Wikinews

Wikinews:Admin action alerts

Requesting a block? Wikinews:Blocking policy states that administrators may block users who "excessively and consistently break site policy. Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings." Admins can not and will not block unless this policy is followed. Please do not raise an alert here unless efforts to educate the user have been made, and warnings have been given. If you have an ongoing problem with another user, you should consider Wikinews:Dispute resolution.


Pages requested for speedy deletionEdit

There are no articles for this topic. Refresh


Edits to protected pagesEdit

To request an edit to a protected page, add the {{editprotected}} template to the talk page, with an explanation of what edit needs to be made.


Make protected pagesEdit

To request a page to be protected, add the {{makeprotected}} template to the talk page, with an explanation of why the page needs to be protected.

There are no articles for this topic.

Unblock requestsEdit

If you are a blocked user add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page to request to be unblocked. Your plea will then be highlighted here automatically. These are the current requests:


Archive requestsEdit

Use this section to list pages which should be protected for archival reasons.

Please see pages which can be archived, listed at WN:TOARCHIVE. Special requests for protection/archival can be listed below.

Anything elseEdit

Use this section to request help, list pages that should be watched due to repeated vandalism, user webhosting, advertising, misleading quotes, copyvio, etc. These pages are not yet protected or its members blocked. Please archive the notices that are 3 days old or have taken admin action. When listing a vandal use: {{vandal|Type in offenders name here}}.

User:Darkfrog24Edit

Seems unhappy with attitude of others, and authority.

Propose to contain the impact by aiming everyone to continue their work as normal, limiting Darkfrog24's work to talk pages and their own article work only. Editing Wikinews:* , and editing others articles directly, should be avoided by Darkfrog24.

Then people will be free to resume normal work without anyone tampering with their content. Yet, talk pages will be there to voice concerns.

This means admin action can be avoided and block may be avoided.

(Pardon the spelling, I am typing on a mobile.Spelling corrected on a laptop.)

Consensus? --Gryllida (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is premature. I have already asked for dispute resolution at the water cooler. The matter is to be discussed there.Water Cooler Per WN:DISPUTE, we're at the step for getting the community involved. All steps in dispute resolution need time to work.
Gryllida is an involved party in the dispute. Others include Pi zero, Acagastya, Ottawahitech.
The thing Gryllida seems angry at me about is that I deleted some of G's posts from my talk page, which G made after I told G that we were talking in circles and wanted G to leave me alone. I did it to prevent the conversation from escalating to a fight and dominating the recent changes feature. I believe policy allows me to curate my own talk page and Gryllida believes it does not The matter is addressed in more detail at the water cooler. Clearly establishing the rules for talk page curation would solve this.
I also believe that tempers are high because of the global viral pandemic, and I feel that people are taking their anxiety out on me. Any long-term issues—Gryllida is right that there are things I'm unhappy about—should be addressed after the virus subsides and people can have heads with their normal level of coolness. I'm not okay with being a surrogate for not being allowed to go outside, being worried about your brother the nurse, and sad about your friend who died. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've had to raise this issue here, as the majority of your conflicts are with privileged individuals, borderline disrupting reviewing and administrative effort. This needs to stop immediately and urgently. Figuring out what to do with your personal talk page won't resolve this (as you see the issues raised in my message here are quite different). Discussing it elsewhere may result in unnecessary delays, and in inconsistency of the response. --Gryllida (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Per policy, Wikinews has no privileged individuals: "All participants are equal. If you are a good faith participant to Wikinews, your opinion counts as much as others."
This, a global pandemic when everyone is upset about real life, is not the time to deal with that. I have done nothing to disrupt review or administration but if you think it needs discussion, it should happen after everyone's out of the hospital. I feel you're using Wikinews as an outlet for your emotions about COVID-19, and I am not okay with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Point to note: the pandemic has been going for quite some time. But the the "so-called" involved people were involved after Darkfrog24 gave ill-conceived opinions about administrative actions without fact-checking. And right now, they are busy putting the blame on everyone and everything else except for them.
•–• 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Acagastya, would you think the proposal above would be suitable to resolve the issues? Perhaps if you are concerned that talk pages access is a problem in the long run because of the created confusion, then would you consider it suitable to limit Darkfrog24's work to only write new articles and participate at their talk pages and his personal talk page and nowhere else? --Gryllida (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Darkfrog24: Interestingly, you only conflict with authority, not with anything else. That's how you got into this situation. (If you didn't want it, you could have noticed this sooner, and attempted to avoid.) --Gryllida (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Pi zero here. I would possibly be willing to support such a restriction, to see how it goes. I have doubts it'll work out, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and see. I recall a vaguely similar situation, years ago, when a user was causing problems for the community, in which an intermediate measure was taken; it didn't work out, ultimately the only thing that worked was for the user to leave the project. --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT:

