Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Archive 7

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8



Dubaiguy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Admins, please be on the lookout for socks of this guy, just blocked another one who violated sockpuppetry and block evasion, with account, Wikidudedub1 (talk · contribs).

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I identified this as a Saqib sock a long time back. CU likely in order. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Evidence that Dubaiguy1 (talk · contribs) was linked to accounts Saki (talk · contribs) and/or Saqib (talk · contribs) ? -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going from memory. Around when Saqib was permabanned he claimed to be in Dubai, and then this user popped up. IIRC, one of the CUs I ran at the time showed this guy. Of course, Saqib - claiming in Dubai - appeared in IRC from a .pk IP. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At present, would need evidence a bit more solid than that, in order to confirm. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume this alert is from an enWP CU. Please raise via CU mailing list for IP ranges to check. Also, review CU logs for my checks around Saqib block(s). Sorry I can't be more helpful than that. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
CU of Wikidudedub1 shows ISP and country does not match Saqib (completely different part of the world). No sign of being an open proxy. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight, you CU'd the guy who alerted us to the socking? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No. Cspurrier CU'd Wikidudedub1, the account that Cirt blocked on Sunday as a dubaiguy1 sock. (See also Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser/Archive 3#Sock-building of banned user Saqib (talk · contribs) ) . --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Done I just created Heck, Negish and Suzuki share Nobel Chemistry prize, and posted it for review, then I noticed a typo in the title; it should be Negishi, not Negish. I don't have the ability to move page titles - can an admin please move this to Heck, Negishi and Suzuki share Nobel Chemistry prize or another suitable title? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs) comes off a long block tomorrow. Admins, please be on the alert for a possible continuation of trolling; this is a repeat offender. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Socking by primary contributors associated with article subject

Blocked, socking. Admins, would appreciate keeping an eye on this. Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking

Technically it was blanking, although it was good faith.  ono  00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The abuse filter is an automated thing, so I don't think there is really any way around that. If this sort of thing happens a lot we could disable the filter. Bawolff 00:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I checked the filter log. It thinks that Mono repeated the attempt to blank the page (a talk page containing a message from a reviewer), two times after the filter issued a warning. If that is what happened, then I think the filter works satisfactorily. --InfantGorilla (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely the following sequence of events isn't right:
  1. User attempts to remove content from page, edit filter warns them
  2. User says ok to the warning, edit filter then disallows action, and revokes autoconfirmed status
  3. User tries third time, edit filter still disallows action.

I don't really think the filter should do anything beyond warning. (And I changed it to not do anything beyond warning last night, but if you really disagree feel free to revert). Bawolff 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • If the above is correct, the filter was working correctly. Comments on a talk page from a reviewer are legitimate content and should not be removed. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Accounts such as User:Hoyojo and User:用戶 belong to a fairly 'well-known' sockpuppeteer and vandal from zh.wikipedia. According to the zhwp signpost, the user has made over 800 sockpuppet accounts. I wonder if it is OK on WN to block such accounts? Kayau (talk · contribs) 10:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Thank you!
  2. It is easiest if a zh.wp admin posts an alert at #wikimedia-stewards on IRC or at meta:Steward requests/Global (the stewards can globally block such things, or, if the alert is in English, a local admin can be pointed to it.)
  3. I indef blocked both accounts as a precaution - they have only edited own user and talk pages so far. However there are edits at other wikis that have yet to attract blocks. [1][2] Other admins may modify the block if it is unsatisfactory.
  4. Are there more accounts to block?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I just found User:Twhk2011 as well. There could be more... Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Duin Blocked. Diego Grez return fire 00:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
For reference, there is a list here. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Please could some other admins look into the article "WikiLeaks releases Iraq War logs."The san gabriel mountains (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Be specific - whats wrong/what do you want us to do about it? Bawolff 01:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Newsperson (talk · contribs)

User:Newsperson Block request per WN:U, misleading. - Amgine | t 16:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this any different than "FellowWikiNews", or "Anchorman". I don't see how anyone could be confused by that name. That section of the Username page is intended for names like "Administrator" or "Editor in Chief". IE, names that someone could legitimately mistake for an authority. Given that Newsperson doesn't appear to be a native English speaker (based on contributions), my suspicion is that they merely typed "anchorman" in their native language into google translate, and "newsperson" is what popped out. From my perspective this not only doesn't look malicious, but it doesn't look likely to confuse users either. What does everyone else think? Gopher65talk 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support Amgine's block request. And, Gopher, your two examples include one I'd instantly block. So, give the issue a little more thought. You could suggest their name misleadingly implies unmerited authority and strongly recommend requesting a rename; better that than kicking off at the raising of a justified concern. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This username could be mistaken for some sort of generic label provided by the software, rather than an identification of a specific user. Similar to what might happen with User:Registered user, or User:Wikinewsie. Taken in that light, the username qualifies as confusing. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have, politely, highlighted this discussion on the user's talk page, and linked them to WN:CHU. That, I feel, should suffice. Since xe may drop by here to see the discussion, some clarification of why Amgine might auto-propose the 'nuclear option' may be in order. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Relax people I changed my name, however I feel like I did not need to... Can this discussion be over and continue with news. Its just a name. Not an admin name, maybe all admins need admin followed by there name. Gold2010 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Saki, also known as Saqib (talk · contribs), says he's back and, has requested his userpage unlocked.

