Time has come, I want to publicly blame some referees.

Hi, this will be long,

I want to start this by saying that there are a lot of amazing referees on this website. But there are also a lot of useless referees, some even actively sabotaging the catalog. And absolutely nothing gets done about it. It actually stopped me from working on some issuers, because it's just a waste of time.

There were just two instances where I felt like I actually was able to change something. One was when two referees got removed because they weren't even online for at least half a year. I still wonder how long it would have taken if I didn't mention it all the time in the forum back then.

The other one was the only instance where my view of the referee changed and I'm now happy to work with him.
That was cmaclean, who revealed to me, that he removed every Scottish coin without a picture from the catalog when he became a referee. Luckily that got sorted out now with a master referee, but I guess we will never know how many pages got deleted by that active sabotaging.

But the reason I'm writing this post now is that I found out another referee is completely useless and it summed up enough now that I think it's a relevant problem of this whole platform now.

When I saw the new entries from the last day, I saw duplicates ... and a lot of them. All from the same referee. loruca
That referee is completely useless. And yes, I really mean it. That referee doesn't check a single request at all. Everything gets accepted without looking. Don't believe me? These are duplicates that got accepted all yesterday by different users:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320756.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320102.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320105.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320745.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320106.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320757.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320107.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320755.html

One even has the same picture for obverse and reverse: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces320108.html

That referee accepted the same coin from the same auction, probably just minutes apart from each other! And I suspected that referee to just accept everything for a long time now. When I started adding Italian coins some time ago, I used weights from the Krause catalog, because a lot of auctions didn't include them for some reason. I realized after quite some time, that Krause made a huge mistake with their weights. But since everything got accepted by loruca, we have now a lot of Italian Piastre coins on numista which are listed with half their real weight.
I mentioned this and many other problems (like the last entry, which was minted in Modena, while there isn't a fitting currency right now for that) I had with certain new entries I made in the comment sections, and they got all ignored. Except for one time, where I got an answer along the lines of: "I don't know either". And it's sad that this felt like an accomplishment.

Same thing happened with another referee (sadly I don't remember the name, only the issuer. But it was fairly recent, so I'm pretty confident it was the currently listed referee) sujit_kumar.
That referee also just accepts everything without looking. Why do I know? Because that referee accepted 10 requests of coins from the 4th century (so pretty difficult coins) in less than 2 minutes, of course, including a coin which already was on numista.

These types of referees have absolutely no positive effect on this website. I can't imagine that they're even checking the picture source. It would literally be more effective to just let the computer auto-accept everything.

But the even greater problem, in my opinion, are referees who are sabotaging the catalog. And there I had a very recent example too:
Al Louarn
I found an auction listing of a coin, searched it on numista, and found its existing entry. But it had no year range, the ruler wasn't even clear, the lettering was wrong and a description was completely missing. So I made a change request for the lettering and description and mentioned the other points in the request comments. What happened? It got completely rejected and the reason was, that it wasn't in french (reason written in french), even tho I requested it through the English site. I even made a forum post about it and what happened? Absolutely nothing. The entry is still as bad and wrong as it was before.

And now we come into the fun part: You think at least the master referees are amazing? Yes, most are, but there are some who are just as incompetent as the ones above. One where I also had language problems was Florino28
That was one of the first problems I had with a referee. The problem was, that that master referee didn't even know which sources numista could use. And that is something every toddler can understand. I give a link to an auction listing and select the auction in the list of the available sources, provided by numista. And still, that referee thought the picture couldn't be used. I can understand that someone can make mistakes, I do too, but instead of asking or anything, my requests just got rejected instantly. So I had to make the whole request again.
That happened multiple times with that referee. And I had to solve this issue through other master referees because Florino28 only speaks French.
But I didn't tell you the best thing yet. One of the requests which got wrongfully rejected was for an Irish coin. Yes, you heard that right, an only French-speaking referee is a referee for Ireland! Even better, Florino28 is, to this day, the ONLY referee for Ireland! That is an absolute joke! And of course, as always, Florino28 is still a MASTER referee and I don't understand why.