Pi zero is here as an involved party.
I don't support it. The problem is people coming to my talk page and messing with me, to the point where I asked how to shut down my talk page. The problem has nothing to do with the articles I'm writing. Better would be to instruct Pi zero and Gryllida to stay away from my talk page.
Wikinews grants reviewers the authority to perform review and admins authority over technical matters. It does not outline any social privileges. It certainly doesn't allow you either group an exemption from WN:CIVIL.
If I am not allowed to say "that's overkill" about one of Agagastya's admin actions in a casual conversation that was about something else, then Agacagstya is not allowed to come to my talk page and call me "ignorant."[1] You must not bite my head off for my comment but then defend Aca's "right" to call me names. Bite both or bite neither.
Frankly, I think you guys are upset about the virus and looking for something you can control, and you think it should be me. Do not put me in that position. I'm not okay with it. Longstanding problems should wait until everyone is back in their normal headspace. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The above message is frankly misleading. The so-called "involved parties" engaged after Darkfrog24 claimed I was abusing my admin bits. That is: I had deleted a revision of an IP. Not only Darkfrog24 called it an "overkill", feel free to verify if it was or was not: Darkfrog24 admitted they had no knowledge of the content of the revision or interest in knowing about it. When other admins tried to tell them it was a clear violation of never assume policy, and one should not make such allegations without any concrete proof, they had chosen to revert the comments over and over again. Saying "others are not welcomed to post on the talk page" after you are accusing others of misbehaviour is not all right by any measure. Where a genuine questioned was asked, instead of stating the correct answer, or claiming they don't know better, they are opining, and misleading others. Of many things, Darkfrog24 called me "insecure" about being a new admin because I deleted a revision: even though I had deleted revisions when it felt appropriate four times before this incident. They have been blaming the "involved parties" for treating them as a punching bag. Nothing can be farther than the truth: they just won't see that accusing and misleading is not acceptable here, let alone the violation of not assuming without knowing what they are talking about. Even the attempts to clear the miscommunication led to them opining where sincere answer was expected -- of administrative importance. They stated very clearly they don't intend to know about the deleted revision. Commenting on something without knowing anything about it is an act of ignorance. I refrained from calling them ignorant as-is, and when I said, I stated they are ignorant on "this particular topic". For that, they started a next wave of disturbance. Going through the revisions of Darkfrog24's talk page from this edit, the deleted edits of the IP and the contribution should give the complete picture.
•–• 22:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Acagastya, there are four options that I can think of: (a) do nothing (b) limit participation to "*Talk:*" and new articles only (c) limit partitipation only to new articles and talk pages of these articles and personal talk page but nothing else (d) access to personal page only (i.e. a block). Briefly and concisely, what concerns would you suggest about each of these options? I hope more people will be around to consider the same question. Thanks . --Gryllida (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, I think you misunderstood. This concern is about your conflicts with Pi zero, acagastya, me, other reviewers in the long run over the course of the last several months. The ones where you complained that people are not your teachers. The ones where you asked to do things your way for lack of documentation. The ones where you were suggesting people to do it yourself. All of these are the symptoms which I grouped together under "unhappy with attitudes and authority". This is NOT only about the last three days of your personal talk page. Please understand this. --Gryllida (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
If this is a long-run thing then do not try to address it during a global viral pandemic. I choose option e) you stay off my talk page and leave me alone when I ask you to instead of harassing me. If you still want to deal with this when we're all back in regular headspace, do it then.
I am a volunteer here, donating professional-quality work for free. That is why I don't act like a paid employee would act or do the emotional labor that they perform. That's it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, it continues to happen, and will be addressed without delay. No explanation will be provided about why this is bad (for fear of repetition). If you don't want to stress yourself, just don't do it. --Gryllida (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I've requested attention of William S. Saturn and Green Giant to this discussion. Attention of any other uninvolved sysop would also be appreciated. --Gryllida (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Phase 2Edit

I'd be interested in some agreement as to what will happen in the case Darkfrog24's block starts to expire, without his cooperation with the request. I was hoping he would; in his position I'd find it less harmful than a complete block; but that didn't seem to work. --Gryllida (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be pleasantly surprised if Darkfrog24 volunteered to cooperate.