I have declined, until certain conditions are met. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Per note, this user continues to require carefully watched. These edits introduce incorrect information, which might be readily overlooked. I have cautioned the user that such is not welcome, and a demonstration of a lack of reading comprehension. Please be aware that any edit history activity by this user is grounds for closer scrutiny of the factual accuracy of articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock to 2 sets of IP's belonging to Telecom Italia SpA

Earlier this evening, 2 ranges of IPs were identified as being used for IP hopping with regard to trolling some articles here at WikiNews. As a result of discussion (off wiki) the decision was taken to apply a 24 Hour rangeblock for the ranges and - account creation has been left on, it is only anonymous users who are targeted by this block. The block is assigned to expire at approximately 20:00 GMT on the 10th of December. BarkingFish (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

/me "trouts" BarkingFish; this is Sparta!Wikinews, not WikiNews! --Brian McNeil / talk 12:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


AmyRosePwnsU (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log)) Please... 'arrange' an accident for this minion. — μ 03:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done by Pi zeroμ 03:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins: Please watch major templates for a potential vandal

This notice is being cross-posted to the major administrators noticeboard (incidents or alerts) style pages on all the major projects.

Earlier today, a w:User:Meepsheep2 was blocked on English Wikipedia. Apparently in reprisal, he vandalized a major template on English Wiktionary with a fake fundraising banner that he photoshopped. Someone reported it on IRC, and we blocked him quite quickly for this time of night, but we want you to be on the lookout for future similar incidents. Please help keep an eye on major templates for vandalism specifically related to the fundraiser banners, and if they occur, globally lock their accounts (if you do not have that access, please block them locally on the wiki they vandalized, and then find someone on IRC who can globally lock the account). Stewards can assist with this. I know you guys all watch the high value templates anyway, and I'm not asking you to do anything different with those. I'm specifically referring to incidents that spoof the fundraising banners. Please keep an extra careful eye out for those, and take the extra step of globally locking the account to prevent future recurrences of this specific kind of vandalism. Please send any questions to drosenthal (at), or use my English Wikipedia User Talk page as I cannot respond locally on all projects. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we will. Bawolff 07:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Damage should be minimal due to use of FlaggedRevisions on the Template: namespace; bit, thanks for the heads-up. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Can an admin fully protect my userpage from being edited please? Most people shouldn't need to edit it and if it does need to be edited, I can't think of any reason other than sticking a template on it, which only an admin should be doing anyway. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A Thought

I wish Neutralizer was still around; I'm sure he'd get a kick out off all this Wikileaks stuff happening recently. (talk)

Oh Im sure he's around in one way or another. IGNORANCE=STENGTH (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Has anyone requested a CU on the range IGNORANCE=STENCH is editing from? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


I wish to bring the community's attention to the new account of the day, IGNORANCE=STENGTH (talk · contribs) (sic.), who I believe to be Neutralizer (talk · contribs), returning after a five-year haitus.

IGNORANCE=STENGTH's first edit is to reply to the above thread, which was first started by an IP, (talk · contribs). It is my belief that the IP address is IGNORANCE=STENGTH's own, judging by the fact that both began editing at the same time, in the same topics. Project disruption begins to happen with User_talk:Pi_zero#Umm?, stemming from this edit that was rolled back by Pi zero. The fact that IGNORANCE=STENGTH was pretending that the IP was a different user, compounded with the IP namedropping, shows me that he is not acting in good faith. An interesting, er, internal dialogue can be found here.

Now I don't know the history of User:Neutralizer, but I know that xe is a user that has 58 entries in xyr block log, has had blocks on four WMF projects*; and had multiple sockpuppets. Although the final ban was rescinded by User:Brian in 2007, creating IGNORANCE=STENGTH and using it in conjunction with an IP is not conjucent with the unban condition of coming back civilly. In 2007, an IP edited declaring that Neutralizer was dead; this is no longer likely to be true. These previous incidents may have been 70% of a project ago, but from what I see little has changed. I feel that allowing a continuation of the users' edit rights may cause severe harm to the project, and as such wish to start an AAA discussion now, before the high-octane drama fuel of continual disruption continues. — μ 11:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) (*non-SUL account, so they could be unrelated)

The IP and registered account were both pretty much bragging about being Neutralizer (e.g. the thread immediately above this one on this page, as mentioned), and the close coordination between them is absurdly obvious — though that doesn't mean either of them is Neutralizer. If I had to guess, I'd say the registered account is Neutralizer, and it's a toss-up whether the IP is a sock- or meatpuppet (but I don't know Neutralizer's m.o., having not read the archives that deeply). Even if a sockpuppet, though, I'm inclined to think that IP probably is not being used by the account. The trolling campaign between the two is moderately well organized, though clumsy enough to lend some credence to the meatpuppet theory; I'd think they (or xe) would love to goad someone into requesting checkuser, so they/xe could subsequently denounce the requester as Assuming Bad Faith and being a disruptive element.
As it appears to me that the totality of edits by both IP and account is all a single coherent trolling campaign, I'd mark the start of disruption from the IP's first edit, which was starting the above thread; even without that context, though, the three edits prior to my talk page are disruptive for their own sakes. --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Note about 2 years ago, someone came onto irc claiming to be a friend of Neutralizer, and said that he had passed away. We obviously can't verify that person was truthful, but I'm more inclined to think meat-puppet in this case. Bawolff 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutralizer came on irc requesting to be unblocked (specifically ). (Guess he is not dead). He claims:

  • "i was immature in the old days and created problems to draw attention away from my writing, i truthfully intend no to do it anymore"
  • "I intend to work well with others and participate constructivly..."