Next up, we come to one of my favorites. The second useless master referee Oklahoman
My first memory was that Oklahoman promised to fix a little mistake in the catalog I pointed out. But it didn't get fixed despite multiple reminders until like 4 months later when another problem occurred which was just hilarious.
I added a coin from a Danish auction house that was missing and the request got rejected. A coin auctioned from the biggest Danish coin auction house got rejected by a numista master referee. Reason? "Not enough information".
There are people who deny the earth is round, there are people who deny that vaccines work, and apparently, Oklahoman denies that auctioned coins exist. It wasn't even an ultra-rare coin that surfaced out of nowhere. It was just a stupid modern Gibraltar Bullion coin. But no, apparently it can't be proven this coin exists. The pictures were probably fake.
To make it clear I'm also not a nice perfect human: I wrote a very infantile, insulting, and unnecessary message to Oklahman because of this incident, which I didn't apologize for and never will. I was told I got basically blocked by Oklahoman in response.

There are some more where I don't remember which referee it was exactly. Canada has an awful referee who accepts requests with complete nonsense information sometimes for example. But since this post is already extremely long, I will stop here with examples.

There is one important thing all these incidents have in common too: None of these referees corrected a single mistake they made themselves. None added the rejected coin afterward, none added the rejected information afterward, and to my knowledge, none requested to delete a duplicate afterward. If I really wanted to have change, I had to do it all myself again. But most of the time, I stopped caring. I just don't look into the parts of the catalog some of the referees rule over anymore.

And what I find most surprising is, that no one cares. Once you're a referee, you can do WHATEVER you want. You can be offline for half a year, you can roll a dice to decide if you want to accept a request, you don't even need to have knowledge of the issuer or speak their language. You just won't get removed. EVER.

Thanks for attending my Ted talk.

Bonjour,

Eh bien, je compte juste revenir sur ces quelques éléments:

- Il est possible de valider beaucoup de fiches en peu de temps. En effet un référent peut modifier/améliorer 20 fiches, les mettre en attente, puis toutes les valider en moins de 20 secondes. Pourtant il n'est pas possible de voir le temps que ce référent a mis à modifier/améliorer ces 20 fiches auparavant.
- Si les raisons d'un rejet ou refus ne sont pas donnés dans votre langue, utilisez google trad.
- Lorsqu'un référent demande une révision/modification, ou rejette une demande, il n'y a pas d'historique qui lui permet de revenir dessus. La demande s'efface et il n'y a aucune trace. Dans ce cas c'est effectivement quelque chose à améliorer sur Numista, mais cela ne peut être repproché à un référent.
- Donner les pseudos des référents a problèmes devant tout le monde est indélicat. Il y a les messages privés pour cela, que ce soit directement avec le référent concerné , ou le staff de Numista. De là à dire que c'est du sabotage est abusé. Ce n'est que mon avis.

google trad:
Hello, Well, I just intend to come back to these few elements:
- It is possible to validate many request in a short time. Indeed, a referent can modify/improve 20 files, put them on hold, then validate them all in less than 20 seconds. However, it is not possible to see the time that this referent took to modify/improve these 20 files before.
- If the reasons for a rejection or refusal are not given in your language, use google trad.
- When a referent requests a revision/modification, or rejects a request, there is no history that allows you to come back to it. The request is erased and there is no trace for him. In this case it is indeed something to improve on Numista, but that cannot be reproached to a referent.
- Giving the pseudonyms of problem referents in front of everyone is indelicate. There are private messages for this, either directly with the referent concerned, or the staff of Numista. From there to say that it is sabotage is abused. That's just my opinion.

Hello Trooper8,
Thank you for sharing your concerns about some bad experiences with referees. Many people are doing their best to improve the catalogue, and it's indeed always sad when such mistakes are made.
However I can't approve your method of publicly blaming referees. Most of them, including the referees you named, have dedicated a lot of their time to enrich the catalogue, and I believe it's unfair to blame them for some errors or disputes with them.
Feel free to contact me privately so that we can find solutions for the cases you mentioned and more generally about how to improve interactions with referees.