Damage to the project has been demonstrated (which was the cause of the short block). I recommend requiring Darkfrog24 to limit activities on the project to articles of their own creation and their own user page (including the talk pages thereof). --Pi zero (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I offer a completely outside view of this matter. In my cursory examination, I conclude the user Darkfrog24 is causing disruption for the project; at least in recent days, it seems. He keeps bringing up the coronavirus pandemic, ascribing its effect to the actions of others. Perhaps the pandemic has affected his actions here. Regardless, the disruption cannot continue. In my opinion, if after Pi zero's short block expires, Darkfrog24 once again begins harassing users and not working in a collaborative fashion, he should be blocked again, at least for the duration of the pandemic (two or three months).--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I’ve been asked by several people to look at what has happened in the last couple of days. Apologies for not speaking up earlier but I’ve been busy at work because my office has not closed completely.
I am aware that a request was made by User:Darkfrog24 at WN:Mediation alerts but this has been correctly closed because it had not been used since 2007. Even so, it would not have been appropriate split the discussions across multiple pages and for this reason I will not be commenting at User talk:Darkfrog24. I’ve been trying to get a handle on the various strands of dispute here and have identified the following issues:
  • Control over user talk pages (e.g. this comment).
  • Whether an opinion about an IP block was abusive or not? (found here).
  • Harassment and a temporary block (found here and a section further down the same page).
  • Disagreement about whether this thread should have been started (found here).
I’ve split up my subsequent comments in this way. -Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
User pages
To begin with the question of user pages, I may be wrong but I do not recall any specific WN policy about user pages. I suspect that User:Darkfrog24 might be thinking of WP:User pages. In the absence of our own policy, it is reasonable to use the English Wikipedia policy as a guide for WN behaviour. In particular I would point all users to WP:UP#OWN which states (with my highlighting):
  ...pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user.  
I interpret that as saying that no user has sole ownership of their user pages, and consequently User:Darkfrog24 cannot restrict other users from posting at User talk:Darkfrog24, unless it is blatant vandalism or something completely irrelevant to the goals of the project. Although I am posting this in the capacity of a Wikinewsie, I feel it is important to share something I have said often to users through the stewards email queue: Wikimedia wikis are not social media websites. User pages are not the same as Facebook walls.
That said, I am also minded to point to WP:UP#CMT, which states (with my highlighting):
  Policy does not prohibit users... from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents.  
My interpretation of this is that User:Darkfrog24 can remove other users comments but it is preferred if such comments are archived. Of course this is subject to the proviso against removing certain types of comment/notice.
I also think it might be useful for us to draft a local policy on user pages. -Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
IP block comment
Moving on to the IP block by User:Acagastya, I have looked at the edits by the IP and can confirm the contents were nonsense. The IP also posted nonsense to other pages including two user pages, which were also deleted. Compare the IP comment in their first edit and it is clear this anonymous person was not here to contribute usefully. See also their subsequent edit on Meta. If I had seen the edits first, I too would have deleted their edits as nonsense, hidden some of the comments and blocked the IP.
A comment about these actions, made by User:Darkfrog24, can be found here. I have broken it down into the various sentences as follows:
"It could be newly minted admin Acagastya just wanting to use the admin function now that he or she has it." On it’s own, this is fine because it says "could be".
"That seems likely especially considering the IP's last edit was deleted from the page history instead of just reverted even though Aca describes it as mere "nonsense-gibberish." This too is fine because it is guessing at what might have happened.
"It's overkill." This casts an aspersion on the action and by extension on the administrator.
Taking the entire comment together, it reads as an accusation that User:Acagastya may have been testing their tools. This ignores, of course, the fact that User:Acagastya has been an admin for a bit longer than just the last few days and have been using the tools quite effectively. Anyone can check this by looking at their block log. I agree with the other users who have said this was not an acceptable comment. I think User:Darkfrog24 should publicly withdraw that comment or otherwise provide irrefutable evidence of bad faith actions by User:Acagastya. -Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Harassment and block
There have been several comments about harassment. I can see both sides of the argument but the pivot in these arguments is User:Darkfrog24. The overall impression I get is that User:Darkfrog24 appears to have been confrontational in their comments towards several other users. Until now I have never let User:Darkfrog24's history on other wikis play any part in my opinion of them. However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that this user has a history of conflict with others on the English Wikipedia, which can be seen on their block log stretching back to 2014. I’m not going to inquire into the reasoning used by the English Wikipedia ArbCom but suffice to say that it suggests to me that this user has trouble communicating with some other users.
This thread by User:Gryllida
It is clear to me that there were more than sufficient grounds for raising this issue here. I am convinced by some of User:Darkfrog24's arguments on user talk pages but they are outweighed by the conflict with multiple other users. I have been looking at this through my Wikinewsie capacity but I have to warn User:Darkfrog24 that being blocked from two wikis is sufficient to be considered for a global lock from editing on any Wikimedia wiki. As a steward I would prefer not to consider this at the current time. Instead I’m going to recommend a preventative block for six months on the account of User:Darkfrog24 to stop the situation from deteriorating. Clearly, the global pandemic is affecting a lot of people and perhaps it would be better for User:Darkfrog24 to have a break from English Wikinews. I would also point out that we are all here in a voluntary capacity and it is unfair to raise this strawman argument as a defence for confrontational behaviour. It isn’t just User:Darkfrog24 that volunteers here and they should bear this in mind in their interactions with bona fide users. -Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I would make one immediate observation. Wikipedia is not a generally safe model from which to draw notions of conduct on Wikinews userspace. (Likewise mostly for other namespaces; but I digress.) Our approach to userspace has been less free-wheeling than Wikipedia's since well before I got here. We also have a much less bureaucractic approach to things — we're inclined to work from general principles. A particular Wikinews principle I've had my eye on, in this case, is that the reasonable right of users to request page deletions in their userspace does not extend to removing administratively significant notices. This extrapolates to something of a grey area in the matter of removing comments one doesn't like, as such removals create a false impression when one reads the discussion, an invisible gap in the record; and as serious discussions often touch upon, and/or become significant to, administrative concerns, the false impression starts to impinge on administrative territory. My own approach has been to leave most remarks on my user talk that are objectionable (unless they're just outright no-brainer vandalism); they dot the landscape of my user-talk archives. I'm not saying these are easy issues; I do, however, strongly recommend drawing on Wikinews's own rich traditions without allowing Wikipedia's traditions, developed for quite different circumstances, to creep in. --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I am adopting the suggestion to apply a lengthy preventative block. A significant hope behind the long timing is, I understand, to allow tensions due to the pandemic to ease somewhat. While it's very plausible such tensions may be contributory, there are also underlying attitudinal issues. Perhaps a moderately-long-duration block will provide an opportunity for tempers to cool; however, the attitudinal issues are fraught, and if things are (as we all hope) to be smoother after the block expires, the block will need to be accompanied by some words about the nature of the difficulty. Unfortunately, Darkfrog24 has had vehement negative reactions in the past to being corrected on matters relating to the project, which of course is both a direct and indirect contributor to the situation, the latter as it inhibits learning about the project. I feel that saying something about the matter is incumbent on me since I'm making the block. --Pi zero (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I support this longer block because we need to be able to focus on the project rather than the disruption being caused by one user. I hope User:Darkfrog24 uses this block as an opportunity to re-evaluate their comments and actions. It cannot be the case that one user is absolutely correct but multiple other users are wrong. We would not tolerate such a situation away from the wiki, and there is no reason to accept it on the wiki. Leave aside whether it’s administrators, when multiple users tell you something, it’s time to listen. In six months time, we can review the block and let it expire if there is a willingness on the part of User:Darkfrog24 to cooperate. If not, then the block should become an indefinite one with an annual opportunity for the user to apply for the lifting of the block (in much the same vein as their Wikipedia block). --Green Giant (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I support this block also. I wish there had been an opportunity to reach agreement on that stepping away is recommended over immediately getting defensive, and others being misrespectful CAN NOT be ANY PART of an answer to "were you disrespectful to them?". Alas, in a news project the opportunity to explain this was hindered by the need to focus on news writing, and aggravated by their continued non avoidance of interaction with others. If there is a new resource needed for Wikinews, it is not only training in copy editing and fact check, but also training in efficient communication. (I support the move to that the block would be extended if they do not commit to certain changes, at the time of its expiry.) --Gryllida (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I have reblocked User:Darkfrog24 because of this unconstructive edit. When a user is blocked from editing, they should focus on either making an unblock request or taking a break from the wiki. Blocked users should not be using their talk page as a soapbox for a polemic. I have not reverted the edit yet but will do so soon. -Green Giant (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Phase 2: IRCEdit

