Wikinews:Water cooler/policy



Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.

ArbCom electionsEdit

I propose the same rules, procedures as in 2020. (See WN:Water cooler/policy/archives/2020/June#ArbCom elections, Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2020 election.) However due to a two-week delay in getting started, I propose the following dates.

The community must agree on all election procedures by July 19, and election committee members by July 29.
The deadline for nominations is 1600 UTC August 5.
Voting will take place from 1600 UTC August 6 to 1600 UTC August 20. Questions and comments may be made during that time period.
Due to the delay, the incumbent members are requested to look for cases (if any) till the end of the election. Election Committee are to certify the results as soon as the voting deadline ends. The new term starts the following day. Should any case be before the ArbCom at election time, the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee.
Given I have seem some new volunteers who have an excellent track record, but have low edit count, I am extending voter eligibility to anyone who has authored and had five published articles before July 1, 2021.

As has worked well for some years now, I strongly recommend the committee not create a page for "questions for all candidates"; questions for each candidate should be located under that candidate. This is the way things have been done in all but two previous elections; once there was no place for questions at all (the undesirability of this is obvious, I hope), and once, we had a page for questions for all candidates, and it turned into a political circus and an ordeal for the nominees (en.wn ArbCom is a judicial body, so should be scrupulously apolitical). I'm not the only one who experienced the circus years ago and came away from it with a powerful conviction it should not be allowed to happen again.

We need at least two people for the election committee. Volunteers?
•–• 05:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to volunteer for the election committee. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no objections to the rules as stated above. Moving the relevant count from edit count to published articles I think is a good idea as it shows constructiveness on the volunteers part.
I can’t remember the circus of an election mentioned but that may be because I’ve been around a few off wiki elections and fair to say the vast bulk have been circuses. The election spoken of may have blended with the off wiki ones. That said I agree with the conclusion that we do not want ArbComm elections to be political circuses.
I won’t volunteer for election committee as I want to nominate for ArbComm. —RockerballAustralia contribs 06:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind, but have to ask whether this exercise is even needed. Wikinews is way too small to need something like an ArbCom. You have the standard dispute-resolution mechanisms after all. Leaderboard (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we have had required ArbCom over the years. I really really don't understand why you bring up this discussion, I have seen you mention it no less than two times before, perhaps on IRC, back when pizero was dealing with it. If you have a very compelling argument why we should ditch ArbCom, do let me know, but I frankly do not appreciate a non-active contributor coming here and telling us "you prolly don't need FOOBAR" without offering any explanation whatsoever. It is counterproductive.
•–• 12:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I thought my reasoning (the wiki being too small to have one + not used in > 10 years) was implied, if that does not satisfy you let me know. And no, I can't say that an ArbCom is required if all I see from it are elections with it never being used in practice. If 10 years isn't enough, not sure what would be. Plus, yes I don't write articles here, but I regularly roam around RC... Leaderboard (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We have required help of arbcom input as recent as last year, whivh had gotten quite muddied and wasted good time of our every day whivh could have gone into reviewing news. If something has been bothering you about Wikinews having a committee for this purpose who isn't really asking for any special privs or few bucks, I am yet to hear it.
•–• 18:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acagastya: "We have required help of arbcom input as recent as last year" - can you link me to it? Leaderboard (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Amidst all the ballyhoo, I think it is a positive to keep an ArbComm on the books at least. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to volunteer for electcom. Vermont (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, we now have two elecom volunteers, @CptViraj: and @Vermont:. The other processes can now proceed.
•–• 04:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I am present and do not object to the rules laid out by Acagastya. I will not put myself for election. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Accreditation policyEdit

I've spent the last couple of days carefully reading over things here regarding the giving and taking away of bits. If I've read correctly, once a person is an Accredited Reporter, our flow only allows for that bit to be taken away if they've behaved badly. We have someone listed as an AR who hasn't made a single edit here in over a decade. That seems a bit beyond credibility as far as us operating as a credible news organization goes. We are hurting badly for engaged Reviewers and Bureaucrats (and are trying to handle that situation at the moment). Sure, we have some policies/guidance that could use tweaking, to put it mildly, but: I think that situation needs to be swept into the bucket whenever we do a big policy re-work around here. I think what we do is a good thing, but it's high time to polish up a few little pieces of this project.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We can move them to inactive; one of the ways we know one is inactive, is if they don't have mail. Except mikemoral -- they declined it at first, but seems like they might want it for review purpose.
•–• 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bddpaux, Acagastya: I think we can apply Wikinews:Privilege expiry policy and revoke the credentials for the large number of very-inactive reporters. I don't think PEP has ever been applied to accredited reporters ever since the PEP policy was put in place. It says simply that any AR who hasn't edited in the last 9 months can have their accreditation revoked, so we can start with Wikinews:Credential_verification#Inactive_accredited_Wikinews_users and remove those who are very definitely no longer active at Wikinews, and drop courtesy notices for Wikinewsies who take overly long breaks (like myself). —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
PEPs exist to avoid risking someone hacking into the account of a priv'd user. And to make sure someone who is not used to current policies don't do something that is now okay/disallowed on the project. ARs don't get any privs software wise, and I don't see how applying that is any bit helpful. Move them to inactive list and leave it there. Those who are active, let them update their email and that will indicate who is active and who is not. I really don't see a point in doing anything more is necessary. mail is not accessible anymore, and they don't have access to scoop, so leave it as it is.
•–• 07:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
That sounds smart. It isn't like being 'in the system' as an AR really gives them any magical software powers anyway, as Acagastaya noted.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)