Even though I also don't approve to publicly shame poeple, I do agree with you here. Not with the people you are mentioning, but the fact that there sure are referees who shouldn't be referees. I have seen catalogues, with a referee, where more than 60% of the listings didn't even have the basic information filled in. And of course there were no lettering for obverse or reverse. I did one entry correct and wrote "Now you can do the rest." But yet nothing happened.

To hijack this thread a little, but still trying to keep it on track:
Are there any follow ups on the referees? Do you check the catalogues once in a while, let's say once a month/once every three months, just to check in how the catalogues' folds out. If the catalogue is growing, information are added and/or corrected? Or do you just approve referees here and there and simply assume they will do the job? I reckon there need to be some serious actions taken here and real closely examine every referee and how the work - if they work. This is really needed!

Thank you!

Quote: "ngdawa"​Even though I also don't approve to publicly shame poeple, I do agree with you here. Not with the people you are mentioning, but the fact that there sure are referees who shouldn't be referees. I have seen catalogues, with a referee, where more than 60% of the listings didn't even have the basic information filled in. And of course there were no lettering for obverse or reverse. I did one entry correct and wrote "Now you can do the rest." But yet nothing happened.
​
​To hijack this thread a little, but still trying to keep it on track:
​Are there any follow ups on the referees? Do you check the catalogues once in a while, let's say once a month/once every three months, just to check in how the catalogues' folds out. If the catalogue is growing, information are added and/or corrected? Or do you just approve referees here and there and simply assume they will do the job? I reckon there need to be some serious actions taken here and real closely examine every referee and how the work - if they work. This is really needed!
​
​Thank you!

​This is done regularly. Not for long, I must say, but it is being done now.

Quote: "Jarcek"

Quote: "ngdawa"​Even though I also don't approve to publicly shame poeple, I do agree with you here. Not with the people you are mentioning, but the fact that there sure are referees who shouldn't be referees. I have seen catalogues, with a referee, where more than 60% of the listings didn't even have the basic information filled in. And of course there were no lettering for obverse or reverse. I did one entry correct and wrote "Now you can do the rest." But yet nothing happened.
​​
​​To hijack this thread a little, but still trying to keep it on track:
​​Are there any follow ups on the referees? Do you check the catalogues once in a while, let's say once a month/once every three months, just to check in how the catalogues' folds out. If the catalogue is growing, information are added and/or corrected? Or do you just approve referees here and there and simply assume they will do the job? I reckon there need to be some serious actions taken here and real closely examine every referee and how the work - if they work. This is really needed!
​​
​​Thank you!

​​This is done regularly. Not for long, I must say, but it is being done now.

I'm glad to hear. ​I know that itself is a great task, but it's really important the the referees are doing what they voluntarily signed up to do. If they don't they should get a warning, and if there's no progress, the member should simply be removed as a referee.

Quote: "ngdawa"​​I'm glad to hear. ​I know that itself is a great task, but it's really important the the referees are doing what they voluntarily signed up to do. If they don't they should get a warning, and if there's no progress, the member should simply be removed as a referee.

​If they are consistently making bad changes, remove them. But if the actions taken are uniformly positive but they are often slow or have periods of inactivity it isn't useful to remove them -- but continue to find more referees.

Quote: "bjherbison"

Quote: "ngdawa"​​I'm glad to hear. ​I know that itself is a great task, but it's really important the the referees are doing what they voluntarily signed up to do. If they don't they should get a warning, and if there's no progress, the member should simply be removed as a referee.​

​​If they are consistently making bad changes, remove them. But if the actions taken are uniformly positive but they are often slow or have periods of inactivity it isn't useful to remove them -- but continue to find more referees.