the Neutralizer account is currently not blocked (It got unblocked by BrianNewZealand. As has been noted above he has been blocked many times (although some of the entries in the log relate to a wheel war, so its a bit inflated.) He has masively abused sockpuppets in the past. I'm personally the trusting sort, and like to trust everyone, so I'm personally in support of unblocking, but it should be a community decision (And I am probably in the minority). It has also been suggested to maybe keep the IP block in place to prevent socks, and give his main account IP bock exempt rights. Anyhow, thoughts? Bawolff 03:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, on the off chance this does get approval, I think it should start off very small on the trust end. Maybe limit him to his talk page (block while allowing talk page edit), and make him write articles from just his talk page (copied to main namespace by others when done), until he gains back trust. Bawolff 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I retract my previous statement. Bawolff 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Flat, outright NO. Part of this discussion Bawolff refers to also includes Neutralizer telling myself and Bawolff that he has 3 socks he can remember, and countless more besides. I asked him to declare the socks and he says he can't remember most of them.

(IRC LOG - Partial) At this point, bawolff had mentioned about him coming back, and that he didn't have a problem with it, as long as he kept to the rules and so on, then this followed...

<BarkingFish> And before that, if you still have or remember any of the sock accounts, I personally would
ask you to declare them all before you begin editing again

<BarkingFish> unless you already have

<Wazzawazzawaz> the three I mentioned were the main ones, there are countless others i can't remember.
  • Now there's assuming good faith, and playing for the fool. I think the risk of allowing a user back with so many socks that we don't know about, is simply too great for us to let this go ahead. The IP block and single account with IP ban exemption is a good idea, but IPs change, and we'd be chasing this one forever, moving blocks and bans to keep up every time the IP changes, it would be a shitload of hassle. I'm sorry, but while so many socks remain outstanding with no record of the nicks, I have no choice but to object to this entirely. BarkingFish (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

**NB: - I will only support the return of this user under the condition that, in addition to anything else set, they are mentored by an administrator, who will block on sight, period, should any of the user's former behaviour start to rear its head again. BarkingFish (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Having thought about it, even that's too lenient for me. No, no and no. End of. BarkingFish (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Prove it by preparing several quality news articles and agreeing to regular checkusering (if that's within the privacy policy). Although the whole way this has started, I'm definitely leaning toward no. Meatpuppeting IPs don't help anyone's case. fetch·comms 04:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't be arsed dealing with Neutralizer again. Whether 'tis the real deal, or a meatpuppetthe return of the son of Neutralizer. Many an article was lost, and hundreds of volunteer hours wasted bickering over crackpot theories about some shadowy group running the world, about GWB's Skull and Bones cronies masterminding unspeakable evils, and so on. Methinks we need a new WN:NOT related to conspiracy theorists. (Something along the lines of: Shot on sight, survivors who don't crawl away shot again.) --Brian McNeil / talk 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Obvious continuation of concerted trolling campaign. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I will not comment either way on this. As I did unblock the account back in 2007. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Would an admin be willing to return the +reviewer bit to my account? I haven't yet decided whether I want to make a full return to this project (which is why I have not requested sysop and crat back), but in the meantime having the sighting tool could let me help reduce the perpetually large review backlog. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


I just blocked this user. Logged reason was unacceptable username (log). I also mentioned a couple of other issues in my comment on xyr user talk page; the password comment relates to the page's revision history. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • In cases of extreme PEBKAC where a user publishes their password; solution is to log in and change the password. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand

No need to cause even more drama. I'll take care of the matter myself, reduced the block to three-months, and will leave a well-redacted message at Shustov as soon as I'm back home. Diego Grez return fire 04:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[3] What do I do now? The guy has not been understanding Wikinews policies, and does not intend to do so, so far he has been only adding links to his website that are complete moot to our project. Now, he's off to Simple Wikipedia (where I removed links he has posted into main-namespace articles, and this stuff is probably irrelevant here), trying to "curb" me. Also, he says I am spamming my personal blog/website: come on, putting a simple link to your blog in your userpage does not do any damage, putting links anywhere to the software you have created, in a website that gets lots of traffic (I mean Wikinews, and Simple). Note, the guy has been blocked @en.wp and de.wp, in similar/the same grounds.

What I personally wonder, and that message I linked has made me doubt, is that if I did the right decision when revoking Shustov's email and talk page access? To be fair, I consider what he posted in the talk page (since then cleaned up) to be trolling, and deleted it. I also deleted his userpage. I want third party opinions. If I have not been doing this properly, or haven't taken the right decisions, please let me know, and I'll put myself for re-confirmation. Diego Grez return fire 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I object to reducing Shustov's block. If BRS had not blocked Shustov till infinity when xe did, I would have done so a few minutes later; Shustov has show willingness to wait many months before coming back and attempting to sneak xyr spam back in when nobody's looking. Given that at least two admins considered the infinite block appropriate in the first place, we shouldn't reduce it without getting some kind of consensus first.

