Wikinews:Admin action alerts

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
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.

Pages requested for speedy deletion[edit]

There are no articles for this topic.


Edits to protected pages[edit]

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.

Unblock requests[edit]

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:

There are no articles for this topic.

Archive requests[edit]

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 else[edit]

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}}.


Rvplpr (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

This user is, quite clearly, a single-purpose account. I've had enough of what's RVPL PR — i.e. the PR department of Rvplus Inc, which lists Cary Lee Peterson as chairman, and as the holding company for penny stock ECCO2.

Does someone else want to wield the bannhammer in as SEO-friendly way as-possible? Ideally, linking to the SEC suspension of trading? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No. If there's consensus to block, then we should do so neutrally; we shouldn't use the block summary for revenge, or a soap box, et cetera – merely to record the circumstances of the block. Have we warned the user regarding their edits? They look like they're at least trying to work within the framework, even if the content is a bit off. Microchip08 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Check their deleted contributions; they've repeatedly attempted to use Wikinews for this deception. ECCO2, similarly, is a penny stock with no trading and a tenuously fictional connection to the UN.
This is an attempt to defraud, which is the basis upon which I believe any user/user talk ban message should be worded. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Just link to this discussion, or an archived version thereof. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • ban I try to allow for multiple scenarios with these folks, but in this case I find it's no longer tenable to suppose they're anything other than a PR instrument. Having dealt with them directly for months, I see clearly they aren't trying to work within the framework. Thank you, brianmc, for clarifying what I'd not quite got a handle on, though I'd been sensing it, the meaning of the account name — Rvplus PR.
An interesting feature of this unambiguous case of news-site abuse is that the person perpetrating it may have a worldview making it impossible for them to perceive what they're doing as wrong; on the contrary, they understand "news" to mean "vehicle for disseminating propaganda". This can be a difficulty in discussing memetics: the intentions often belong not to individual people, but to larger entities that program, or select, their minions to think in ways that will promote the entity's agenda. Ultimately what matters for us is the individual's dedication to fundamentally news-antithetical behavior. --Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Lol. In the above description of "larger entities" I refrained from citing religions as a classic example. But I see Rvplpr's latest remark actually refers to "doing God's work". --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite. By impeding some "God-given right" to publish their crap on Wikinews, I'm apparently libeling them. If they want to try and make that allegation stick, they'd have to come out from behind their PR account and challenge what I said as defamation in a Scottish court.
Instead, we've the "Brian's a horrible person" grandstanding. Yup, I am. I'm one of the horrible people who'd have to defend anything Wikinews published. Part and parcel of that is nobody should have to try and untangle deliberate obfuscation and deception around a Balkan-sized conflict of interest. Persisting in peddling this crap does take faith, only God could forgive them for pushing such piffle; certainly nobody would forgive Wikinews for actually publishing it. I'd be surprised if anyone forgave Yahoo for publishing their pressers, but I don't know anyone who looks at Yahoo for news. This leaves me with the unease that when this 'stuff' is being politely rebuffed, the general Google search ranks it highly.
If this user had registered as "RVPlus Inc PR.", they would've been banned months ago. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Entertainment value is increasing with this user, I am now to be reported to the "Wiki board". I really would like more input, hopefully leading to a quick consensus to ban. I did note an IP stuck the latest Peterson promo-piece up for review again; that IP resolved to NYC, making me conclude it could-well be Peterson, if not a close friend of. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    There are slight differences between libel and defamation: e.g. communicating libelous statements directly to the alleged victim, with or without an audience, does not generally constitute defamation. - Amgine | t 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Immediately for disruptive legal threats and patent dishonesty. To be clear, a community ban requires consensus to overturn, unlike a block which can be appealed straight to any administrator. We went over that difference for Saki/Saqib. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the nonce. First, this is probably not the appropriate venue for a community ban? dunno. Second, although annoying and offensive, I'm not sure the user's behaviour has been shown to be persistent. Too soon, my angel. Patience.1. (On another hand, by all means extended block for legal threats.) P.S. I hate that I actually 'voted' on this. - Amgine | t 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Amgine, is the evidence they've been out to promote their "client" since February over on the deletion request for the latest insufficient evidence of persistence? Perhaps we should be calling for Rvplpr being given a topic ban on Cary Lee Peterson?
The legal threats don't bother me, they're inept and not credible whilst xe remains more anonymous than the 'Urban Spaceman'. My concern is they're successfully using Wikinews for SEO; even with nothing published as news, their repeat attempts to promote Cary Lee Peterson are coming up on the first page for regular searches on Google and duckduckgo.
BRS suggests an immediate block; as the one with administrative rights who called Rvplpr out on this, I've refrained from doing so. Having seen the search impact xyr work achieved, I've added __NOINDEX__ to both the latest article, and a local page for the image (hadn't seen that tab before, I'd just tried creating local pages and been happy to find it worked).
