User:Nancy Sculerati/Approval Editor's Approval Process sandbox

Here you go. Do you want me to make my own or use this one. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:36, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Fire away- we can all use this one. Nancy Sculerati 16:37, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay Nancy, those last two were good examples of ones that you had to make a choice of whether the editors would have approved. How do you feel about making that decision? --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

We could always allow the Approval Editor to make the decision with the prerequisite that if there is any problem we immediately put it back - no questions asked. Of course, we could have also done that with the constable, too. Thoughts? --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

In these cases I had been in contact with the specific editors today, and so, even though the changes were not made by them on the wiki- I knew what they wanted. That's why having a human editor who uses judgement is important- in other words, the approvals editor can act as a "point person". If every constable decides which version to use, and does not check with the actual editors, that's a problem. I think that unless the approvals editor checks with the nominating editors, the constable should go by the template. One could argue that EVERYONE should go by the template, but I think there has to be more flexibility. People like Margaret Maddox are wonderful editors who are not wiki hackers, and so it is not realistic to insist that unless she herself manages to do the changes that others cannot make them for her, when the choice of approved version is being carried at her explicit direction. In Prime number, there was a last minute problem with a single phrase that made it into the approved version. That approved version was nominated by Greg Martin, and to have another version generated within a day or so without his last revisions getting incorporated is not reasonable, especially when he is a tenured professor in the midst of exams at his Universtity and this is a very, very busy time for him. So, I think that insisting that he change the template when I have already (3 times!!!) had e-mail correspondence with him today (back and forth- 3 times!) is foolish and likely to repel the busiest people from wanting to work at CZ. Approving his last revision, made specifically at my request (he was shocked that the article-which had just been approved was going through another approval already) was the right thing to do - this new approval is 99% the same article that was just approved- with him as nominating editor. However, the little change was a content change and not a mere copyedit and so did require a new version to be approved. In Complex number this was a typo -nothing more thasn that-and the policy I am following is that nominating editors- of whom Jitse was one, can ask the approvals editor to make copy edits and that can be done WITHOUT demanding that the entire article goes through another approval. However, all the nominating editors should be consulted, to ensure that all agree this really is nothing more than a copyedit, and that the final change is agreeable. That was done. Nancy Sculerati 20:33, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

We agree. Lets get a few under our belts. All I know is that if you were not there tonight, I would again be the bad guy because I would have had to give bad news. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:59, 10 May 2007 (CDT)