Shustov is an entirely shameless spammer, who has used a great many of the tricks in the en.wp book in xyr attempt to parasitize this project — I won't say every trick, because it's a big book. Putting spam in userspace. Sneaking it back in many months later (as I mentioned). When reminded not to, using objection to the reminder as an excuse to spam again. When blocked for that, using objection to the block as another excuse to spam. And when banned from the project entirely, taking it to another project and seeking to intimidate an admin. --Pi zero (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point here, Pi zero; Shustov's behaviour has been more than inappropriate. Although I was preparing something 'convincing' and 'nice' to say to Shustov at his talk page: "Hi, Shustov. I have reduced your block to three months, a time in which you will have the chance to read our policies in detail. We do not have a clear policy regarding use of external links, however, the use of links to your project seemed inappropriate to me and to other admins, plus your intimidating responses were not optimal. After talking with a fellow Wikinewsie, Gryllida [side note, feel free to yell at me Gryllida for involving you in this crap :P], I was convinced that to block you indefinitely was a bit too much, and seemed a bit too punitive. I am looking forward to work with you, therefore, I decided to give you an opportunity. If you promise not to continue with your inappropriate behaviour (here, and in Simple Wikipedia, you know why I am mentioning it), we may think about unblocking you, only if you refrain from adding links to your websites, which are comercial, to your userpages or whatever. In response to you mentioning my website, that is not spamming; firstly, it is not a commercial website; second, it is a personal website (do some videos of the Beatles make any harm?); thirdly, I am responsible for its content, and in certain way it is linked to my work at Wikinews, even if the site is in Spanish. Although that is not the point of what I'm wanting to say, do you agree the condition? If so, please be patient and we will decide this in a further date." What do you think? Will that fix something? :) Diego Grez return fire 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, no, I don't think it will fix anything; on the contrary. Preponderance of evidence is that Shustov's only interest in it would be the further opportunity to establish xyr right to use us as a host for xyr spam. One of the tragic flaws of AGF is that undesirable characters can learn to exploit it, using it as a shield; Shustov can repeatedly claim not to understand, but the overall shape of xyr actions suggests someone who understands quite well. Shustov was given the benefit of the doubt, and chose to make no attempt to contribute positively to the project, and then to mark xyr eventual return here with a series of underhanded tactics. This is, in my judgment, a case where there is simply no grounds for leniency, and no profit in straining to find such grounds. --Pi zero (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with shortening the block. Shustov was repeatedly asked to stop promoting his links here, yet he did it anyway after several warnings. It's patently obvious the user isn't even trying to help the project but only has one reason to be here - advertise. I fully believe in the AGF principle, but here it's past the line of giving the benefit of the doubt. There was some suggestion yesterday that maybe he simply doesn't know English well enough to comprehend what he was told - but for someone who claims en-3, that's a bit doubtful.
The thing that puzzles me about all this, though, is that the user is (apparently?) a user in good standing on both ru.wikinews and ru.wikipedia - no blocks or warnings on his talk page. But still, given his actions here, I don't see a strong case for unblock/shorter block. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed about those other projects, and wondered. Very different project norms of behavior? Very different cultural attitude toward rules? Xe's blocked on en.wp, though — twice. --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I checked through his contribs: on ru.wn he apparently created a news article about his seismographic-thingy, and judging by talk page comments, accepted its being deleted as stale news and didn't advertise further. On ru.wikipedia, he doesn't appear to have pushed at all aside from one or two userboxes - with no warnings. I am not very familiar with ru.wn or ru.wp policies, but I don't think there's much of a cultural difference here. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Re-instated the indefinite block, as I had left it before reducing it. Diego Grez return fire 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. There's no indication that he's here to contribute to anything beyond his promotional activities. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing Shustov's edits here and elsewhere, and the fact that he is even asking for undeletion in Meta and Simple, I don't really see a reason to change the block. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Amy76 (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

Please block. - Amgine | t 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Done Blocked indefinitely. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


There is a copyrighted image without a fair use rationale on Category:Somerset. I have tried to remove it but it keeps being put back. According to Wikinews:Fair use, fair use images cannot be used outside of the main article space. DrKiernan (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to follow WN:Fair use to the letter, then that image should not have been locked in place. I note that we are currently breaking this rule on several portal and category pages, for instance Google and Yahoo. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't have been protected by an admin who was involved in the dispute; perhaps Diego Grez (talk · contribs) would benefit from re-reading Wikinews:Protection policy#Admin advice ("Do not protect a page you are involved in a dispute over".) Reverting to his preferred version and then protecting the page is an inappropriate use of the tools. Bencherlite (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to wave this comment around. We badly need to look at that policy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed, but in the meantime the policy explicitly forbids this sort of image use and should be followed as such. What is the point of having a rule if it's not going to be followed? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Common sense; currently set out at WN:IAR but I would greatly prefer a somewhat gentler WN:COMMONSENSE. Gutting them all out when the chances are good we're about to change the policy would be nonsensical. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • For instance, I protected the category in order to prevent this kind of drama, oh well... Admins are free to unprotect the page anyway. I'm happy with any decision taken. --Diego Grez return fire 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The restriction that fair use images can't be used outside article space was added arbitrarily without discussion on April 2007. I would argue portal/category namespaces are content namespaces, and thus fair use is ok. I agree that we should not have fair use in say the user namespace, but a portal is content we create, which is benefited by images and what not. I am aware that fair use is not allowed on portals on 'pedia, but see no reason why that should be the case here too. Bawolff 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The user is mistaken; the image is not copyrighted under UK law, and in fact cannot be copyrighted there. The .svg in theory *could* be copyrighted under copyright laws in the USA, except that a coat of arms should be a faithful reproduction of an original patent and therefore would not derive copyright protection in and of itself. It raises an interesting legal question, but clearly the use is attributive (in a manner extremely similar to Trademark) and therefore not an issue for en.Wikinews; that is, it is moot. - Amgine | t 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan government accuses three Dutch helicopter crew of transporting spies

Sorry for reporting that here, but I didn't find a better place for this little issue in an already published article. The article has somewhat bizarr categories, as f.ex. Google and Internet (what seems to be just copy-pasted from another article. I don't want to fix it myself, since the last time I tried to fix an already published article I almost started WW III. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Done, thank you. FWIW, you shouldn't run into any problems doing category work regardless of article age. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock Applied