​It's not just about to approve/reject change requests, but also to actually work with the catalogue. Thus includes:
▪︎Add/edit basic information
▪︎Add/edit description of obverse and reverse
▪︎Add script(s)
▪︎Add/edit translation of obverse and reverse
▪︎Add watermark description
▪︎Add mint/printer
▪︎Check that year list is up to date and correct
▪︎Check so the listing is following the Numista Guidelines

Here's is a few examples of listings with errors, and/or is not following the Numista Guidelines – even though there is a referee:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2572.html
https:/en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1315.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6765.html
https:/en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces26048.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces65984.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3769.html
https:/en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces160448.html

These countries even has two(!) referees:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces23708.html
https:/en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14525.html

I could go on, but I guess my point is made. There needs to be some serious thinking about how to appoint referees in the future.

When I saw the new entries from the last day, I saw duplicates ... and a lot of them. All from the same referee.

If a referee
a) learns to trust the accuracy of two submitters, and approves their submissions with little review, and
b) those two submitters happen to submit identical coins within a few days of each other and that referee is used to letting his validations pile up for a few weeks

I can see how this might happen.
...which I think was the case here.

But yes, it should have been caught.

I would like to add my 2c here.

1. Can it be mandated that, in the case of new (and old) varieties, that no picture or clear description for comparison = no listing of variety. I assume that if someone wants to add a variety, then they have the coin. Listing varieties because Krause is, by some, deemed to be greater than God and perfect in every way, is crazy. There are mistakes in Krause!! Listing varieties with no way of telling which is which is madness.

2. The great aspect of Numista is that, like Wikipedia, it is dynamic and can be changed as new information comes to light. I recently had a run-in with a referee regarding the variety of a BU set. Several varieties existed for the circulated coins but no variety was listed for the BU coins. I had a BU set so I was able to at least allocate one variety for the BU coins. It was rejected because I couldn't guarantee all the BU coins issued were that variety. Instead the referee said I should create a new comment within my own collection under the circulated variety as "BU". Really!!! Surely allocating the variety to the established BU entry with an addendum that "other varieties may exist" would be the way to move forward. I can guarantee there will still be no variety assigned to the the BU coins when the sun melts the earth in 4-5 billion years! Way to go with changing the catalogue as new info becomes available!!

Rant over.

Hi,

some time has passed since I wrote this. And to give a fast short summary: Since now, nothing has really changed.
But I wanted to explain myself on the thing that most of you didn't like: Why did I make these names public and didn't resolve it in private messages?

The reason is I did that in some cases. I wrote stratocaster (when he still was a master referee) about the problems with cmaclean, Florino28 and Oklahoman. He spoke to them and the problems got more or less "resolved" (more less). I also wrote about the problem with Al Louarn in the forum without naming him/her, but only Jarcek seemed to be interested in this and promised to look at it. I don't know if he ever did, but in the end, as before, nothing happened.

So I came to the conclusion that complaining privately doesn't help at all. So that is the first reason I did it: I wanted to apply public pressure on the people in charge to finally do something.
There is also a second reason for doing this: I wanted to give information to the users.
There are so many amazing referees on this website. pejounet, Sulfur, Essor Prof and even brand new referees like oynbcn are absolutely amazing and go the extra way to make the catalog better (there are many more). If you're interested in improving the catalog, you should do it somewhere where it's appreciated. So I made this list of bad referees to provide information for the users on where it might be a waste of time to put the effort in.

Also, I find it funny that I got (mostly) positive feedback for that thread by private messages from other referees, mentioning specific names on the list too! I wonder why they're afraid to write that publicly...

But let's move on. Now that I explained myself, I want to continue. Yes, to be honest with you, the main reason I'm writing again, is that I found another absolutely terrible referee and I just had to share it. I'm talking about Acid Burn.

The story begins two weeks ago, when I wanted to add an older Maltese coin. Problem was, that I didn't know if the denomination should be "Pounds" or "Liri". So I researched a bit and it turned out it's complicated. It got somehow used interchangeably in a time period and Krause and Numista use different time frames for the currencies. But the most important thing was, that the coins already on Numista followed no rule whatsoever. In every (relevant) year, both values just got used interchangeably. So I just didn't know what to pick.
So I just picked what Krause said, which was Pounds for this coin. But because I didn't like that mess on Numista, I asked in the comments what is correct and that the existing coins should be renamed.
So now is your time to guess what happened next.

