Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2023/July

De-sysopping request on TUFKAAP
I've made a request to desysop TUFKAAP. Comments there are welcome. George Ho (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
flag I propose the same rules and procedures as 2020, but with 2021's loosening of eligibility to the otherwise ineligible with "five published articles before June 15, 2023" (adjusted for this timeline, of course). And I propose the following dates: Can one other person volunteer for the ElectCom? I volunteer myself. Heavy Water (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The community must agree on nomination procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10.
 * Nominations will be accepted until 2000 UTC July 17. Questions and comments may be made during that time period, but no voting shall take place.
 * Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18 to 2000 UTC July 30.
 * Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3, the election committee must declare the winners by that date, and the new term begins on August 4.


 * I'd second that ... I can also throw my own hat into the ring. Thankfully, we haven't needed ArbCom in years. SVTCobra 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented at Arbitration Committee/2023 election. Can someone not on the election committee who is thus eligible to do so nominate candidates? Heavy Water (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there were no nominations before the deadline yesterday, so...we can amend that deadline to 2000 UTC July 24 and push the start of voting back to 2000 UTC July 25. In fact, I will assume and implement such a change there in 24 hours if there are no comments here, given the urgency. And can Ixfd64, Michael.C.Wright, Koavf I think you're the only other constructive local users active in the past couple days, anyone nominate candidates? Just renominate the current ArbCom if you want (except for people who declare on their user page(s) or tell you they're on a wikibreak, obviously). Heavy Water (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal to roll over Heavy Water and SVTCobra for another term. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Err...what? Neither of us are on ArbCom (there are six arbs, anyway). Heavy Water (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Sorry, I misread that. To actually answer the question you asked, I have no candidates to nominate. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavy Water and SVTCobra are two reviewers I see most often doing things to keep the ship afloat. I've also seen one of the current arbcom members Bddpaux as I've poked around the place. All three have at varying degrees also assisted me with articles and have done so with patience and expertise.


 * So I would nominate those three if someone points me to the nomination process (if I didn't just perform it).


 * I would also request that since the arbcom seems to have so little to do in the dispute-resolution arena (this is a good thing), maybe they could organize a project to figure out how to make wikinews agile and able to turn out stories faster and easier. ツ


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 00:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Michael.C.Wright: Well, thank you, but neither I nor SVTCobra can because we both volunteered for the Election Committee of this election. Also, you can add nominees to this page (there are six arbs, BTW). Heavy Water (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know any other editors who I could or would nominate. Giving someone the power to cast-out members of the community is a serious matter. I don't want to nominate the wrong person and later find out they are willing to wield that power in a narcissistic, psychopathic, or machiavellian way.

I simply haven't had enough interactions with other editors to make an informed nomination. The only current arbcom member I've interacted with is on a break. In fact, 50% of the current committee is either on a stated break/retirement or hasn't contributed at all in nineteen months.

It would be easier for me to vote for an editor already nominated by someone else. Once someone is nominated, I can go through their contributions and see how they interact on talk pages and better gauge their temperament and disposition. Then I could at least vote on a nominee.

I know this doesn't help solve the problem at hand.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers and Permission expiry policy
Per Permission expiry policy, reviewers lose those rights after not using them for two years. We currently have 21 reviewers, including three bot accounts. When taking a look at who is a reviewer in order to have my own article reviewed, I came across a couple of quirks here: one is noted at Permission expiry policy "A not-ready review via the Easy Peer Review tool is a reviewer action, although it does not appear in Special:Log/review." and the other is that someone could have done a review of a deleted article and that won't show up in the log. So it's hard for me to know exactly whom to post at Requests for permissions/Removal or on this page (another quirk is that reviewers are not listed at that link, so it's not clear how to request the removal of permissions), but for the record: I think the users in bold should be un-reviewer-ed or at the very least, it's a conversation. Furthermore, I think the reviewer rights should expire much sooner. The point of reviewing is that it has to be timely: news ceases to be news from spoilage and if stories don't get reviewed, then they cannot be news articles. Having a surfeit of reviewers-in-name-only does not help us review stories and it actually falsely implies that there are many users here who can realistically help with this critical step in the process, when in fact, there are very few: 1/3 of the current number. I propose that reviewer permissions be bumped up to removal after one year of not reviewing.no edits —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Acagastya: recent edits / no reviews for about 1.5 years
 * Special:Contributions/Bawolff: a couple of recent edits / two reviews about 1.5 years ago, no others for almost a decade (!)
 * Special:Contributions/Bddpaux: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/Blood_Red_Sandman: no edits in about two years / no reviews for three years
 * Special:Contributions/Chaetodipus: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/Cromium: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/Gopher65: one edit in two years / no reviews for five years (!)
 * Special:Contributions/Gryllida: recent edits / one review in two years
 * Special:Contributions/Heavy_Water: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/JJLiu112: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/LivelyRatification: barely any edits in the past year / no reviews for a year
 * Special:Contributions/Microchip08: basically no edits for years / no reviews for years (!) (last edit was saying "hey, thanks for telling me you are revoking reviewer rights")
 * Special:Contributions/RockerballAustralia: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/SVTCobra: recent edits / recent reviews
 * Special:Contributions/ShakataGaNai: no recent edits / no reviews for five years (!)
 * Special:Contributions/Tom_Morris: no recent edits / no reviews for years (last edit was saying "hey, thanks for telling me you are revoking reviewer rights, I may be active again soonish")
 * Special:Contributions/Tyrol5: barely any recent edits / no review for years
 * Special:Contributions/William_S._Saturn: no recent edits / no reviews for six years (!)
 * George Ho may be interested in this discussion. reviewers lose those rights: As I said at the desysop request for TUFKAAP, the application of PeP is at the community's discretion. As for deleted reviews, just ask a sysop to check the reviewer's deleted contributions. And requests to remove reviewer rights, like to obtain them, are made at Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions (I know, confusing). I disagree with your proposal. Anyone can easily see that, say, SGN is not likely to show up and review their article; and, of course, they can ask Wikinews regulars. Additionally, we do need more reviewers, not less, and some of these people could return at any time.


 * I'll make a few objections: Acagastya is most definitely active, just not much and is not reviewing currently; Bawolff is a gadget whiz, I would advise against invoking PeP for the foreseeable future, because they need reviewer for testing EzPR whenever it has problems and we would want that fixed with the least hassle; BRS has dropped off the face of the earth, but it's not like that hasn't happened before plenty of times; Gry is active; SGN can be accessed when really necessary; and Tom Morris is still an active Wikipedian. Heavy Water (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how is that helpful to anyone who wants to actually know who can review a story? If someone could show up after 17 months and edits Wikipedia sometimes, that is not particularly useful here. It's not an indictment to say that they are not realistically using these tools, so there is no reason in advertising that they can use these tools (evidently Bawolff aside). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections to bumping up from two years to one year. Should lose reviewer tools ASAP. George Ho (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)