Amgine highlights this might not be the place to discuss a ban. It is, though, where to ask if there is someone happy to take administrative action. I think I can be considered to have recused myself from ArbCom down. How we proceed, after any block is imposed, and the matter is discussed within the community — perhaps with the pseudonym action is proposed against — isn't SEO, I'd prefer if it were SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh, for obvious reasons I was unaware of that history. On another hand, so long as the user is not disruptive over their constant efforts at promotion being deleted, I'm not sure they really need a ban. This user, on the other hand, is becoming disruptive that their efforts are achieving nothing.
<Which brings to mind a non-sequitur rant about a statement made today by Canada's central bank: as the 6 years of near-zero interest rates have not achieved their goal of economic stimulus, the financial industry should assume severely loose credit will be continued for the foreseeable future. Have they never heard the chestnut definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome? end rant>
Anyway, I would suggest we wait to see what happens after the block expires. - Amgine | t 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've nailed in a lengthy immediate block in the absence of any opposition to that. I intend that to be a block, not a ban. That ends any instant disruption and lets us get on with deciding if we need a full ban. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I've obviously not quite got the deletion request for Rvlpr's upload to Commons right, sorry to prod whoever we've got from Commons to look at that — but there are several images xe chucked on Commons to drop on stuff here; almost-all with that ridiculous PR claim xe denies here and reference to the never-registered --Brian McNeil / talk 04:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I investigated Brian McNeil's argument and there is obvious bias and attempt to slander Peterson. Look at his comments and look at the rebuttal and supporting content. Trying to understand if Brian knows Peterson and has a personal vendetta against him or he just has a hatred toward people in the world doing humanitarian and philanthropic works. News articles about goods works should be exploited. How could you call this propaganda? They're simply reporting an action or event that happened to support a cause and that is news. Brian's demeanor is out of place and he is the only party that should be banned in this situation. You can observe the proofs and media content from Peterson or his affiliates and see the truth. Brian sounds a bit angry and jealous. Just my thoughts as an outsider looking in the window Mickeechen (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at their contributions, so I can't judge on that. I can, however, say that anytime someone has an article deleted and immediately says, "yeah!!?? Well then I'm going to sue!!!11!", that's an instant ban. No legal threats are allowed on Wikinews. The individual in question violated that involite rule, and deserved to be banned for that reason. — Gopher65talk 13:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of this Wiki dispute and see no mention lawsuits or threat of any kind. The writers and users are clearly stating a fact that McNeil has gone out of his way to pass biased comments as official facts based on information that was created from his own opinion. The tone of the comments clearly displayed this negative altercation that allowed him to abuse his authority as an admin for Wikinews. Every statement made by the user Rvplr were viable and verifiable. You guys should be a better job policing these incidents. Rvplpr did nothing wrong and you can even see postings in Talk history where they aksed for some help and support revising and submitting their articles. Since when was it righteous the flout and rebuke a person who is merely asking for a little help from the senior Wiki users? See my point? Mickeechen (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We're neutral, seeking to report objective fact. We welcome those who value neutrality. Those who do not (for example, those who think it's not propaganda if it's for a cause they believe in) should find a different outlet. --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pizero, I appreciate your feedback. Whereas, bias is bias. Slander and libel are what they are. Brian McNeil had no reason to say what he posted as a respected authority of Wiki community. Its people like that that start hate mobs and ugly motives that are not positive for our community and history as we know it. When you dish out ugly comments and opinions that transgress facts you are now part of the negative affect and no longer considered neutral or positive. Mickeechen (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Which would be your home wiki? I only see three edits on Wikinews, so you're new here. This individual, which you cannot see due to their contributions being deleted, set out to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes. When called on it, they resorted to legal threats. Their talk page gives you absolutely no indication of the amount of people's time they've wasted.
So, please clarify how you can have reviewed a dispute which refers to deleted nonsense which, I repeat, you cannot see; a whole four months-worth of deleted nonsense. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to come past and make the exact same query, point and what ever else. How has one adequately "investigated" Brian without access to the context?
It appears to me that Mickeechen is someone related to or closely affiliated with Rvplpr. The discussion contributions are very similar. If my observation is correct, then this would be a clear example of meatpuppeting — a blockable offence on this site.--RockerballAustralia contribs 07:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is why the discussion is here, on WN:AAA; it requires administrative privileges to review the context. In fact, you'd probably need administrative access over on Commons too. I had every reason to post what I posted; were I as-horrid, and vindictive, as is being implied here I would've nominated a good-deal more than a couple of self-promotional images over on Commons for deletion. Not my home project, so I can't say if posting a scan of an honorary degree contributes much there. I would, however, expect something with trademark in the filename to set off alarm bells. Strange that the uploader says "own work, I'm Cary Lee Peterson" there ... but it might explain the serious problems with xe contributing here and not disclosing their conflict of interest.
I hope you, Mickeechen (talk · contribs), have no such similar conflict of interest. If you're prepared to state so, and provide an email address, someone with admin access will happily provide copies of the deleted contributions. Only then would you be in a position to say whether or not my remarks were uncalled-for. The already-visible evidence (over on Commons) strongly suggests they were. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