Are you done guessing? Ok, I can give you the answer: Acid Burn just accepted the request without any further comment. He/she probably didn't even read anything.
Ok, annoying, but that's the way it is I guess. But I WANTED to have an answer. So I picked up the next missing coin on Numista from this timeframe and added it... but this time, with "Liri" as the denomination.
And what happened? Exactly, it was just accepted without any comment.
Ok, what now. What could I do to force someone to do something? And I had a great idea. I looked up the next missing coin in that timeframe and added it with a little variation. I also wrote in the comments that since no decision was made, I was now FORCING the referee to make a decision.
Well, can you guess what happened? Exactly, Acid Burn accepted it without any comment. You want to see what Acid Burn accepted? I also made a picture, since it will probably be fixed by someone who cares, after this post. But as of this moment, you can also see it here.



I mean, are you kidding me? That denomination got accepted? I mean, come on. Xavier, which proof do you still need to see these referees don't read ANYTHING? You just can't give me a reason anymore these referees SHOULDN'T be removed IMMEDIATELY! What could you do instead? Have a serious talk with them? Are you kidding me? What will you threaten them with? To remove them from the referee position they don't care about? JUST REMOVE THEM NOW.
If nothing changes, I only see one last thing I can do so the people in power might consider something has to be done.
I might just start making requests including pictures Numista is not allowed to use. And from all the stuff I wrote, you know they will get accepted because these referees just don't read or check anything before approving it. And when I then just contact all the companies the pictures were stolen from, maybe they apply enough pressure on Xavier that he is forced to finally do something.

So I give you the choice: Do something or have your serious talks and trust these referees to check the information and picture sources.

We are on it.

Maltese negligence is gone, together with ambiguity of currency.

Quote: "Trooper8"​The other one was the only instance where my view of the referee changed and I'm now happy to work with him.
​That was cmaclean, who revealed to me, that he removed every Scottish coin without a picture from the catalog when he became a referee. Luckily that got sorted out now with a master referee, but I guess we will never know how many pages got deleted by that active sabotaging.

​I've just been made aware of this thread that mentions me. I suppose I better address the allegations of my 'active sabotaging' of the Scottish catalogue:

It was six years ago, so my memory may be fuzzy. But I'm fairly certain that when I first became referee in 2016 I submitted requests to delete the Scottish coin pages that did not have photos. These requests would have had to have been approved by a master referee as referees don't have the ability to delete pages. I would have probably added the caveat that the pages could be re-added once a suitable photo had been found.

The reason I did this was because I was the only one actively working on the Scottish catalogue at the time and I thought the empty entries made the catalogue look messy. I'd be surprised if more than 5 pages were deleted, all of which have since been added back. From memory, the Scottish catalogue had fewer than 100 entries in 2016.

Since that initial period in 2016, the only further deletion requests I've made have been to remove duplicate listings.

For the record: no master referee approached me about the deletion issue until today. So I'm not sure what 'Luckily that got sorted out now with a master referee' is referring to.

You have made a mountain out of a molehill over something that happened six years ago. I don't appreciate your attempts to publicly shame me, nor you making the contents of our private messages public. It's a massive betrayal of trust. I don't think I'm 'happy to work with' you any longer.

Quote: "cmaclean"For the record: no master referee approached me about the deletion issue until today. So I'm not sure what 'Luckily that got sorted out now with a master referee' is referring to.

​It seems like I have to apologize for this one. While I reported that to stratocaster back in the day, where he asked me who deleted pictures, I can't find further answers from him on this topic. While I could swear he answered something, it seems like I confused it with one of the many other instances I texted with him about referees. (As long as there is no known bug of disappearing private messages).
But it just fits so greatly into the picture that after I made a complaint to a master referee months ago, mentioned your name weeks ago, you just get contacted NOW after I reanimated this thread to life with a completely different topic.

