Wikinews:Admin action alerts

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.

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}}.

abuse filter mismathch for General spamEdit

I'm trying to edit my page, and it is saying "General Spam Warning". Don't know why this is happening? J-Man11 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be able to edit your page without a problem. --SVTCobra 03:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There are, occasionally, weird problems with spam filters. Some years back, we had a problem that appeared to only affect certain articles; it turned out the filter had been wired to notice certain puerile obscenities as substrings, including "poo", and as a result it consistently caused problems on articles related to Liverpool. --Pi zero (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accountsEdit

There seems to be a contributor with multiple accounts. I don't want to call it sockpuppet abuse, but there are weird redirects and signatures which reflect other names. I would like the user to clarify what is going on.

Accounts involved:

Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi SVTCobra. Just to clarify. I don't use the account under my real name since 2015 for personal reasons. Since then I have used my alternate account, Küñall (which no longer exists since I have renamed to Cuatro Remos some months ago). I have not updated my signature here, though. There is absolutely no sockpuppet abuse. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I have corrected my signature and restored my userpage as it looked back in 2014, to avoid confusion. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cuatro Remos: I can appreciate your desire to deal with this in private, however, I felt it was important that other people see this. Even as we speak now, your signature is "Diego Grez-Cañete" but you are posting from User:Cuatro Remos. How do we know who you are? You could be trying to steal the credentials of a vetted reporter. I am not saying that you are, but it would be easy to do for anyone. Just look for an inactive accredited reporter, create some redirects and a custom signature, and viola!. Oh, and as a side-note "Küñall" is not a registered account, just a page and should be deleted. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point and I don't blame you :-) However, I thought it would not be trouble to sign here under my real name since I am sure most of the oldies know who am I. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, I've been more-or-less following Diego's username/account shifts over the years, and I'm satisfied it's him. (Yes, I did double-check when I saw the RFP vote.) The last time Diego contributed, as best I recall (though he's also dropped by IRC occasionally), was to write an obit for Hugo Chavez. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You are correct Pi zero. That was my last article. Well, for the moment :-P I can't believe it's been over six years since I wrote that. But well, never took/had the time to come back actively. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: if you are 100% sure, then the list of accredited reporters should be updated and not go through a redirect. I am going to delete User:Küñall and it's talk page in one hour unless someone objects here. --SVTCobra 00:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra, I wouldn't mind, but I don't see a benefit by deleting it. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty much a rule. It sits there pretending to be a user page when it is a name that somebody could register.--SVTCobra 01:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I don't immediately see why deleting the Küñall pages would be desirable. They were created when User:Küñall was renamed to User:Cuatro Remos; seems like they could be useful history for someone trying to sort out what went on. If they were considered actively undesirable, one might thing someone would have arranged that redirects not be created when users are renamed (though admittedly that's reasoning from an expectation of people making sensible decisions). --Pi zero (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It may be of no doing by Diego and just a quirk of multiple renames/account changes and/or moves. The fact remains, "Küñall" is a name that is currently available to register. If some new person creates an account with that name, should they be saddled with this user page on Wikinews? I think not. However, I do see there are multiple pages within Wikinews which link to User:Küñall, so I shall not be so hasty in my deletion. --SVTCobra 01:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Tried to create the account, in order to prevent impersonation, but I had no luck. "The username "Küñall" is too similar to the following usernames: Kunal l; Kunall; Cuatro_Remos; Please choose another username". I guess it won't be possible to create that account. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should point out, the actual accreditation is associated with a fourth account: Diego Grez (t · c · b). Are there any more? --SVTCobra 01:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In my mind, that one had gone without saying; it was his username during his main active period here. --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I must insist that this gets sorted out. All but one account seem to be still existing (as in not renamed). Furthermore, User:Cuatro Remos is displaying the credentials which belong to User:Diego Grez. If you are 100% certain, then update Wikinews:Credential verification. If not, User:Cuatro Remos will need to apply just like a new user. (P.S. I also think the other user pages need to say something like "Former account of Cuatro Remos" and not a straight-up redirect.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra, I am not sure what the issue here is. I have never tried to cause trouble here, and I believe people here can know for sure this is me and that was me, too. I don't even remember the passwords for all of these accounts, that's why I quit using the one with my real name. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cuatro Remos: You aren't causing "trouble" but the issue is when we issue credentials and allow people to make original reports. This is a thing that is hard to earn and you seem to think "I can just close one account and open another and transfer the credentials." And the bit about "your real name" is ... well, let's call it horse hockey. The credentials template displays what you have told us is your real name. You are redirecting from accounts with "your real name" to your new account. Wow. Nobody will find Diego Grez now, lol. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. Well, of course, I am referring to your old reasons. Today, it seems that it is because you "forgot" the password for the old accounts. Frankly, this gets worse every time you contribute. --SVTCobra 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, in these nine-years as an accredited reporter, I have never used the credentials and don't think I ever will. There is no point in keeping it. For sure, I can't thank hard enough those who trusted me back in 2010, but given that, after all those years some people have decided to get picky, I have no other option than to resign the "attribution". --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cuatro Remos: I don't see any need for you to resign anything. --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't either. But we need to get our records straight and control which user pages display credentials. --SVTCobra 00:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to state this officially:
Therefore we do have formal confirmation by Diego Grez that Cuatro Remos is the same person who was accredited while their account name was Diego Grez. --Pi zero (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you then going to update Wikinews:Credential verification or is it too late? I never asked Cuatro Remos to be a part of this discussion. I know we are talking a period of ten years, but some the history you revealed shows even more renames. It borders on disruption in my opinion, but the point of all this is our list of accredited reporters. (who can vote is very secondary). If you, Pi zero, think this collection of account histories link it all together, then change Wikinews:Credential verification. It really is that simple. Put it under "Cuatro Remos". --SVTCobra 01:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra, you're coming across rather, well, harshly, and I don't really understand why. Diego is a good friend of many years, and there has never been any doubt about who they are. I have nothing against neatifying our tracking of things on the accreditation page, but I honestly thought, when you left your note here just a few hours ago, that I could take a day, or perhaps even two or three, to find a good moment to sort calmly and carefully through all the pieces of this situation and work out just what should go where. I didn't expect this situation to escalate rapidly over just a few hours. It seems the internet can make human interaction more difficult.

