Wikinews:Admin action alerts

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

(Redirected from WN:ALERT)
Jump to: navigation, search

Requesting a block for a violation of policy? 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.


[edit] Pages requested for speedy deletion

There are no articles for this topic.

Refresh

Contents


[edit] Edits to protected pages

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.


[edit] Unblock requests

If you are a blocked user add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page to request to be unblocked. These are the current requests:

There are no articles for this topic.

[edit] Archive requests

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.

[edit] 3RR Violations

Please list 3RR Violations in the following format:

== Username ==
'''Original Version''': <Original Version>
*<first revert diff>
*<second revert diff>
*<third revert diff>
*<fourth revert diff>
--~~~~

You may list incomplete violations by saying "not yet" for the fourth or third diffs, but incomplete violations must be deleted after 24 hours from the first diff. Administrators applying a block for a 3RR violation should note that the first block is up to 24 hours.

[edit] Deletions on Commons

Wikinews:CommonsTicker is now active again.

[edit] Anything else

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

[edit] Random musings from Wikimania

As I am stuck in Cairo airport for quite some time I have been dumping as much of what I picked up at Wikimania onto the Misc. section of the Water Cooler. Please reasd this and add comments, I don't want to be dealing with all of this myself. There is a lot to go through, and it is important that we work out what order things need to happen in. Ad-hoc emails to staff and board tend to get a quick look then left for later and forgotten about. Sue wants a list of requirements for Wikinews and we need to draw it up in the order it has to happen. Since some of these points will require developer intervention this has to be carefully thought out. Some items will be lower priority, so add your ideas such as "How to get to a stage where Google's news agregator will list us" and so on. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the subjects that Brian McNeil has started for thought about the future:
  1. No article left behind
  2. Involvement of Journalism schools with Wikinews
  3. Tips for Reporting on a conference
  4. Recruitment and retention
  5. Mobile Wikinews
  6. Wikinews workflow

--SVTCobra 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SVTCobra, all the ones on the Water Cooler were typed up in Cairo airport while I drank three large cups of real coffee. By the time I got to my gate I was shaking. :) --Brian McNeil / talk 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
On the subject journalism schools using wikinews, we're apparently being talked about by blogs. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's Jon Harald Søby's blog. He's somewhat active here. --SVTCobra 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Proposed policies

There are currently 19 pages that have been sitting in Category:Proposed policies for a while now. These should either be demoted from being a "Proposed policy", or discussed and put to formal proposal state as to whether or not to make them policies. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of the idea of proposed policies always staying proposed (policies should generally be followed, but if you have a good excuse, you shouldn't feel constrained by policy nor should policy be unchangable). just my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think after a time they should be marked as historical, and the proposed tag removed. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose proposed policies being removed in this way. Something should be allowed to sit as a proposed policy for a significant length of time and perhaps revisited later to see if it should be brought into the official policy fold. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what is a "significant length of time" for these purposes? 6 months? 5 years? Cirt (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Decades if need be. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL, well, perhaps if there is disagreement on removing some from this state, at the very least we could try putting some to a poll, to assess community consensus on them. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates


[edit] Bad username

The account Anti George Walker Bush (talk · contribs) was recently created. Is this considered a username against policy? Thanks, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. George Walker Bush IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A MISDEMEANOR! (talk · contribs) was just created. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the names are against policy. I wrote a message asking them to change it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Both accounts now indef. blocked. Relates to below. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption and attempts to import feuds from Wikipedia

[edit] I-210/FreewayGuy/Rschen7754

Note that 75.47.128.0/17 has been blocked for one month. As has 69.4.5.105.

This is a feud being spread from Wikipedia where there are what appears to be three parties involved. First there's Freewayguy; he ended up blocked for vandalism after he was told his English was so bad that he caused damage and never contributed anything useful. Some of you may recall the blocking admin, Rschen7754. He's currently blocked on Wikipedia for his part in this, but Freeway guy has been dissing him on various wikis and rather than let local admins deal with it he was stalking Freewayguy and demanding punative blocks (or raising de-admins when he didn't get them). Lastly we have the IPs, which tie to user I-210 - initially labelled as a sock of Freewayguy on Wikipedia, but later found to just be a troll. From checkuser I can state that the currently blocked range and IP are responsible for several unacceptably named accounts as well as trying to provoke Freewayguy and Rschen7754 into warring with each other.