Does this mean Darkfrog24 should no longer use Wikinews' IRC channels until a successful unblock? Thanks --Gryllida (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic. But unless they don't seem to cause a problem on IRC, I don't think they should have IRC ban. Besides, their nick is not registered, so it would not be possible to actually implement a ban, Gryllida.
•–• 05:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
No, they are not banned from using IRC. They just cannot make their unblock request on IRC or by email. If you look at their user page (transcluded from Meta), they are complaining about an email conversation regarding unblocking on English Wikipedia. The problem is we (the rest of us) don’t know what was in the emails because they were private emails. We only have User:Darkfrog24's word for it that one administrator said the things they’re alleged to have said.
As a steward I handle a lot of global unlock requests, which are necessarily by OTRS email because the user is unable to log in and make the request on-wiki. The entire conversation is available for any other steward to check in case there are complaints about the discussion. It is similar to a CheckUser being able to verify that another CheckUser is following policies correctly.
I am not opposed to User:Darkfrog24 having IRC or email conversations but any unblock discussion should take place on-wiki and should be focussed on why they should be unblocked. If you look at their last edits before they were re-blocked, they were drafting proposed policies with a clear other purpose, rather than addressing the block.
This is why I want them to think about why they’re blocked and why they should be unblocked but to do it on the talk page, where any other user can review the conversation. It doesn’t matter what is said or done off-wiki - this has to be done on-wiki. -Green Giant (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Green Giant: they'd be able to claim certain things were said on IRC, which others wouldn't be able to verify, because the channels are not logged publicly. I'm not arguing for adding any limitations; it is just a concern I've seen brought up previously in similar situations. --Gryllida (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have never believed in using IRC for unblock requests. I have no control over what may or may not be said on IRC but I only work with what is presented on the talk page. If an unblock request is presented with claims of IRC discussions, or emailing such-and-such, I refuse to unblock. -Green Giant (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Further disruptionEdit