Atm I still mean to follow my original plan, taking my time within reason. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't mean to. But I thought we had an unspoken agreement that it would be sorted out when we last touched this subject three weeks ago. And I know, Cuatro is not running around in the world, going to movie premieres or anything with our "powerful" accreditation. However, three weeks ago, I thought you'd fix the discrepancy, especially since we are voting on someone else now. I am old, but maybe my time horizon of things I do next hasn't become as long as yours. I have always looked at accreditation as something special, and in order for it to be special, certain limits need to be enforced. I've never asked for it (nor will I oversight) because I do intend to remain anonymous as best possible. Anyway, I re-opened this with my feeling it was somewhat urgent. But as you saw, someone has notifications set for everything. And then I felt like I was being fed a load of bullshit, which it still tastes like. True, I don't overlap in activity with the user in question, and don't share the friendship that you do. And again, I am condensing years, but it just looks crazy with all these accounts. And then to reclaim them with redirects? I have never seen this on any project. If you change your name, your account is moved. If you lost your password, you might be lucky to post a message on the 'dead' account that you have a new name. But this web of redirects which was hard to untangle ... it didn't feel right. And why set it up if one is not participating in the project anymore? Anyway, if I had a pointed comment in your direction, it was because it could have easily been fixed weeks ago as far as I see. It's a simple edit. Why make a note to do it later when it could be done immediately? --SVTCobra 02:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got a dreadful backlog of urgent things I'm earnestly trying to get to and am failing to get to; this one honestly just slipped out of my sphere of attention. I don't mind being reminded, although your reminder came to me at a moment when I was not at all in a position to act instantly. Nor did I think I needed to act instantly. When I said you're coming across harshly, though, I really meant you seem to be coming across harshly to Diego. I really try to make Wikinews a home-from-home that far-flung Wikinewsies can come back to and be welcomed; and no, I don't compromise standards for that. It should be possible to keep those things from conflicting.

