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]


Refresh

Contents



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:


Special:Contributions/70.224.32.115 [edit]

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)
    A reasonable time limit for a non-static IP is 3 hours, 24 at worst. - Amgine | t 05:14, 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)

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)

  • Thank you! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 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)
      I'm interested in following this up due to:
      20:34, 28 April 2011 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) globally blocked User:70.224.32.115 (expires 20:34, 29 April 2011) ‎ (Cross-wiki abuse) [1]
      - Amgine | t 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Update: link. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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}}.

China-spammer is same as Japan-spammer [edit]

Heads up admins and CUs. From this check, I was able to mark Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed that China-spammer is same as Japan-spammer.

Hope that's helpful info to you in the future, -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose controversial block: Computron [edit]

This is going to be controversial, and given I requested the CU and the related actions to the images and filed a sock puppet investigation on English Wikipedia about the user, I do not feel comfortable making the block myself. The CU proved inconclusive and in talked to two people behind the scenes, the view is that the inconclusive nature based on really old IP edits is the pretty much a confirmation that Computron = onewhohelps. At the same time, knowing that there were complaints he was a time suck for people trying to help him and open investigations, similar behaviors continued (included the behind the scenes complaining on IRC linked to in the CU report) and more things on problematic copyright (again linked to with the Wikipedia behavior) where this was explained but did not hear. This all for me confirms this is a case of an editor ducking a block. Onewhohelps is indefinitely blocked on this project and globally. If he is an indefinitely blocked user block evading, which the evidence suggests, he should be indefinitely blocked again. --LauraHale (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Let's put aside the "sock of X" issue; CU generally tends to err on the cautious side, the less network and deeply tech-savvy the person performing the CU, the less-likely they are to resort to port scans and other 'more inventive' ways of gathering additional information.
However, where what might initially be taken as inexperienced enthusiasm leading to problems and being a significant drain on community resources continues, there are grounds to consider blocks which stop that resource drain and encourage reform. If, as is suggested, the individual is a sock of a WMF-banned user; then, where they fail to reform in the face of such blocks, increasing blocks are likely to tempt them to resort to further socking. Then fresh, more-readily interpreted CU data would become available.
So, those who may be concerned over their involvement and potential COI in applying blocks, please put forward suggestions on an initial block with as-brief a summary of why (links, where possible). --Brian McNeil / talk 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional grounds for blocking beyond likelihood of being a globally blocked sock puppet user who creates small scale time sucking drama as a characteristic of socking:

  • Exhibits massive case of not hearing things, which lead to one to three people having to deal with Computron's not so happy over results. Examples of this time suck involve image copyrights, where user was uploading images from Twitter to Wikinews without having first secured copyright permissions. (Explained repeatedly as not desirable, and not wanted, and that this eats community resources to follow up on. Free images without these issues preferred. Then Computron repeats this problem by uploading at least 10 images with non-free copyrights where he asked a Twitter user for permission. Images apparently actually came from the BBC.)
  • User is not practicing due diligence in copyright, and is intentionally inserting unacceptable copyright materials on Wikinews.
  • Despite being told it was not acceptable and user would be subject to a likely CU and Wikipedia SPI if they put back non-free images into an article, user proceeded to do just that.
  • Despite the big issue over uploading 10 images that were not acceptable because non-free limited license, then uploaded additional non-free images. (Which I have subsequently deleted. They did not tag them themselves but others did and admins had to spend time chasing down to delete.)
  • User has repeatedly complained on IRC about reviewing preference, with his stuff not getting reviewed and other stuff getting a review priority. This comes despite the fact that Computron has had repeatedly explained by several people that Original reporting will take precedence over
  • User has repeatedly explained to them about photo essays and the photo essay category, what qualifies as a photo essay and that the images MUST be their own or taken for the project on IRC. Despite an ongoing discussion with them about how their images from Twitter were not acceptable, [2] added photo essay category added.
  • User has taken snide jabs at other users on IRC, including implying things about tommorris's motivation and my motivation.
  • User has admitted on IRC to knowing the sock puppet master and saying she is very nice and misunderstood.
  • User has repeatedly had the concept of newsworthiness explained to them. And when this was done, had it explained some more. They have been present when a number of conversations about newsworthiness took place. Despite this, does not seem to grasp this concept even when explicitly laid out for them. (And then shows little awareness by addressing these things on Wikinews.)
  • Appears to want to refuse to engage on Wikinews in discussions regarding their conduct. This includes on their talk page, and on article talk pages. [3] Does most of engagement on IRC, which makes it harder for a record to be proven. (Also, classic behavior of the sock suspected of being.)
  • This situation has been going on for two months and being unresolved either way is causing anxiety amongst other users, eating up lots of time explaining things that Computron does not hear, leads to a new problems that then take hours and several people fixing, discourages people from contributing because of the ambiguity in how to best respond to the situation.