  • When I blocked User:Darkfrog24, I included some conditions. This user has broken two of those conditions and I have re-blocked their account indefinitely. For anyone interested, the details are on their user talk page.
  • Whilst looking for their username in the search bar, I noticed the first of the following accounts. Since this is a disruptive account, I carried out CU checks both at the loginwiki and here. They revealed three further accounts were almost certainly the same person as the first. As a result, I have globally locked all four accounts.
I'm sorry to hear about the block upgrade on Darkfrog24.
It would be surprising to me if the person behind those four locked accounts were actually Darkfrog24; it strikes me as someone else aware of the case, though I don't quite envision how that would come about either. --Pi zero (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

persistent spamEdit

Afaict all draft articles about "Beyonce Wierzycka" are spam; I delete them promptly, and recommend other admins do likewise. I suspect there is not, and never has been, such a person. I've never seen one that had any solid sourcing, nor have I ever observed any solid evidence for the alleged person on the internet. Almost all such articles have had the name in the headline, though at least one did not. By rough manual count, there have been seven such pages so far this year, and 51 last year starting in January; I don't see any before that. Most, if not all, such pages are created by IPs located in Cape Town, South Africa. --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Error on my partEdit

Pursuant to the above, I made an error in carrying out CU on this wiki because I hold sysop permissions here. Please see m:Stewards' noticeboard#Transparency for more details. --Green Giant (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion requestEdit

