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.

  • 4 April 2015: !

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:

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}}.

Threatening users[edit]

I've just blocked a vandal whose ravings included this, which caught my eye because it's the second time I recall on en.wn seeing something that might be interpreted as a death threat — the first time being less than a month ago, when I blocked a vandal whose chosen account name was I'll Kill You 1221. I've requested a CU on this.

Who does one inform of death threats? --Pi zero (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been pointed at w:WP:VIOLENCE; putting together an email now. (And, sent.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
WMF acknowledges receipt (several hours ago, actually). Thank for the report. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Philippe. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
CU confirmed they're the same IP, btw. --Pi zero (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking[edit]

I extensively edited Gotham Classic page. These changes do not represent any negative intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raycella (talkcontribs) 17:59, 26 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Anonymous spam[edit]

Over the past day and change, we've had a fairly steady stream of advertising/spam from anonymous IPs. I've been giving each of them a 24 hour block, and I see Mikemoral has done a few that way too. We've handed about two and a half dozen of those so far. Presumably this is the result of our addition to a list somewhere. --Pi zero (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


One of my least favourite headaches has possibly appeared again. Admins, and the wider community, are invited to look here and here. There is as yet little we can do but spectate since no particular user has been identified. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 09:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The relevant detective work would appear to be this; a little sock farm over on Wikipedia.
Now, I've not dug into any local contributions by these blocked socks, but it hardly seems to be as-serious as the critical remarks suggest.
Over on the Wikipedia sock investigation this is shown to be a matter already raised to Meta, and involving more than one project. That, to me, certainly merits giving Cirt the benefit of the doubt here. The matter has led to at least one IP being globally blocked, so it is fairly serious. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Cirt has undertaken indefinite blocking of a user for actions that have upset Cirt on another wiki. I do not see how the local policy allows that to occur, or at least to occur without a discussion of the community. I hope that the community is able to review that decision, and work out the means with which they wish to manage this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Some things to keep in mind, and a question.
  • en.wn is extremely vigilant about sockpuppetry (because of the importance we place on judging individuals by their behavior; see WN:Never assume). Blocking sockpuppet accounts here simply because they're known from elsewhere to be sockpuppet accounts isn't necessarily a problem here. Whether or not the puppetmaster should be blocked here may be a different matter, depending on the case; we are generally much inclined to allow folks second-chances here after they've gotten themselves in trouble on another project, but it's also possible each case might be unique.
  • en.wn blocking policy is what I've sometimes called the sanest blocking policy around: it says way up at the top that the decision is up to the discretion of the blocking admin and that everything later on the page is just guidelines. As a community we give admin privileges to individuals who have earned our trust, we expect them to use their good judgement and be open to reasonable discussion, and if things were to take a really dire pass the community might choose to withdraw admin privs. The fact that an account here is blocked on the basis of a sockpuppetry investigation elsewhere is not necessarily a problem, depending on the particulars of the case.
What account(s), particularly, are you concerned about? Are you concerned about sockpuppet accounts, or the puppetmaster's account? --Pi zero (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
PiZ is pretty much correct; we hit undeclared socks, usually, because the community is sufficiently small that socks could cause serious disruption. As for sockmasters, there's a bit of leeway I suppose but my gut feeling would be, in most circumstances, to allow them to carry on. enwn has a good history of offering a clean slate to those blocked elsewhere. These are all general observations; Brian has remarked elsewhere an IP is globally locked so there may very well be good reason to block the sockmaster as well. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Somewhat related to this I was going to restore BRS's comment about the weird block duration; however, I decided to test that for myself by blocking a declared sock (of my own). I specified "2 years" as the block duration, and got a truly bizarre block duration. So, it would seem that there's a bug in MediaWiki on that one; quite a weird one too. It's probably explained by some weird date maths, though. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with comments by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and Pi zero (talk · contribs), above. Thank you both. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      For blocks if you want to specify a non-standard period do it in the form YYYY-MM-DD for when the block is to terminate. No need to bother about a time, though you can expand right down to date and time in that approach.