McNeil, lets stay to focal aspect of this discussion. You critiqued 'Peterson' related media content. You claimed it was not news worthy and it was propaganda when in fact it was connected to actually current events, which are deemed as 'news'. You made a major effort to ban the media content based on personal opinion and nonfactual reference. I'm new to the community and yes I do support Peterson and his fight against human trafficking. I do not know him but found your rubbish in Google and felt I should voice my thoughts on the matter. You maybe need to do your research on who you attempt to cast defamation and slander towards. Your actions only show your bigotry and over the top liberal outlook on reality. Thus, you have no business being an administrator on this website doing such a wicked and corrupt act. Mickeechen (talk)

  • I am sticking to that, and quite like your description; if Mr Peterson wants to get a blog, that's his choice. It would take time, and effort, to push the ranking of such. Wikinews is not a blog, and Conflict of interest is quite a serious matter here. Would you like a copy of what I based my conclusions on? Or, are you going to continue to deflect attention away from why opposing what looks like Peterson, a friend, or business associate, from trying to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes was the right thing to do.
The block is finite, and will expire. The only other aspect of the matter that might be worth you looking into — instead of trying to attack me — is deletion requests. I'm sure when what looks to be Mr Peterson's account is unblocked, that's the policy route he'd prefer to go down. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

McNeil still avoids the focal aspects and topic. Show what your motives are and what you really have to prove. I think its just bigotry and corruption. You are abusing your authority and its becoming very obvious. I know the characters and you stand out like a bad rash. The community needs to rid these types of derelicts that contaminate the internet with mob and witch hunt antics. Read the history. Standard compliance was far bypassed here due to your abuse of authority as an admin and I've read enough McNeil. You're tagged and we see your true colours. Mickeechen (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Go troll in traffic, I'm not taking your bait. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock blocks[edit]

