make sure a quality review is made which would improve the wikipedia database. Levijustus 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have enough experience for me to be comfortable in your knowledge of our policies on vandalism, biographies of living persons or the Manual of Style. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki

 * Protector of Wiki · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki ·  · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * I have recently been removing vandalism and other nonsense, so I believe I will be competent in judging edits, simultaneously assuming good faith. Thus, I request half-mod status. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewer is not "half-mod status". Nakon  23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Mods have rollback, and I get part of the tools mods have. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no moderators here. Nakon  23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a mod. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am stepping out of my place here, but Nakon is correct, he is not a Moderator, but an administrator. Wikipedia does not have Moderators per se, and insisting we do shows that you lack the basic knowledge of how Wikipedia really works.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 01:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * per recent block and abundant biting in your interaction with other editors. Courcelles 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How will the purported "biting" hinder my ability to distinguish between vandalism and good-faith edits? Recent block is not a reason for decline. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the concern is that you will misuse it (you have been behaving like a bull in a china shop). However, I agree that you satisfy the criteria, fwiw. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've granted the right. While Protector's communication style is unnecessarily blunt and BITE-y, I don't see any sign that xe will be a blatantly disruptive editor (e.g., vandalism, spamming, BLP violations). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've self-reverted my granting of reviewer rights (I feel I may have been too forthright, given other admin concerns). However, I still think Protector of Wiki should receive the reviewer flag per my rationale above. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see very little but bringing feuds from simple over here, no evidence he can distinguish somewhat misguided, but good-faith edits from vandalism, and an unbelievable amount of aggression towards new users. Seeing this I'm much more inclined to block him than give him flags that he is trying to pin on like a shiny badge of authority. Courcelles 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * flags that he is trying to pin on like a shiny badge of authority Please do not misrepresent my reasons for requesting this tools. I request it so I may serve the community. I also feel like it takes a long time for people to review pending changes. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that his (using male pronoun, sorry if I'm wrong) current approach to editing Wikipedia will probably earn him a block faster than anything else. However, the reviewer right is essentially an extension of the autoconfirmed flag (while giving us a way to filter out the obviously disruptive editors), so I'm not sure if this is the best way to address the behavioral issues. That said, the lack of ability to discern good-faith edits from bad-faith edits is a legitimate concern (though all of the reverts I checked were generally sound), so I'll shut up. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever you decide courcelles, but it seems worth the shot. I note several welcome messages and genuine vandalism reverts. Now, if someone could give them a new keyboard, one in which the caps lock key is not stuck, .....! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may comment (as a very involved editor), the problem I have with him getting reviewer is not the actual right, which I believe he does tick all the boxes for. My issue is that a user with such a skewed perception of "mods" should receive something he views as "half-mod" status, which indicates to me that he will treat this right as authority over newer users. This would escalate the potential for being bitey, especially since (as inaccurate a perception it may be) newbies are likely to see "reviewer" and think, "oh, his actions are condoned by this place, he has the authority to review and throw out my edits." But this right is trivial enough that I wouldn't be alarmed should an admin judge that he would be all right with it. sonia ♫  09:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How can I treat the reviewer right as authority when all I can do is accept pending changes? And, by the way, newbies won't even know that I'm a "reviewer" since they don't know how to view rights. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mentioned it in your request: I request half-mod status. Nakon  15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been attempting some informal mentoring on Protector of Wiki's talk page. While they have a lot of potential, there is a noticeably defiant tone that would argue against granting privileges in which they would be expected to follow established policies and guidelines. Hopefully this will change with time as they do seem to want to be helpful. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)