Wikinews:Water cooler/policy
Page last updated: Friday 06 at 1449 UTC.
|
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
|
Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.
You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.
Header notice
[edit]The header on most or all pages says:
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Sister Projects Task Force has recommended archiving all editions of Wikinews. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is expected to announce final decision in December or January. As a precaution, help is wanted with migration, and Wikinews needs YOU!.
There are at least three problems with this header. There should be a word such as "the" before the phrase "final decision"; December has already come and gone; and the last sentence should not end with both an exclamation mark and a period. It should say something like this instead:
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Sister Projects Task Force has recommended archiving all editions of Wikinews. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is expected to announce the final decision in January. As a precaution, help is wanted with migration, and Wikinews needs YOU!
--Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have reworded the statement and moved it into the random selection section of the script. The statement now reads:
The Wikimedia Foundation's Sister Projects Task Force has released their recommendations to the Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees must now discuss and vote on the next course of action.
- I disagree with the idea we should focus our time and energy on only one option of many possible outcomes. Also, the summary section for Wikinews does not mention a fork as a recommended solution.
- Additionally, I have requested an update from LLosa (WMF), a Board member. Hopefully we can get some closure on this matter soon so we can all move on without the uncertainty looming over our heads.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Proposed article talk guideline
[edit]- Note: related discussion: Article tables, the PDF source, and translation
Hello,
I was confused about some discussions, suggesting to make a official guideline about usage of article talk pages at Wikinews
In light of time constrained work, I am proposing the following items for the article talk page guidelines:
Please share your thoughts, then I can put it into a separate wiki page. Gryllida 02:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- This seems useful and helpful, thanks. HKLionel TALK 16:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Proposal to amend WN:GP
[edit]I would like to propose amending Wikinews:Global permissions to allow stewards to perform non-emergency CheckUser checks, given that the two local checkusers (Acagastya and Cromium) are currently inactive, and especially in light of this this recently-participated nomination. It's similar to how the English Wikibooks allows this, because on that project, the stewards can perform said non-emergency CU checks even when there are local checkusers. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. However, do the stewards recognize 'emergency CU' cases? In the past, when I've requested CU from stewards, they've always redirected me back to the local CUs (granted, I didn't state it was an 'emergency').
- I also don't know that we have a huge issue to correct here. Our historical need for CU services is relatively low: WN:CHECK. It can be frustrating in the moment to have to wait for a local response, but it has rarely been an emergency need. Given the low volume of requests, steward-based CU for all requests may be better.
- I personally think it might be better for the project to have no local CUs and rely fully on stewards for CU services. As mentioned in the discussion linked above, the threshold for electing a CU is probably unattainable at the moment, given our low contributor count. Pinging local CUs for inclusion: @Acagastya @Cromium.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging them will not work, they do not check wiki. Have to harrass them off-wiki for a response... ☹️ Gryllida 20:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- When a person has the CU bit, is that across multiple platforms or only here?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Typically local. Codename Noreste (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- When a person has the CU bit, is that across multiple platforms or only here?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, the last email I received from you was later labelled as a misunderstanding -- I'd be available for CU as and when something serious needs to be done. It is not that frequent, but happens once in a while. •–• 12:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging them will not work, they do not check wiki. Have to harrass them off-wiki for a response... ☹️ Gryllida 20:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I recently saw on Meta that EPIC has removed the remaining checkusers for this wiki (per m:Special:Diff/30123181), and that CU requests can be forwarded to m:SRCU, until the project now has local checkusers (which might not be the case for the foreseeable future). Codename Noreste (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
- There is one open CU request for permissions at this page, which you are welcome to comment or vote on. Gryllida 00:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- I updated the policy.[1]Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Clarification: use of administrative undelete on articles authored by the admin
[edit]- See the original discussion: User talk:Gryllida#Unilateral undeletion
Non-administrators cannot undelete articles themselves and must instead request undeletion. This effectively requires non-administrators to request undeletion. Administrative tools should not be used to bypass the same undeletion process that applies to non-administrators.
A situation arose recently involving the undeletion of an article that had been deleted through the normal WN:PROD process. The article was subsequently undeleted by the same administrator who originally authored it, with the intent of continuing development.
This raises a process question about the appropriate use of administrative tools.
Wikinews:Undeletion guidelines indicates that articles deleted following process should normally have an undeletion request if they were wrongly deleted. In this case, the article was properly deleted according to policy, no undeletion request was filed, and the article was restored directly by the author using their administrative privileges.
The questions for the community are:
- Is it appropriate for an administrator to undelete an article they authored after it has been deleted through a normal process such as WN:PROD?
- If non-admins can't undelete unlilaterally, shouldn't admins abide by the same rules that are effectively forced on non-admins? If the author believes the deletion was incorrect, should the expected course instead be to request undeletion or seek community input?
The goal here is not to revisit the merits of the specific article, but to clarify expectations around the use of administrative tools when an administrator has a direct editorial interest in the page, which may raise conflict-of-interest concerns.
Community input would be appreciated so that we have a clearer shared understanding going forward.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do not understand the admins vs non-admins analogy. For any user who asks, for Gatwick purpose, I would undelete immediately. I don't see a need for me to ask another admin in that scenario. Gryllida (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- The guideline states clearly: "Articles which were deleted following process should only have an undeletion request if they were "wrongly" deleted..."
- This article was neither deleted wrongly, nor was an undeletion request made.
- > For any user who asks, for Gatwick purpose, I would undelete immediately.
- That's not what you did for Tduk. You instructed them to make an undeletion request.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting Gryllida should have made a request on the noticeboard and then performed the action themselves? Although even then, I think you are misinterpreting, for one reason another, what was asked of me. Tduk (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- What was asked of you?
- I was told to post here requesting the restoration...(by @Gryllida)[2], [3]
- I interpret that as you were asked to post at WN:AAA requesting an undelete. Which contradicts her statement that she "would undelete immediately."Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 00:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was 11pm, I needed sleep, AAA was faster option. Gryllida (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- (and then I undeleted it as soon as I got back online, not on that day but on some other day - as soon as my workload permitted). the point was that I would not wait for a vote, I would undelete on request as soon as I would be able to. Gryllida (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was 11pm, I needed sleep, AAA was faster option. Gryllida (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting Gryllida should have made a request on the noticeboard and then performed the action themselves? Although even then, I think you are misinterpreting, for one reason another, what was asked of me. Tduk (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)