That is the short list. End of day: Massive time sink, massive anxiety sink, results in loss of productivity for others. tempted to block on those grounds as I cannot see this getting fixed any time soon. --LauraHale (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


    • After further consultation on IRC, I think we agree that a one week block is probably the best option at this point. In the mean time, we can work on fair use page to address the problems and try to prevent similar occurrences. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Er. And if the disruption continues following the one week block, incremental blocks starting at a month. --LauraHale (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
 I think I'm about to say something unpopular. However, I've been asked my position on this matter, so here it is.

Although I understand where this one-week-block idea is coming from, I'm not on board with it. In all such cases one juggles two or more hypotheses about the user, and tries to choose a course of action that works under all hypotheses, weighted by their likelihood times the pros and cons of the proposed action. Yes, I track multiple hypotheses for everyone here (including myself, the essence of self-criticism); the probabilities differ from individual to individual. For example, I deem it highly unlikely brianmc is a sockpuppet of Tony1.

Here, there's the "well-intentioned" hypothesis and the "troublemaker" hypothesis. Others here seem to think this one-week block would help to distinguish between those two hypotheses, and would be sufficiently acceptable for both hypotheses. However,

  • In the well-intentioned scenario, I do not believe a one-week block is reasonable at this time. Computron has consulted with various Wikinewsies about various procedures, sometimes received mildly mixed signals, has made some poor judgement calls, and then gets blocked for it? Without warning? Sincere contributors should not be treated that way. I realize Laura and I don't see eye to eye on this; we've discussed it off-wiki. Our difference, so it seems to me, has to do with the plausibility of the well-intentioned hypothesis. My perception is based on a variety of people I've interacted with over the decades, who have expanded my notions of the range of well-intentioned human behaviors. I don't insist on the hypothesis, but I find it sufficiently plausible to warrant allowing for it.
  • A warning to Computron at this time, setting conditions for a possible block in the future, would seem to me more appropriate. One would want to give some thought to what to warn against, so as not to create ambiguous loopholes.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Pi zero. Without conclusive evidence of socking, we shouldn't be blocking because of the risk of punishing an innocent, good-faith user. If the problematic behaviours Laura lists continue, then we should block. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In the view of inconsistency of our own actions (approving of Twitter photos and then denying them; asking to ack GOL with authors, but then also ask for a CC license first; tagging some articles as OR and then untagging some after a successful review; many of which were quite my own fault), I would side with looking at whether certain repetitive patterns emerge in the contributor's behaviour. If they learn, even slowly, it would ideally be fine. Gryllida✎✍ 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Part of what's at-issue here seems to be a lack of clarity on media (I'm not restricting to images, because the same applies to video or audio). The idea I'm currently thinking might clarify that is to draw a flowchart. There are rules/guidelines that wouldn't easily fit the flow, but they're usually fairly sweeping points — such as "be suspicious" when dealing with people sharing images via twitter; you can do a number of 'sanity checks', such as checking their stated location against the event they've put up pictures of.
But, and this is a point that I'm raising to go forward to policy, we can't have photoessays made up of non-free images unless they're taken under circumstances such as sporting events where you've had to agree not to freely-license media in order to take photos. There's a "gotcha" to that too; you could think, "I'm not in the press box, if they're restricted by the NBA or FA, it doesn't apply to me". The question there is: Have you read the ultra-small-print on your ticket? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to close all language Wikinews [edit]

Please see Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Proposal_to_close_all_language_Wikinews. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking [edit]

Hi I am trying to convert Portal:United States to template:NewPortal but it has detected that it is a harmful edit but it is not a harmful edit 217.39.13.92 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

When all else fails [edit]

There is an extremely annoying aspect to the "selective understanding" Bluesky is demonstrating in-terms of where, and what, they may make changes to in an attempt to demo portals closely matching the main page layout.

