Wikinews:Admin action alerts
|
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.
- 10 February 2012: Texas teen enters guilty plea in shooting trial
- 9 February 2012: Social bookmarks
[edit] Unblock requests
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.
[edit] Special:Contributions/70.224.32.115
IP blocked anonymous users only, account creation disabled, for one year; much too long for an anonymous IP unless it is static with a long history (and then is not a school, etc.) Since this is probably our young cat friend who uses dhcp releases, it's a rather pointless length of time. - Amgine | t 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Shortened the cat-fan's block to a reasonable time (two months). アンパロ Io ti odio! 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I beg to differ Amgine, dial-up is the exception, not the rule anymore. The majority of dynamic IPs for broadband are minimum 72-hour lease. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Incidentally, this is a CU imposed block on the kittiesonfire range, and I don't see that admins should be changing the imposition of blocks by Checkusers, they have their reasons for imposing blocks of this nature, and it's not for us as administrators to change them. They have their job for a reason. I would kindly ask that the block be returned to 1 year, and any appeals on the length be referred to the blocking CU, cirt. BarkingFish (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Cirt applied this block on April 30. However, the IP shows no contributions and no deleted contributions. Is this a block in error? I would expect for, say, kittiesonfire that a range block would have been applied. Needless to say, I can't do a proxy check from work ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Brian, every modem/router has the option to immediately release a DHCP-assigned IP. This is why our cat friend sometimes registers multiple accounts on multiple IPs within minutes of each other. Since this user *does* bounce IPs often, blocking for months is rather... well, pointless, isn't it? - Amgine | t 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah, but you're then left needing to wait until someone else takes the IP you had previously. Otherwise, you'll simply be reassigned it because the MAC address requesting, conveniently, matches a just-dropped lease. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Sadly, it appears we can't do any good with this. I'll unblock, at least for now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I would have appreciated it if the admin wishing to change the block had first contacted me as a courtesy at my user talk page, and I would have been responsive to that request. However, I will not raise any objections to this IP being unblocked at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Though I didn't initiate the discussion, I'll take that on board. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: - See also the existing 2-week block at en.wikipedia.org. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Renewed socking with 2 new sock accounts, again. Blocked, again. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
[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] Anything else
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}}.
[edit] abuse filter mismathch for Addiing email addresses to articles
GUL E SAMOOM گُلِ سموم FROM: DR PROFF. S. MUJEEB ZAFAR ANWAAR HAMEEDI PAKISTAN E MAIL: < proffhameedi@yahoo.com >
- Generally, that's because we do not permit provision of emails in articles - for the general reason that people don't want random strangers emailing them; or because invariably their inclusion is an attempt to spam us. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Block request
Hi. Please block Maxeyre (talk · contribs). This is a crosswiki spammer; I already globally locked all accounts, but this is a nonsul one. Thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Done --- nonsul amused me at first a little bit... ended up finding the notation as "no[n] Single Unified Login" (mentioning here just incase some of you don't know like the bizare me). :) Cheers, Gryllida 11:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser
Feel free to move subthreads from Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser to the archives subpages when the checks and blocks are completed. Then, when filing new requests related to old ones, just give a link to the appropriate archived subpage and subsection link. Thanks! -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Kittiesonfire is Dantherocker1
Just an FYI heads up, the "Kittiesonfire" socks = 
Confirmed as Dantherocker1 from en.wikipedia. All related socks can be blocked on sight. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Community ban proposal: Viriditas
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- We've got experienced users both involved and uninvolved in the case commenting here, and everyone is in agreement. Closing as banned. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose a community ban for the above user. The background is that this user was invited to have a shot at participating in mainspace after some trollish sniping in Comments: space. I must stress there is nothing wrong with intelligent trolling in Comments: space. If anybody feels a strong need to read the thread, it is available here.
Since then, a great deal of timewasting has been undergone. The first article created was here; really, a remarkably good first effort. The initial problem presented was that there are only sources apparently predicting what is to come, which are then being used to try and verify it actually took place. This is, of course, time travel (a theme from the legitimate Comments: ranting). This is also relatively simple to fix by adding a couple of confirmatory sources, and changing anything remaining to "was scheduled to".