  • Following the results of a CheckUser; and, seeing that one unearthed account seemed intent on resuming the previously-observed SEO activities, whilst the other sidestepped queries as-to their relationship with Rvlpr, I have duplicated the original block expiry timestamp from Rvlpr's block. Talk page access is not blocked for the two accounts in-question; I will leave it up to others to review whatever tales might accompany unblock requests. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian McNeil has carried this matter on and its began quite toxic to my observation. I've read the history and the argument. The users mentioned clearly support the right to submit an article about an actual event that took place and the group or individual responsible for the event. I've read a series of exaggerated, falsified, and defaming statements posted by Brian McNeil. The users were banned for what exactly. Telling you that you are wrong for what you are doing? The truth is the truth and you are abusing your authority on here. Something that I will address with superiors above your head. The direction this is taking is totally counterproductive and quite ridiculous. Not sure why this type of behavior is allowed. These characters give Wiki community a bad name. Mickeechen is my relative and yes I'm writing this because I was disgusted to talk with her and hear about this situation and what it is all about the begin with. I do not know why you think cyber-bullying is something that you can get away with and hide behind a screen name. You do appear to be helping the education and transfer of valid knowledge to the public. Lindachen82 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian has expressed a collective frustration in a very non-PC way. Mickechen has claimed to "investigate" Brian but has, apparently, refused to look at the relevant deletion request or the deleted articles (for which Brian offered access). Such a refusal, coupled with the accusations being made are considered trolling on this site.
The articles relating to this issue were contributed by Rvlpr. This contributor repeatedly refused to write in house style, refused to write to our NPOV standard and appears to have gone out of their way to cause a general annoyance. Another example of trolling.
Both users were blocked because of this trolling.--RockerballAustralia contribs 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@RockerballAustralia: I am sorry but I am not familiar with the term 'trolling'. My sister and I express no negative intent. We speak only from factual observations and the sequence of events. I am a full-time medical student and do not have time to spend on Wiki community to learn your language and lingo. My sister is an intern for United Nations and knows the two users that you banned. The acronyms you use are unfamiliar as me using one of the medical terms that I use on a day to day basis with you. You all should have some consideration for new users and focus on educating them and not making effort to cyber-bully or cut people down. The finger pointing and falsifying statements or twisted comments are a form of manipulation and abuse. Like it or not but it is true. I've read what all sides have written and its quite clear that Brian McNeil was the instigator of this ordeal. In square one McNeil should have made effort as an admin to help Rvplpr modify the content for Wiki format rather than insulting someone who was simply making a conscious effort to publish an announcement of a current event that she thought was important for the rest of society to read about. We could carry-on ages about this matter but its probably more wise to shift your efforts to positive activities. Publishing news about politics and philanthropy are quite important in society. Would you prefer to read about serial killers and rapists or articles about organizations that help victims of rape and poverty? Its a shame to see this some of negative discharge from a community of individual who are supposed to be quite intelligent. Lindachen82 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In consultation with other admins, I've extended the block to Lindachen82, timestamp duplicated again. Obvious meatpuppet; on recommendation, didn't bother to investigate sockpuppetry. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair call. Meat puppet by their own admission. --RockerballAustralia contribs 00:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, they're claiming to be a meatpuppet and giving the relevant excuses (same household) to call into question accusations of sockpuppetting. That doesn't wash because this new puppet popped up to start defaming me before the automatic block on the underlying IP address would've expired. Being issued with a new DHCP lease 'just in time' to create a new account and pick up the reigns of their slander-wagon? That would require quite a bit of luck.
Here, we're also being presented with a call to publish the "sort of news" they desire to publish, so I don't hold high hopes that this is resolved. No fault is seen in attempting to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes, and not a single policy the various accounts have been referred to appears to have been read. This is not a recipe for modified behaviour. I'd rather not raise the matter with the UN's Press Office, but if they persist I will. Should such be the route I'm pushed into, they'd get all the deleted contributions from Rvlpr — unlike the account we're now told is an intern, who ignored requests to state their conflict of interest to obtain the evidence they claimed to have reviewed. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Username: Arb[edit]

A bit over a year ago, I blocked user Arb, after hesitating a bit, for "unacceptable username". The user has now contacted me via email, asking me to reconsider. Xe is evidently a longstanding en.wp user, and remarks xe's never once been approached by anyone to arbitrate anything.

I don't have super-strong feelings about this. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tough one. I can see where you're coming from, and I might have done the same thing myself. Given how anal the admins are on Wikipedia about things like this, I'm not sure how much of a leg we have to stand on. They have an Arbitration Committee too, and they haven't seen fit to block him. Maybe we could contact an admin on Wikipedia who deals with this sort of thing and get their opinion on the name? I understand that we have different rules than they do, but this is one of those situations where I think collaboration would be beneficial. — Gopher65talk 03:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've temporarily unblocked the user while we deal with this. I don't think they're being malicious, given their (short, but reasonable) edit history. If the user goes crazy before a decision is made we can always reblock. — Gopher65talk 15:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Gopher65. Some background. This started due to Unified login - Arb is my username on 36 of the 37 wikis (all except pt). I edit primarily at en and commons; see Quentinv57's SUL Info Tools. There have been no issues with the name anywhere but here. Arb (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)