Wikinews:Inactive Policy

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from Wikinews:IPOL)
Jump to: navigation, search
Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01g.png

This page is no longer current and/or valid. It is kept for historical record or interest. Do not assume content on this page is still technically correct.


? This is a proposed policy. You can choose to follow it. If it is followed by all, and has wide community support, it may become an official policy. Please comment on the collaboration page of the policy on any changes you would like to make, or just edit the page directly. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
Shortcut:
WN:IPOL
WN:IP

This policy is to address edit privileges extended to once active, and now inactive, Accredited Reporters, Administrators, Bureaucrats, Stewards, CheckUser and Oversight members. The purpose of the policy is to remove sensitive privileges that were given to active community contributors.

A contributor who has been inactive for 9 months will be eligible for their privileges to be removed. They may lose their privileges through a nomination for their removal in a voting process that would also address abuse.

Wikinews recognizes that reasonable arguments may exist both for, and against, the removal of privileges, and that each case will have its own discussion. There should be no taboo against nominating an editor for removal due to inactivity.

  1. A user requesting removal of an editor is obligated to make some effort to contact the editor, both through their talk page on some Wikimedia project where they are more active, if any, and via Wikinews' email facility.
  2. A removal vote for an editor will last at least one month because an editor may take some time to respond and other users with low activity may have opinions.

All users are asked to accept that:

  1. A user who nominates an editor for loss of sensitive privileges is acting in good faith.
  2. Users who vote either for or against such a proposal are also acting in good faith, based upon numerous possible arguments either for or against removal of privileges.
  3. Removal or retention by an editor is not likely to have a major impact upon the project.
  4. An editor's past inactivity should not count against them if they rejoin the project.