While you never mentioned how many entries you deleted (you didn't say requested back then), you also said you won't (and in fact, didn't) accept any request without a picture. I know you wrote that to me in private, and I'm sorry I "betrayed your trust", but since you're a referee in a public forum, I believe users should know what happened to their former entries and what might happen when they make a request through you.
And I don't know how you see it, but deleting entries (however good or bad described they were) of existing coins is, without a doubt in my opinion, active sabotaging. There are currently 15777 Roman Empire coins without a picture in the catalog. If you were a referee for the Roman Empire, they would be all gone now from what you told me. And that isn't active sabotaging?

That being said, I want to make it clear again that despite this incident, I think you're an amazing referee. I saw the effort you put in to find missing pictures, your awareness of finding the tiniest mistake in lettering of mis-referenced coins, and even your sense of humor in heated situations.
So if you're not comfortable in processing my requests (working with me) anymore, I don't have a problem focusing on other parts of the catalog. No offense taken.

Regarding picture debate, it has been stated in the other thread right above/below - page without pictures is fine, but the page must be clearly identifiable - which, I believe, was the case here with Scotland.

We are working on other issues mentioned here.

Quote: "Trooper8"​While you never mentioned how many entries you deleted (you didn't say requested back then), you also said you won't (and in fact, didn't) accept any request without a picture. I know you wrote that to me in private, and I'm sorry I "betrayed your trust", but since you're a referee in a public forum, I believe users should know what happened to their former entries and what might happen when they make a request through you.
​And I don't know how you see it, but deleting entries (however good or bad described they were) of existing coins is, without a doubt in my opinion, active sabotaging. There are currently 15777 Roman Empire coins without a picture in the catalog. If you were a referee for the Roman Empire, they would be all gone now from what you told me. And that isn't active sabotaging?
​
​That being said, I want to make it clear again that despite this incident, I think you're an amazing referee. I saw the effort you put in to find missing pictures, your awareness of finding the tiniest mistake in lettering of mis-referenced coins, and even your sense of humor in heated situations.
​So if you're not comfortable in processing my requests (working with me) anymore, I don't have a problem focusing on other parts of the catalog. No offense taken.

It's pretty funny being accused of sabotaging the catalogue, because I requested that a few entries get deleted six years ago, from someone who implied they'd sabotage Numista by adding false photo attributions earlier in this very same thread.

I now know I was wrong for rejecting an entry without a photo (assuming it was sufficiently detailed to distinguish the coin from another). From memory, your entry was rejected because its photo was of a cut-halfpenny, rather than the full coin. If the page was detailed enough to justify its addition without the photo, then I shouldn't have deleted it. If this was the case with your request, then I apologise.

I'd appreciate it if you'd focus on other parts of the catalogue as I no longer wish to work with you.

Hello Trooper8,
Even if I still strongly disagree with your method (not mentioning the threat of sabotaging the catalogue, which I hope is just rhetorical), I understand your frustration and I appreciate your will to improve the catalogue and the way it is managed.
Some of the examples you provided are blatant. We will review them and we are looking for possible actions, both for the concrete examples you mentioned and how to improve the system in general. I'll give an update by the end of next week.

First of all trooper is a very rude and boorish person, he is only interested in insulting as seen in his messages!

He says I made a mistake, but he doesn't say it happened after so many years of work and thousands of changes to the catalog. He has no idea how many things need to be checked and and how much we have dedicated to the catalog. But he claims to have answers right away and to take precedence over everything. Does he wait months or years? No, all this in a few days!

If he wanted an explanation why he never wrote to me ?? Without sending constant corrections and act in a subtle and mysterious way to put people in trouble.
Moreover question about "Pounds" or "Liri" is complicated and it is delicate, we discuted already in past, both are corrected but sometimes people say again "better Liri...better Pounds"...

I'll continue ...

kind regards

Hello,

In response to this topic, the catalogue admins and I decided the following:

• There is clearly something missing to communicate issues with referees. Publicly blaming referees is not acceptable, let's be kind and cooperative with each other.
  Instead, I implemented a new way to appeal decisions by referees. In you are unhappy with a catalogue request validation result, click the "appeal" button on the top right hand corner of the request page
  
  You'll be able to explain why you don't agree with the referee's decision and a catalogue admin will review.
  
