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]


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}}.

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking[edit]

My article has been added to against my will and I do not want it to be posted anymore and i do not want my name on an article that has been corupted.

Caron Carus

Delete my name from that article and delete the entire article.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:304:782d:c749:ddb0:ff02:f963:2da4 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 25 April 2014‎

Crime in Benin needs to not appear.

If you choose not to delete it, please take my name and email address off of it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:304:782d:c749:ddb0:ff02:f963:2da4 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 25 April 2014

If you're talking about a published article (you haven't said what article is involved, and there are no past edits to your IP), it would require truly extraordinary circumstances for us to take down a published article; copyright violation and libel come to mind. Nothing in your vague description comes close to justifying such a dire action.
You also haven't meaningfully identified yourself (you're editing from an IP).
I've removed the email address in your post; given that you're posting here as an anonymous IP, that seems rather personal information to be including (especially since we have no reason to assume it's actually your address). --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I can find with that name is this: , and I see no reason to delete it. Especially not the entire article. — Gopher65talk 12:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


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 noticed a user using this bot script in RC. This is a Java app used by commons to globally replace media files across WMF wikis; it logs in as a user and performs edits in an automated fashion via the api. The documentation specifically warns about editing templates in its FAQ section. On en.WN, however, it is primarily used to edit templates as most articles are part of the archives. The two points to make are:

  1. These are, generally, good faith edits in an attempt to improve projects.
  2. Technically, these are bots editing via a user's account.

While it would be better for wikimedians to not edit projects without following the local policies, it's extremely unlikely en.WN could convince Commons members to set up a bot account for their bot editing. But it's something of which admins should be aware. - Amgine | t 23:08, 22 May 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)