The talkpage reaction is something quite extraordinary. There was a bit of back and forth, the ultimate result being utter refusal to even attempt fixing it; hardly the attitude of a useful editor. Apparently, the above, when explained, was "just making shit up" and I'm forced to conclude "Please quote tme the policy or guideline that says we can't use sources that are two days old," is a purposeful missing of the point. Even if not, it is a troubling attitude from anyone who is supposedly a helpful net-asset to the project.
A most extraordinary exchange is to be found at User talk:Viriditas between the subject and Brian. It is perhaps remarkable in part in that Brian was actually friendly, but the reaction is also incredible. To summarise, Brian offered some advice and a promise that a tarnished WP would not be held against the user here. This is, apparently, an "assumption of bad faith". Two further issues are of importance here; first of all, a point was put to Viriditas: many sources for short articles is counter-productive and rarely needed. Viriditas repeatedly refused to even acknowledge this, be it presented as advice or even as a question. Since xe has a thing for policies and guidelines, I feel obliged to here point out WN:CS. Given that, for once in his life, Brian is actually being reasonable on this talk page, the attitude displayed to him in the latter comments especially is interesting. The second issue: the comment about excessive source use being problematic and troublesome was made here. The breathtakingly brazen immediate reaction is these edits - adding several sources, keeping it short.
We now inevitably come to that article's talk page. A relatively trivial concern is raised about WebCite; once again, this is used as a starting shot to open a battleground. As-used it was apparently causing problems to people, yet a relativly simple request - to not shorten the URLs, which is where the problem seems to lie - is a "conclusion" this user "will not accept".
When told, bluntly, that xe was a troublemaker apparently using sarcasm, the immediate response was overblown sarcasm. Very funny. Disruption to make a point, amongst other things.
It gets better. Apparently, peer review is a very simple task: "Every letter of every word in this news report has been verified and can be easily vetted in 60 seconds." If you can't review an eleven-source article (yep, it's now an eleven-source monster) in sixty seconds you "(have) no business reviewing". We're all fucked, I guess. Such a cavalier approach to the review policy is, to my mind, utterly unacceptable. To compare, look at the history of One year on: Egyptians mark anniversary of protests that toppled Mubarak and how long that review took with just a couple more sources; and, I thought that was fast - the review comment "Seriously intense amount of work in a short timespan," was aimed at the article itself, but the review was equally speedy. Once again, attitude problem is demonstrated by "I will not be changing anything or re-submitting this for another review" and yet Viriditas "(knows) exactly what peer review is". Once again, we're avoiding answering simple questions. Actually, no, more refusing to answer them.
"Block away" was the reaction when it was suggested a block was highly likely for this disruption. Well, I think I'll do just that for a week. However, I'm inclinded to propose an indefinite full community ban. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Most definitely seems a case of "Disrupting Wikinews to prove a point". My original interaction with this user centred on the pepper-spray cop article. I'd say that Viriditas was looking for a complete (i.e. Wikipedia-esque) coverage of the issue; not a news report focussing on what was new. Xe also seemed to, at least initially, not grok what our Comments namespace is for. I'd say subsequent to being challenged to write here, xe is experiencing acute culture shock. As-ever, I'm the lightning rod for the output arising from such; and, I've stuck to my "no profanity" pledge put in place post-Tempodivalse. I'm neither for, nor against, a permanent ban of Viriditas at this point in time. I would like to see xe focus on one article, and get it published. Nowadays that is somewhat of a challenge — as-opposed to when I joined Wikinews in 2005 or so. To me, the 'checked in 60 seconds' comment was the most offensive. I can easily take personal attacks, and I try not to dish them out these days as I'm rather good at it. This was compounded by the — shall I say — childish remarks about asking for full URLS when using WebCite. However, I - in principle - approve of the idea of using WebCite, and will be looking to knock together some more code on wikinewsie.org to read the sources from published articles and push them into WebCite. That, I guess, may be the best that can be salvaged from this user. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as proposer. -
- Would kinda like to see Viriditas become an active contributor, largely based on this demolition of using Faux as a source. We need people who are capable of critical thinking, but throwing the toys out the pram on review failure is not acceptable.