It's seemed as if you thought, despite my vouching for him, that Diego was trying to pull of some sort of flim-flam. Nothing of the sort. Over the years Diego has not completely lost touch; he was welcome when he came back to write the obit for Chavez; and I verified each thing that happened to his accounts as it happened. Each step was simple and above-board at the time; despite the overall accumulation, there is no mystery here. He set up an alternate account, and used the most basic, standard technique to prove the two accounts were held by the same person: through the primary account, edit the user page of the alternate account acknowledging it as an alternate. I may have advised him at the time on how to do that, though it's been a long time so idk for sure. A bunch of Wikinewsies have set up alternate accounts and confirmed them that way. I have such an account myself, User:Pi one, that I almost never use. Later, each of his two accounts was renamed, using the standard procedure for renaming accounts. All very ordinary.

Re taking action on this particular case: the hard part here isn't acting, it's figuring out exactly what-all to do. Possibly what will be wanted will be to tweak the data on the accreditation page and replace the redirects with calls to {{doppelganger}}; but I want to be thinking very clearly when I look over the situation as a whole and make that decision. I'm sorry things kind of flared here in the meantime. --Pi zero (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Prevention of talk page company spamEdit

Users to set specific actions to be taken when actions by users, such as edits, match certain criteria. A filter could be created to prevent anonymous users from adding external links, or to block a user who removes more than 1000 characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QUBESMAGAZINE (talkcontribs) 01:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall often seeing removal of more than 1000 characters at a time.

Adding external links is a necessary part of writing an article (for source citation), and I don't think we want to prevent anonymous users from writing articles even though we do very strongly encourage them to get an account. --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


@Pi zero, Mikemoral, SVTCobra: Hi, please block 大诺史 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like SVTCobra got it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


Link in wiki page about the Northern Snakehead fish that says “ Snakehead fish appear in large near Potomac River” lead me to empty page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:846:c201:4950:c536:7dd3:cd6b:6316 (talkcontribs) 15:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Where was this link? --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ip vandalised my user page.Edit

could someone stop that ip please ty. Baozon90 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: I gave them a temporary block, of the usual length for IP vandalism on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Decrease protectionEdit

Hi. Can an admin please remove the 'cascading' protection from User talk:InfantGorilla/Archive 1? There are multiple templates transcluded there that should be editable. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Any protection on those templates should be decided individually. --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Open request for adminshipEdit

Wikinews:Requests for permissions#acagastya (talk · contribs) — adminship has been open for over 5 months. Can a crat please close it? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Now over 7 months... this is getting a bit ridiculous. Unanimous support so far. Pinging crats: @Bawolff: @Blood Red Sandman: @Pi zero: @TUFKAAP: can someone please close Wikinews:Requests for permissions#acagastya (talk · contribs) — adminship? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of closing it, but Gryllida has now asked a question. I've been wondering quite how to handle that. --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
There should be a clear standard length for permissions requests... (COI admitted) The top of Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions says "If it has been over a week and no one has gotten back to you about your request for Reviewer access, feel free to drop a note at the talk page of an administrator.", but I opened my request three weeks ago, and the last edit to the page was almost a week ago. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed lengths like that start to make sense for big projects. I'll take a look at yours soon; acagastya's seems worth dealing with first; I hope to get to that either tonight or tomorrow. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC), the request for adminship was closed. My request for reviewer is still open, with 1 "wait" and 2 "support" comments. I did some digging, and it seems like the last time someone became a reviewer under non-fast-track procedures was Acagastya in 2017!!! (Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 9#Acagastya (talk · contribs – Edit rights)). Since then, TUFKAAP and DragonFire1024 have both lost their reviewer rights through inactivity. In other words, the number of reviewers is going down, and the last time a new reviewer was promoted was 3 years ago. Before that, Green Giant was promoted in 2015, and before that, the last one I can find is from 2012. Food for thought --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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)


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)