      The drop down duration of block is converted to an end date when it is applied. There is no actual duration block of a period of time it is all calculated from NOW + the period to generate an end date/time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The block duration isn't salient to this discussion, I remarked upon it to clarify where suspicion arose about intent. We can't help it if PHP's date maths is braindead. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 09:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised by the approach of this community to indefinite blocks, without review, where a person is not editing on site. It would seem contrary to the wikimedia philosophy of both free editing, and having blocks being applied on a 'needs' basis. That said, blocks here are your business, and all I can ask is you to review your blocks, and reflect on the means that they are applied. Then where there are shortcomings in a process, then to ask for a "lessons learnt" approach to future blocks. This was also why I referred generically to the blocks as I wrongly presumed that you would use blocks per your guidance, and as a means of active protection, not punishment. I did not see how the specifics of a disputed xwiki case were relevant at this point of time under the existing circumstances.

To the case in question. I had hoped that you could have dealt with a local block on its local merits, not requiring a rehashing of circumstance elsewhere, that does not seem possible with the statements above.

I know all of the background to the block at enWQ and later at enWP. It is a complex case, and one needed to see checkuser data to understand it fully. The case needed a balanced approach, and judicious understanding, the manner which Cirt approached it was neither of those. Errors have been made at enWP, and they have now been identified as being wrong from an analysis I presented. So to me it is bad enough that one wiki got it wrong, but at another wiki, an involved person who promoted a case, wrong in fact, has then been able to automatically block that same person here, indefinitely and without review. Not just the alternate accounts, but also the primary account. [FWIW the blocked IP address is NOT associated with this blocked user, that is an error of fact.]

The blocked user has been besmirched with attributed edits that were not theirs, because assumptions have been made, and guilt applied based on circumstance, not proper analysis, definitely not a forensic analysis. Now, I am not saying that the blocked user has not undertaken bad judgement, and probably incredible naivety in some of their edits, however, judge a case on its merits, not apply a punishment here for mistakes elsewhere. You are dealing with real people, and where these real people are editors of long standing then to be treated in such a peremptory and dismissive way. Is that what this community is about? You say that the community gives people a chance, and I ask how that is possible on indefinitely blocked accounts. What I see is a different message.

I am not expecting you to read all the case at enWP or enWQ (if you want to go ahead). I am asking you to listen to my somewhat experienced cross-wiki community voice about I can demonstrate is a mistaken block injudiciously applied, and what appears to me is in a heavy-handed manner. I am now involved in this case, though as a neutral party through initially being asked to undertake checkuser activities with my steward's hat on, and then seeing the destruction that followed through misinformation, etc.. Anyway, I will leave this matter for you to reflect upon. I thank those who read this far. I wish you luck in your deliberations, and I hope that you can have a more rigorous process to managing and reviewing blocked users. If you need me, please ping me. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: The heart of my comment was the questions. What specifically do you feel was mistaken/done incorrectly? It's difficult to know what to do in response to "something was done wrong". To move things along here something more specific would be helpful. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I've adjusted the tags per the now-newly-split-results of the two different Checkuser investigations. I've unblocked Miszatomic (talk · contribs) to AGF at this site. If there's further socking, can always re-block later. -- Cirt (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandal needs urgent attention[edit] (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log)) is misbehaving. Bencherlite (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User archive deletion[edit]

I wondered if an administrator would kindly blank or delete my talk subpages starting from User talk:Tempodivalse/Archive 1 to /Archive 17, in accordance with meta:Right to vanish/en. I'm not aware of what Wikinews' current policy on usertalk deletion is, but if possible I would like user talk:Tempodivalse deleted as well. Thanks much. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, as long as there isn't administrative importance to keeping something that's in user space, we've no problem deleting at user's request. We wouldn't honor a puppetmaster's request to delete the record of their having been blocked, for instance. Off hand I don't suppose there'd be any obstacle here; my inclination is to meditate on it a bit, and poke around and read stuff, before acting; it's all been there for years, after all, a few hours or even days isn't going to make a lot of difference now. --Pi zero (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Been almost a month - I'd like to inquire if a decision/action will be made in the near future. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about a pure right to vanish given the Wikinews attitude toward reputation, but request by owner for userspace deletion barring common sense re administrative record is standard on Wikinews. Makes me feel kind of melancholy; when I was a bit younger I used to want to be invisible, but now it bothers me to think that noone will remember me after I'm gone. Well, anyway, I can't see how it's not properly your choice. Archives 1 through 17 deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You help open wikinewsthai[edit]

cause 1.Now I want write news thai into wikinews. 2.Now User Thai want write wiki news thai--Parintar (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

page move vandalism[edit]

Following page move vandalism by User:JaxPack12, I've fully move-protected all unarchived published articles. --Pi zero (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)