Due to mass multiple account creation, offensive edits, vandalism and other issues, users on the 76.208.*.*/32 IP range are presently banned from editing Wikinews. The range is blocked from Account creation, so applications will have to be made through the Account Creations tool for these users. Apologies to anyone involved or present on this IP range. BarkingFish (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please shorten this ban to less than a week. It can always be re-applied at the end of a week. This block is owned by AT&T, centered around South Bend, Indiana, USA, and may be affecting 64k potential contributors to stop one childish person, for three years. Remember, it's a lot easier for us to rollback xyr edits than it is for xyr to make them, and we are part of the village which is raising this child. You wouldn't send the kid to xyr room for three years, would you? - Amgine | t 17:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that's a little extreme. I expect repeated mass bot attacks before range blocks get applied, and even in that situation I wouldn't apply it for 3 years. Bawolff 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I discussed a rangeblock on IRC with Brian NZ, and it was agreed upon. I did what I thought fit and what I thought best. I wouldn't personally be waiting around for the mass bot attacks and other assorted shit to hit the fan. I will reduce it to 2 weeks, but not to any less. BarkingFish (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have adjusted the various rangeblocks to three months. Can always be extended to more severe blocks at a later point in time. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page revision

I'm getting the "This is a pending revision of this page..." banner at the top of the main page. Someone with bits want to review it please? - Amgine | t 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Usually that happens because one of the Lead article templates has a pending review. Looks okay now. --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way we could use javascript to turn it off for the main page in the future? It doesn't look good. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to casual readers. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Davidttommns (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

Spammer SPA - Amgine | t 03:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Geofferybard (talk · contribs)

If you're not aware of this user, welcome back from The Google Village.

I have altered the block on this user to a little under 12 hours.

I believe requests for any reduction should be declined - worded however you see fit to force this newbie to do his basic homework.

Post-block-expiry, I'd highlight my final warning on xyr talk. Individually, and collectively, xe has insulted the entire Wikinews community. This level of disruption would, on Wikipedia, have seen a permanent block being issued before now. Please bear that in mind.

I am of the opinion xe owes the community an apology before anyone else involved in this dispute does the same. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel your reduction of the block is unwarranted, I was already given the high shot by mikemoral, who dropped my first, perfectly reasonable 3 day block, to 1 day. You then drop it to half a day. What is the point of you saying "I believe requests for reduction should be declined", then you go and reduce the block yourself in complete disregard for a block which had already been reduced? BarkingFish (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually increased the in-place block, undid a talk page access block, and reinstated an auto-IP block. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I note, when casually looking at this user's history elsewhere, the date here, the account's initial talk page revision. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Please block or warn Sdsdsdsd (talk · contribs) as necessary, thank you. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked. It also has a strange username... "Unacceptable username" perhaps? Diego Grez return fire 02:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why unacceptable? Distinctive, and easy to type on a QWERTY keyboard. The username isn't responsible for its user. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unban User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

Admins should not indefinitely ban users. - Amgine | t 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Then we should not have the option to do so. The user was trolling LQT and was purely out to cause trouble by spouting views I suspect he does not hold. It is an administrative decision which I firmly believe was the correct one to do. BarkingFish (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Admins most certainly do have the authority to indefinitely ban users, on *all* projects, not just Wikinews. It's a common practise. However, I disagree with the block in question. I see no evidence that the user was trolling. The user wasn't being particularity rude in any of the revisions that I checked. The only reason for blocking that I can see is that the user holds political opinions that some users might not like (they'd be considered mid-right wing in the US, or faaaar right-wing in most parts of Europe). Banning someone based on a political opinion is not a good general policy to have. I mean, why do we even have comments pages if people aren't allowed to speak on them, unless they hold the same opinions as the moderators who happen to be on at the time? This isn't Fox News, and we shouldn't be filtering the opinions of our userbase (as long as they are legal opinions to have. "I support paedophilia" would get you banned, I'm sure). Gopher65talk 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I did ask about it, on IRC. BarkingFish's account of trolling was supported by Blood Red Sandman. From what I could tell, they had first-hand experience of the threads involved, which I did not, so I felt satisfied in deferring to their judgment — especially since, in the meantime, a template had been added to the user's talk page with instructions on how to request unblock. --Pi zero (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Quoting from the WN:BP:
For how long?
For vandalism and breaches of the three revert rule, admins should block for up to 24 hours. In other cases, admins should, in the first instances, consider the use of shorter blocks for first offenses, and only 24 hours or longer if truly necessary.'
This policy clearly limits the time frame for which a block may be applied by an admin. A block may be applied for greater than 24 hours, but only if truly necessary. The primary violations requiring a block are clear and obvious vandalism, and revert warring. - Amgine | t 07:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) a block is not a ban 2) my suggestion/concern was that the user may not actually hold these opinions at all, which are somewhat extreme to the point that I began to question if they were divisive for the sake of it. To me, someone should be able to spout non-honestly-held opinions. I would never have blocked unilaterally, but as another user (Barking) agreed with my reading I was happy to support on the basis I trus xyr to have also thought about it properly. I point out any admin may modify the block conditions, including the length, or even accept an appeal - unlike a ban. (In the interest of transparency, I have already given permission for all my off-wiki commonets to appear on-wiki.) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ.
  1. An indef block is a ban. It prevents the user from ever editing the project.
  2. Whether or not the user held the positions is irrelevant. There is no basis in policy for blocking a user because xe expresses an opinion, honestly held or not, in the comments namespace. Iirc, there have even been discussions regarding whether or not arguments confined to that namespace can be considered disruptive since that is the purpose of the namespace.
  3. I point out any admin may modify the block conditions of an ArbCom-determined ban. So, again, functionally an indef block is a ban.
- Amgine | t 07:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Much of that I've covered elsewhere, but I view a ban as set with community consensus and requiring more of the same to overturn. A block is a decision made by the blocking admin and may be quickly and easily modified or overturned by another admin. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • User unblocked; the comments namespace is for trolling. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 10:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So if the comments namespace IS for trolling, why does the top of the page indicate "Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible." and note that "civil discussion" and "polite sparring" make the page a fun place??? I don't call these kind of comments -

