Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2021/August

Accreditation policy

{{flag}} 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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start with Wikinews:Credential_verification#Inactive_accredited_Wikinews_users and remove those who are very definitely no longer active at Wikinews, and drop courtesy notices for Wikinewsies who take overly long breaks (like myself).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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I agree with moving them to inactive list but there are a few cases where it would be inappropriate to keep them on such lists. Anyone who is known to have left this world, and anyone who had asked for vanishing. I suggest we also amend the PeP to remove the requirement if we are not going to apply it, or alternatively set a longer timeframe e.g. 2 years as I have suggested on the PeP talk page. [24Cr][talk] 11:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update: I have moved several of them to the inactive list plus three to expired list (one deceased, two vanished). [24Cr][talk] 12:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’m not sure why I didn’t notice it before but it seems we have an inconsistency in policy. The accreditation policy says accreditation is for two years with reviews every six months. Meanwhile WN:PEP says it is revoked after 9 months of inactivity. I propose we change both policies to being moved to inactive list after two years of no edits. Then perhaps move to expired list after five years of inactivity? [24Cr][talk] 13:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i need help submitng my article for review

How do I submit my article for review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LogKenofficial-wiki (talkcontribs) 00:24, 8 August 2021‎

Article already submitted, reviewed and now deleted. [24Cr][talk] 11:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assorted policies

Hello all. Over the last couple of weeks I have tried to clarify and expand on the following policies. One of my aims is to have policy pages separate from requests pages. Please feel free to comment and vote on them. If there are no significant objections over the next four weeks, I propose the policy changes should become official. If there are any objections afterwards, we can always discuss things then.

The following policy has proposed changes to the policy.

If you have any questions, please ask on the relevant talk page. [24Cr][talk] 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]