One of the key reasons for pressing xe to create an account, is this last-resort solution. It even allows namespace-level targeting. :-)--Brian McNeil / talk 09:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideafarmcity [edit]

I, for one, am losing any inclination to assume good intentions here. I have restored the {{Howdy}} template to xyr talk page, and am somewhat concerned at xe actively soliciting people to communicate off-wiki — where people risk their emails being published.

If they're not pushing out content, I don't see a problem commenting on articles. If they expect Wikinews to dance to their tune, and it continues to waste people's time, not happy. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the implications of this user's aggressive notice against communication on xyr user talk page. This means xe is making xyrself less accountable than a user ordinarily is expected to be when interacting on the project. Given the nature of xyr edits on-project, I do not believe xe should be allowed to continue participation on the project if xe is going to explicitly refuse comments on xyr user talk.
I propose to apply an indefblock, with no email but with edits to user talk allowed, with notification on xyr user talk that the aggressive denial of feedback by user talk is the reason for the action. Thoughts, anyone? --Pi zero (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have notified the user at their talk page. I propose acting based on their reaction (when it happens, or within next 24 hours, whichever comes earlier). Gryllida 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Time out! I've got to rush off to work. I'm a newbie. I can't even figure out what some of the above is saying because of all of the "xe" "xyrself" "xyr" stuff. Being a newbie, I did not realize that I my solution to the unusual problem that I have would raise transparency issues. Please just chill out until we have a chance to discuss this. Much of the problem would have been avoided if people would have communicated with me rather than just deleting my pages along with all of the revision history. IMO you are all way too quick to assume malicious intent. I'll be back online in about 11 hours. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
My proposal is intended to address a specific practical difficulty. We aspire to WN:Never assume.
I've stated above my discomfort with stifling interaction on your user talk page. An obvious question is, what sort of legal difficulty could interfere with interaction there but not in comments space? --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To think of it, I would like to propose a few things.

  • That Ideafarmcity removes legal boilerplate regarding ways to communicate from their user and user talk pages on receipt of this message.
  • That Ideafarmcity goes with the project standards regarding desired use of all the project tools. No legal reasons should justify attempts doing otherwise.

I would like to ask Ideafarmcity to acknowledge these points before continuing as I think they would resolve the ongoing issues.

P.P.S. Removed a point entirely as no longer makes sense to list it separately from the line below (it did before, as it was a required thing, but now it's not). Gryllida 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I will also encourage them to contribute content to the project content-wise to write news articles about topics they're familiar with, and have no conflict of interest or personal involvement with. Gryllida 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would point out, gently, that participating in the project only by opining on topics of choice is not inherently a misuse of the project. While there may be problematic aspects to ideafarmcity's comments, that would not seem to be one of them. --Pi zero (talk)
I just rearranged my lines per this comment, thank you. Gryllida 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm here now and am reading all of the above and will respond within the hour. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I am going to rewrite both the user and talk pages right now, and will be back here when it is done. I still think that most of this tempest in the teapot is due to my newbie ignorance combined with hostility to my viewpoints. I can fix the newbie ignorance. The closed minded intolerance is on you guys! Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten my user and talk pages. Any remaining concerns can be expressed on my talk page or here. Thank you all for your volunteer effort here. Wo'O Ideafarm (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BarkingFish and sockpuppets [edit]

  1. Tmalmjursson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
  2. Cat in the Hat (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
  3. Humblesnore (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Per w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarkingFish/Archive, these have all been Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed as longtime socks of BarkingFish (talk · contribs).

What do other admins think should be done about this, with regards to the main account? -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing right now beyond what is done until the account becomes a problem here, or there is a discussion on a possible global block. --LauraHale (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with LauraHale. I took action at the time by cautiously withdrawing the IP exception I had given BarkingFish on off-wiki request. I couldn't care less about the Tmalmjursson account, as it's so not-hiding-anything it makes the "sock" description look a bit silly. As for BarkingFish itself, I want to either understand, or have a real problem going on, before taking further action. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the input, -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts&oldid=1883025"