"It's not the pastor's fault that muslims are violent animals. Not only he proved his point but the American government punished him for doing it. Islam has already ruined half of Europe, it seems they want to ruin the Americas now also. First that attack on the Brazilian school, now in the US the government is arresting people who criticize islam. We must do something about it, and I'm afraid pretending that muslims aren't violent and that you're a friend of them won't stop them from hating you for not being a muslim."

civil by any mark, especially since one could consider that kind thing to be incitement to racial hatred, which is a criminal offence (at least in Britain). Still, I've been overruled by a bureaucrat after discussing the block with a bureaucrat. I still stand by my original decision to block however, and will make no attempt to apologise for having done so. BarkingFish (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's intelligent trolling, and throwing excrement from under your bridge. From the contributions I reviewed, this could be construed as the former, not the latter. We are not the UK Government, we are not official censors, and we most certainly should not be censoring the comment you cite above. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, could someone block the Cheaptiffany series of accounts and delete their spam please. Thanks! the wub "?!" 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done as far as I can tell. — μchip08 10:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks μ, and thanks to Brian McNeil for whacking some too. the wub "?!" 10:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And all because it got "Breakfast at Tiffany's" stuck in my head. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown‎ has been refactored to try and force people to keep to policy. You'll notice that it's nigh-impossible to speedy a project page: that's what WN:DR is for ;-). Regards — μchip08 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why a vandal would refrain from using project space? --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, but it appears that policy doesn't cover for it. — μchip08 07:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
To expand: all the anti-vandalism deletion reasons are only applicable to mainspace — or, at least, that how I've interpreted the section headers. It's something that needs fixing (WN:SD appears to contain a few duplicates, and doesn't cover everything). — μchip08 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy is formed from what happens. If there's no dropdown for an obviously realistic situation, you're making things needlessly inconvenient for anyone cleaning up vandalism. Saying that Speedy Deletion of vandalism in project namespace is outwith policy is idiotic. Just. Put. It. In. The. Relevant. Policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ^this. I don't see why it should be necessary to make it "impossible to speedy a project page". Consider a situation when a project space page is created with PA against a specific user or with spam. Is there any point to take it to DR in that case? Wouldn't it be simpler to allow admins to delete it easily using a dropdown reason? If there is something wrong with the policy, start a discussion to fix the policy... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Doneμchip08 11:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reason for suppressing some menu items from some namespaces is that it's spectacularly obvious no admin would ever want that message in that space, and the menu will be more convenient without the clutter. The menu should not be used as an instrument to impose red tape. --Pi zero (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • No, I would like to add, should all these SD#x.x notes be put on pages requiring deletion. Use English. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I file a Dispute resolution?

The user in question will not discuss with me the allegations he is making against me.[4]. He claims that he has "off wiki" information that requires a check user for me to participate here. He accuses me of badgering unnamed users and says he will oppose any efforts I make here. He filed a check user against me with no evidence. Please, how do I go about resolving this so I can continue participating here at wikinews? Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[5] Please, someone help me. Since I cannot respond on his talk page, I need some venue. He is going on information received from someone at the other place who wants to do me harm. He is bringing to wikinews grudges others hold against me. Is this the way wikinews is? Mattisse (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
[6] He continues to demean me and humiliate me. This is not a way to treat someone who has done no harm here and only wanted to contribute to wikinews. Please someone help me. Mattisse (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You can simply add a statement under the "Current disputes" section of WN:Dispute resolution, adding a sub-header title (level 3, i.e. ===headline===). I agree it's not clear how to form it. I'm sorry about how you've been treated; I think dispute resolution and community involvement is the way to go henceforth. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse (talk · contribs)

Personally, I feel Matisse has been wasting our time largely, by creating stupid and useless drama during the last two or three months. Why don't we just end their stupid and childish fights about the most trivial things for once? Block them, indefinitely. アンパロ Io ti odio! 14:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree - my personal response as a relatively inactive admin. It takes more than one person for a drama, but drama does not always lead to disruption. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree; though Mattisse is being dramatic I don't feel a block is appopriate. Mattisse is a productive editor capable of mature discussion and high-grade writing; we should be pouring cold water, not blocking. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Then they'll feel scared and frightened if we pour cold water over them... nah, not worth it to have a "constructive" editor, who also provokes disruption and tension between others, appealing to the pity. アンパロ Io ti odio! 18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree indefinite block on principle (six months as a soft limit); and, as InfantGorilla has mentioned/implied, other users are also fuelling the drama. — μchip08 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I should note Mattisse is now agreed to a pretty sensible resolution, so nothing could be achieved by any kind of sanction at this stage. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose.
  1. Mattisse he has done significant contributions to Wikinews over the months that he participated. He wrote a number of articles, and while not very politely, raised valid concerns toward a few contributors, which will perhaps help them in the future.
  2. The debate has already calmed down.
  3. Even if we observed that it didn't resolve, a few days or weeks block would work! Blocking indefinitely should not be done just because a particular contributor made an administrator upset, but only when disruptions are repetitive and there is substantial ground to assume that that will never change. Gryllida 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Even Neutralizer (talk · contribs) wasn't indef blocked. As far as Mattisse is concerned, xe either figures out how Wikinews operates; or, xe does not. Personally, I was extremely surprised that my "you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy" comment wasn't near-immediately linked to not being on Wikipedia where things operate completely differently. Then again, that's perhaps an invitation to think of me as some sort of "Wicked Witch" ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Mattisse may have failed to pick up the intent of your remark because she hadn't really fit in at Wikipedia anyway; aside from the whole sockpuppetry thing, she'd been in trouble with arbcom for various stuff (see here). --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Despite a recent update, an imminent admin block is no longer under discussion, so I will unilaterally guillotine the conversation and archive it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