  
• Reviewing the specific cases you mentioned, we removed referee status of Al Louarn and Acid Burn. Although you may have had some hiccups with Oklahoman and cmaclean, we believe they are still doing very good work as referees and for the catalogue in general. We (catalogue admins) are happy to mediate any dispute. Florino28's main interest is euro coins; I will investigate whether I can adjust referee permissions to align with that. Globally, we completed an action started some months ago to review for inactive referees and review old pending referee applications. We will probably make a new call for volunteer referees soon.
  
  
• We also started some months ago to prepare a new documentation centre. As part of it, we will clarify the role of referees. We are also preparing an update to the catalogue guidelines (mainly focused on banknotes, but also some adjustments to the guidelines for coins). I hope we can complete these two project soon. They will definitely help clarifying questions about editing the catalogue, both for referees and for the rest of contributors.
  

Thank you for addressing concerns about members who have difficulties with referees, and I guess referees who have difficulties with abusive members. I am very reasonable as a referee for Isle of Man and Gibraltar, but if you are not even going to provide me with additional supporting information we will never get anywhere. Gibraltar is a very difficult nation to be a referee of. Because of its relationship and because of Pobjoy Mint, there are many issues that I have had to fight to get included in the catalog. I am sorry if I must be ruthless. But when Pobjoy, and nameless mints in Europe, as well as Asia are now making issues for Gibraltar, I will not apologize for asking for more information. Nor will I go traipsing around the internet following links to sources I do not recognize. There is no more to say to Trooper8. I referred it to higher ups here at Numista. I will not be cursed at or bullied by anyone.

It is not a "god complex" to ask for additional information. This is doing a good job as a referee. The real person with the god complex would be the individual who becomes unhinged and curses and whines when his edits need just a bit more to be approved. I have enjoyed not having to deal with Trooper and will continue to have nothing to do with him or his type here on Numista. Thanks for the appeals button. I welcome any appeal and will gladly engage with my higher up colleagues. Like my colleage who referees the Scottish listings, I am glad to have nothing further to do with obnoxious members of the public who make personal insults and attacks on volunteers. I would also like to note that this unsatisfied members explosive behavior was because of some coin listings. I think it is fair to point out that I am not a master referee when it comes to coin listings. I have no more or less power than any other referee over the countries of my responsibilities.

This whole business is very disappointing. When we are attacked in a public way, I should not have to discover it by accident in the public forums. I certainly never shared beyond a private email my problems with this individual. And considered it to be handled. To show up months later in a public forum without a notice or an opportunity of a quick defensive response is unsettling. Please thank this member for focusing on other aspects of Numista that do not require us ever having to work together again.

Quote: "Xavier"​Hello,
​
​In response to this topic, the catalogue admins and I decided the following:
​

• There is clearly something missing to communicate issues with referees. Publicly blaming referees is not acceptable, let's be kind and cooperative with each other.
  ​Instead, I implemented a new way to appeal decisions by referees. In you are unhappy with a catalogue request validation result, click the "appeal" button on the top right hand corner of the request page
  ​
  ​You'll be able to explain why you don't agree with the referee's decision and a catalogue admin will review.​
  

​

​
Thankyou Xavier, I think the possibility to appeal a referee decision is a very good addition to Numista. As long as the person who is doing the reviewing is not the person who originally rejected the change request.

Also it would be good to have an addition to the status flag (Pending, validated etc) on the Modifications Request page to have an extra one to show that a particular request is under appeal.

Regards - Mike

It would be nice if we could force members to enter a reason and details why they are submitting. It could be as simple as
1- Coin doesn’t exit on Numista
2- New variety
3- Change request

Personally, for new coin, I find very usefull the option to ask the member to review or add missing info before publishing. This option would be usefull for CR if it could exist. It would permit better communications between referees and a change requestor. Now we only have the option to approuve as is or to reject. Yes there is always the option of using messages but some don’t answer in weeks and you loose track.

Merci et bonne journée