Please keep an eye on contributions in the 75.47.0.0-75.47.255.255 range - if any of this crap appears with the third octet less than 128 then undo my block of 75.47.128.0/17 and extend it to 75.47.0.0/16. Similarly, watch for IPs around 69.4.5.105, this may also be dynamic and require a range block.

Please leave this notice here until mid-January in case the troublemakers start up again when the block expires. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

65.4.5.105 indef. blocked as proxy. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
75.47.135.250 blocked for attacks. I don't know what to do, if anything, with the rangeblock to cover this. Anonymous101talk 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This was the user editing their own talk. To translate the rangeblock it is 74.47.128.0 to 74.47.255.254 inclusive. The range block does not include denying talk page access. There is a risk that would hit unintended users and they would not be able to appeal. SBC California must have some nice people for customers and not just this wanker. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Helpful rangeblock info and tools

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Brian, OK, I suppose a no talk block would be unfair. Cirt: Thanks for the links, I'll bookmark them for future use. Anonymous101talk 07:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Range blocks work on binary maths, if you can remember your powers of two they're fairly easy to work out. A block on 127.0.0.0/XX will hit any IP that matches on the first XX bits of the specified address. So, a /8 blocks anything starting 127., a /16 blocks anything starting 127.0., and a /24 blocks anything starting 127.0.0. Numbers not divisible by eight don't simply fall on the dot boundaries, so you need to add up the set bit values to get the start and end of the range. Work out which of the four numbers the mark falls in, take the value in that number and split into its powers of 2 (128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1). For The /17 I blocked, 74.47.128.0/17 that's simple, the previous block 74.47.192.0/18 is 128+64 (11000000 base 2). Had it been 74.47.128.0/18 it would have been 128+0, so 74.47.128.0-74.47.191.254 would have been blocked (the bit corresponding to 64 is always zero, so 10****** base 2 is blocked).
Someone should probably put together a more concise explanation and add it to the blocking policy pages so people understand (a) How range blocks work (b) how to calculate them and (c) that they should not be too long. In many instances there would be a legitimate reason to ask for a checkuser on a range you plan to block to find out you're not hitting any innocent users. This was a case where, as I have the CU bit, I'd done those checks. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki wiki is helpful :) ..--Cometstyles 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a good idea by Brianmc (talk · contribs), we really could use more info on range blocking on the blocking policy pages. Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moulton/Rootology

Our friend Moulton (talk · contribs) has gotten himself indefinitely blocked over at Wikipedia for "block evasion". He has already tried to continue a debate from WP. Keep an eye on his behavior.--SVTCobra 17:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrick warned Moulton about bringing fights over from Wikipedia. The response was that said fight was news (go figure). I assume this is news in the warped and twisted world that is Wikipedia Review, so I issued a more stern warning that I will indef. block Moulton if there is any more nonsense about his WP block.
I think it is important other administrators know about this and are ready to issue initial bans if there are further trolling efforts such as Moulton's edit to Rootology (talk · contribs)'s talk.
For those who are new around here, or missed our last visit from Moulton, he caused a lot of grief over how he thinks we should draft our code of ethics. Oh, he writes flowery drivel that is content-free and based on classical literature and philosophical treatises. If you don't understand him, it's just because he's waving his highly educated willy around. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Before I stopped participating in WR he and I got into it there over my attempting to call him out on his BS, and he then began to sporadically bother me as well on WP, and was upset over the fact that he has no real power over me with his favorite trick, which is posting the real names of WMF users to cause them upset (I go by my nickname, but my real name has never exactly been a secret). He's also upset because I reverted his trolling on the WP Arbcom election pages yesterday, so he's taken to posting to me wherever he can still get away with it. Sorry he's spilled it back over here. :( rootology (T) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he's actually blocked on English Wikipedia, Meta, and on English Wikiversity (by Jimbo Wales at first, now community endorsed) and on Wikisource now as of today. He simply feels that legally the WMF cannot block him and is proud of the fact that he can reset his IP extremely fast from a 260k pool of IPs. So, there's no easy way to stop him unless someone from the WMF actually probably contact his ISP, Verizon. rootology (T) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts"
Personal tools
In other languages