- I'm hoping that a week-long block is inappropriate, and people can make their case in less. So, I will shorten the block to 4 days and offer to post any "reasonable" comment from Viriditas into this discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Having interacted extensively with Viriditas, I've had lots of opportunities to set actual behaviors against various hypotheses about xyr motivations. I've seen so many details, I wouldn't be able to write a summary such as the nominator's. (I'm also frankly not in the best of shape, after three days of laboriously offering olive branches, and later lifelines, to this character who consistently responded by metaphorically spitting in my face.) One detail easily overlooked, that did strike me at the time: After xyr final remark on the Maui article's talk page (wow it's tempting to remark on some of that — see, that's why I'd have trouble writing a summary), xe made this remark in comment space and then immediately turned around and started four articles. One of them about orange juice, and all of them about events that had not yet occurred (one in late February).
- Brian McNeil's suggested interpretation, with the user who misunderstands things more and more badly, is a standard model I always try to apply (even when it isn't really plausible anymore, if someone is looking for a way out, offering xem this excuse allows xem to save face). But it passed plausibility and was later offered as a lifeline with the usual response.
- Regarding the user's merits. I certainly thought webcitation a good idea, subject to the importance of using the long form. But. Viriditas has most consistently missed —I'm talking behavior here— missed the primary point of comments made. Like, I say that I'm concerned something might turn out to be a problem so I'll be looking at that carefully once the initial problems have been fixed, and xe treats that as if I've said the article is unpublishable for that reason. Or, we tell xem to use the long form of url for WebCitation, and xe treats that as a statement that WebCitation cannot be used. I started out thinking 'low reading comprehension', but the more troll-like xyr behavior looked, the more I doubted whether xe had actually failed to comprehend what was said. It's a classic choice between evils: didn't understand, or pretended not to understand. Politicians are often like this, too: you think, FSM help us if that idiot got elected, then you wonder if they're really that dim, and in the end they get elected and you can't decide whether to hope they're dim or not. --Pi zero (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support - incompetent user, very condescending as well. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support. My charity tin is empty. These remarks regarding incompetent sourcing are more than enough to fully support a permanent ban. I'd rather make Mystic Meg an admin than trust Viriditas to write an accurate news article if xe considers sources three days prior to an event an accurate indicator of what actually took place. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I believe, in this particular case, it would be appropriate to at least save the Maui article in userspace so there is a visible record of this user's failings. One can only hope that Viriditas is satisfied that xe has proven xyr incompetence, although I doubt that is how xe sees it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Every single comment from this user simply strengthened the case for a ban. 'scuse the language but,…
- What a retarded fuck.
- Trusting Viriditas with news production would be like trusting Michael Jackson's doctor to produce autopsy reports. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support — inappropriate conduct not conducive for positive collaboration on this project. -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit] Viriditas circumventing Wikinews via Wikipedia user talk page space
FYI, w:User_talk:Cirt#Joe_job.
My response was to forward Viriditas (talk · contribs) to the Wikinews OTRS queue.
That appears to be the only appropriate next venue for communication.
Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given the highly opportunistic nature of xyr accusations here before being banned, seeking to waste as much of our time as possible with spurious procedural objections is very much in-displayed-character. --Pi zero (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a heads up notice to all ArbCom members and all local Checkusers at this project, see Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee#FYI:_Heads_up_regarding_Viriditas. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken a very close look at the two IPs involved in this. The first is definitely a hacked university mail server. The second, I suspect my scan may be "stale"; the fingerprint I get for the address is best-guessed as an Airport, now only offering a VNC connection. The question would be, did this come up with 8080 open when scanned post-CU?
- I find the good-ole-rant that Viriditas spouted over on enWP a bit,… rich. Xe is, essentially, accusing people within the Wikinews community of caring enough to joe-job xyr and waste other Wikinewsies' time. Highly unlikely.
- That the two visibly-used IPs disrupting are in the UK ceases to be relevant when both are, or at least were, open proxies. Anyone, anywhere in the world could be popping up from those IPs.
- Cirt, I'd ignore this — or just chat it over on checkuser-l. It isn't relevant if it is Viriditas or not, whoever it is needs blocked as-and-when they pop up.
- Viriditas, here, has zero reputation to rant about. Let xe whinge on Wikipedia to xyr heart's content. I'm sure a non-Wikinews steward could exonerate everyone in good standing on Wikinews if that's what it takes. But, that could-well result in a check for cross-wiki abuse/taking the disagreement elsewhere on Viriditas' part. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