University of Wollongong, Australia

Please note that professor Blackall of the UoW has assigned contributing to Wikinews as part of the coursework for his current final-year students.

To facilitate tracking their work, I've created Category:UoW 2011 student work. I would appreciate if the following points were kept in mind:

  1. Please add this category if omitted by any of the below student accounts.
  2. Do not delete articles with this category; instead, userify.
  3. Please add any users you spot announcing they're on this course to the below list.
  4. Be careful of blocks with 'fallout'.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a most welcome development - one I've been trying to engineer for several years. I've exchanged emails with Prof Blackall, and his son - who suggested this. Leigh is more active on Wikiversity and, assuming this is at least moderately successful, I'll ask assistance from him and Cormac Lawler to have this written up and distributed to other academics teaching journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I've now populated the category. The good news is no articles started so far by students have been deleted; although, one was retracted! Not bad, but we'll see how things go for the *mumble* dozen other students. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A project-space page Wikinews:UoW 2011 student contributions now exists for some analysis of student contributions. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Great news Brian:D. Gopher65talk 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

List of UoW student contributors 2011

Greek Wikinews

Please add an interwiki link to newly created Greek version. Thanks. Glavkos (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done [7] the wub "?!" 10:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/Orso, please block and delete the IP talk page xe created. fetch·comms 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by Bawolff, nvm. fetch·comms 19:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Block also: User:Shalam Kumbar. Same guy. Tyrol5 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Notified at the talk page. If disruption continues, further action will be taken. --Gryllida (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I believe this is too little. Between our site operation and our size, we should not pussy-foot around with straightforward cases. We have zero tolerance for abusing multiple-account abuse on Wikinews; it isn't just something that "leads to confusion", it is absolutely unacceptable by the nature of the way Wikinews functions. Also, we should not wait for a vandalism-only account to cause further disruption before taking action. --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see further disruption after the notice yet. Maybe the user was hoping to stay undiscovered and would change behavior after realising that it's not true. The notice was intended to be educational, and what to do depends on whether it works. --Gryllida (% talk) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And yes - thanks for the CU request here. --Gryllida (% talk) 13:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's taken me years to accumulate enough self-confidence to request CU here; having formed my original notions of scale as a non-privileged user on Wikipedia, I've tended to perceive CU as something for the high-muckety-mucks.
  • I've seen sleeper accounts used to cause trouble several years after being created and escaping notice. (Well, okay, I've seen that happen once. :-)
  • Socking is intolerable on Wikinews even if the multiple accounts are not used in any overtly abusive way. --Pi zero (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I (despite being a non-admin) would concur with Pi Zero. Good call on the CU request, by the way. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Gryllida (% talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Block discussion requested: User:Clydestan

Hi. I'd like to ask for input regarding Clydestan - this user has twice posted advertising, last time (18th May) he was warned by InfantGorilla not to do it again, or he may be blocked. I recently removed the exact same material he posted last time, and per IG's warning to him on May 18th, I've applied a block of 48 hours to his account. Would anyone care to input on where we go from here, should the user return after this block expires, and do this again? Thanks. BarkingFish (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: Doing nothing but advertise, and coming back ten days later for a repeat performance after being warned, says indefinite block to me. I'd put a nice {{indefblocked}} on the user talk that explains all about how to request an unblock. I do not see this as a potential contributor to be won over, but as a commercial interest to be escorted to the exit with their feet scrabbling to touch the floor. --Pi zero (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking

I am part of the Wollongong University journalism project and I was not sure where I needed to post my story, after posting it on this page, I realised it was incorrect to do so, so I wanted to delete the text I wrote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clrstockbridge (talkcontribs) 10:17, 1 June 2011

Done "Category:Wollongong, NSW (2011 journalism project)" has been deleted. I see you copy-and-pasted the content to Australia questions involvement in War in Afghanistan after death of two soldiers, I tagged it with Category:UoW 2011 student work, should be fine now. Smile.png --Gryllida 12:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Blocked these two for 1 week for spamming

and asked to CU these two (but no blocks):

The block page says to not block indefinitely if it's not an open proxy, but both have similar situation. I'm not sure about whether these are bots and whether a longer block would be more useful. Gryllida 11:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I have to notify it here, that per [8], Cirt indefinitely blocked the second two instead of CU. -Gryllida 05:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Note, the registered user was indef blocked; the IP was blocked for one week. (It's wildly unusual to indef block an IP.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -Gryllida 13:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Guidance request: User:Billim1

Last night, I raised concerns on #wikinews regarding this user - they were welcomed, and immediately deleted the welcome. I noticed their contribs and realised they were basically going at it like a bull in a china shop - writing without templates, etc. I agreed they were trying to contribute, but making a pig's ear of things. I deleted one piece of their work, and left a note on their talk page, along with the welcome template again, directing them to read it.