Please undelete Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: What's up? Er, I mean: what is the reason for requested undeletion? --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like access to the content I wrote --DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Temporarily restored. --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
My understanding of the stated reason-for-request was that temporarily access was being requested so that the author could acquire the material to store elsewhere. I'm therefore inclined to return the page to deleted status in, say, about a day from now, which gives lots of time for any such purpose. --Pi zero (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
As explained on my talk page, the content here can be used for context and background in a future article, and deleting it means that either it needs to be restored then, or any attribution given when reusing the content is useless to others who can't see the deleted history. I suggest opening a discussion rather than unilaterally deleting it. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Re-deleted, as above. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
...why not opt for "opening a discussion rather than unilaterally deleting it" as I requested above? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The original deletion does not appear to have been out of order, and no action on my part was ever meant to repudiate it. My undeletion was intended from the start to be a temporary measure, and it has remained so. --Pi zero (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe the original deletion was indeed out of order; can the page please be restored and moved to my userspace (I would have moved it there initially rather than to a subpage of Story preparation had I known that it was going to be deleted there) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The page is inappropriate in userspace. Thus far I've seen no grounds for challenging the validity of the original deletion; it appears to have been a reasonable application of speedy-deletion policy. --Pi zero (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Where in the Wikinews:Criteria for speedy deletion is the part allowing deletion of prepared drafts (i.e. pages outside of the article namespace) in the manner done here? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 See point 13.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That is for articles; pages in userspace are not articles (same reason test pages in userspace aren't deleted under Article criterion 2) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That is for prepared article. Do not attempt circumventing the rules by changing the namespace. We all are aware of the intention to keep the story on-wiki. And judging by the intentions, the decision was reached.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"We all are aware of the intention to keep the story on-wiki" - please do not assume you are aware of my intention. The criterion for prepared articles applies to articles, not all pages. If the community wants to change the policy, the community can do so, but until then, the policy as written does not allow deletion of unused prepared content outside of the main namespace. Since there seems to be no compromise possible to resolve this (I suggested moving it into my userspace, but was told that creates more problems; I pointed out a double standard being applied, which was essentially dismissed as irrelevant) I plan to open a wider discussion for other community members to give their views --DannyS712 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You have literally stated your intention of why you want the article not to be deleted. Anyone reading this thread and your talk page is aware of that. So My need to assume things which are publicly accessible. We don't want a word game here: a prepared story has the intention to be a prepared story regardless of the namespace.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
My intention was to get "access to the content I wrote". The story would no longer be about the original topic. As for word games, I'm afraid I don't treat the deletion of content that is 1) relevant to the project, 2) may be useful, and 3) not a violation of policy, to be a game, and do not appreciate the implication. Also, who is the "We" in "We don't want a word game here"? Who exactly are you speaking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 let me rephrase: nobody wants a word game on-wiki. You want to have access to your unpublished article: feel free to keep a local copy. An admin could email you that. If you need it for an upcoming article: request UDEL and it would be done as soon as an admin sees. But until you don't have the article in mind: there is no point keeping it. Herebis thhe thing: either that story gets an update/or you decide to do an OR. If the story has an update, well, as soon as you see the update, create UDEL request; start the synthesis for the new article. If you are doing an OR, request UDEL and notify the people on-wiki about the status of OR.
106.216.179.220 (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless this deletion is supported by policy, the default should be that it is kept until and unless consensus at a deletion request concludes it should be deleted. Since I have yet to see a policy that supports it being speedy deleted, I once again reiterate that I believe it should be restored pending a full discussion. That being said, I do not believe any further back-and-forth here will be productive, so this will likely be my last response; I'll open a wider discussion at the proper community venue soon. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Considering the length of this discussion, both here and on your talk page I think the best way to proceed is to file an Undeletion Request at the Deletion Requests page. --Green Giant (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

spammersEdit

The following spambots and their "contributions" need to be dealt with:

--Ixfd64 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done
•–• 06:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done--Pi zero (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blankingEdit

Message sent in error. This contribution is fairly submitted based upon Artist's published works. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8807:e80:f10:b51d:7a96:3c47:3540 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 October 2020‎

Wikinews is not the place for such edits. -- Green Giant (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts&oldid=4588468"