They deleted my note and the template again. Then Dendodge had to delete one of their pieces as a copyvio, left them a "nothanks" thingy, and they deleted that too. Now today I come on, and find that 2 more items of their work are also copyvio, so I deleted those too.

I don't see the point of warning him/her if they're going to just blank the warnings and carry on regardless. I'm suggesting that we block this user, and nuke their contributions to the site, since it's obvious they have no intention of reading the rules and contributing in a co-operative and proper manner. BarkingFish (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Next copyvio, template their talk, block 6 hours without talk editing. If they persist, increase blocks exponentially. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For better or worse, I have left this on xyr talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Got this response. --Pi zero (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Guidance request: en.wp sockpuppeteer

Generically, if a user who has caused no known trouble here has been permablocked and banned at Wikipedia for disruption and massive sockpuppetry, what measures are appropriate to take here? I'm thinking blocking known socks would be fair game, but that doesn't actually work with socks that haven't (yet) been registered here, does it? And is there anything else?

Keeping in mind that failing to recognize past troubles can (it seems to me) actually interfere with making a fresh start — I'm looking specifically at User:23prootie. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes; one would fry any global or locally registered socks. I'd suggest a friendly note - "We promise not to bite for your past!"-type thing - might be good. I left that for our first such user; but then, it was me performed the original block so it was important to say very early on I was willing to give xyr a chance here. Other than that, I'd just say keeping one eye out. If some cause for alarm comes up, pinging someone involved from WP for background advice might then be appropriate - but, obviously, if we can possibly avoid it someone's activity on other wikis should be kept at arm's length. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Referral to AAA for breach of site policy (Self publishing)

I am referring User:C628 to the AAA for breach of site policy, in the fact that he self published this article (directed to page history) after making a significant contribution to the work. I have made it clear to C628 via IRC that self publishing is not permitted, to which I was told he would stand by his actions, and not apologize. The claim made is that if he'd not have published it, it would have sat in the review queue for a couple of days, and then been too late to publish. Apparently, myself and another editor doing nothing to help the article is an excuse for this, which is bullshit. Accordingly, I've openly warned C628 that if he does this again, I will impose a block on him. However, before it reaches that stage, I'm referring this to other site administrators for review.

If anyone else self publishes, they get into trouble, and I don't see why this case should be any different. The policy of the site is there for a reason, peer review must be done by an uninvolved editor. C628's contribution to that work went way past uninvolved. BarkingFish (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I've reviewed C628's history of edits to the article. This is the critical one which should have disqualified from reviewing; it changed a significant number of facts, and added new information. That requires independent review; the purpose being to double check in case there are any errors in figures (eg. 132 instead of 123). My other, somewhat more minor, concern is the addition of the BBC source. From adding it, up to reviewing, there's virtually no additional information drawn from the source. It may have been required for validation of data, but - ideally - that's the originating contributor's job. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I'd say that addition to the article is juuuuust past the reviewership thin-line-in-the-sand, going from "I've factchecked this article and a few corrected errors" (which is what a peer reviewer is suppose to do) to "I've changed this story substantially" (which disqualifies an editor from reviewing).
Sometimes after you've reviewed an article and fixed everything that was wrong with it, it can be hard to take a step back and see if you've just touched it up, or if you've rewritten it. This is especially true when the article is close enough to the cutoff point where it probably won't be reviewed if you just toss it back in the queue. Gopher65talk 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Although that does sometimes happen, in this case C628 has stated they were aware of having crossed the line, and consciously chose to publish anyway. (Noting, WN:IAR explicitly identifies independent review as the prime example of a rule that is not subject to being ignored.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And now, a statement from the gallows...

Yes, I knew exactly what I was doing when I published that article. And as I said in IRC, I will make no apologies for doing so. I published that because I thought it was worth it. In my opinion, Wikinews is better for that article having been published. The whole reason I was liberal, to say the least, in my definition of uninvolved, was because I thought that failing to have an article published on what was one of the biggest news stories of the day, with the article getting published in all likelihood days later when it matters very little, was a worse result than the risk that I would pass an article with substantial flaws. And if you want to crucify me for doing so, than I can live with that.

I find it quite interesting, however, that when TUFKAAP completely self-published an article, there was nothing beyond a low-key discussion at the water cooler, and here the reaction's as different as you can get. C628 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And one from the hangman...

Trust me C628 - If I'd have spotted that, I'd have dealt with it the same way I've dealt with this one, a damn good bollocking and a report here. The rules are there for everyone, and nobody is above them. I know, having been subjected to them, and subjecting myself to them in the past. I've done it to you, and I will do it again if the need arises. BarkingFish (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On bullshit

The claim, C628, that you can know the article would have grown old and irrelevant in the queue if you had not decided to abrogate your responsibility as a reviewer, is unadulterated bullshit. Although it's likely the article would have been published by someone else hours ago by now (with at least slightly higher quality than what you published, due to copyedits by the independent reviewer), that doesn't matter one way or the other. The institution of peer review belongs to the community, and you do not have the right to take personal responsibility for abandoning it.
It's also bullshit that TUFKAAP got off more lightly than you have so far done. TUFKAAP (who, btw, had a better attitude) had their article de-published, a stiff slap in the face (hell of a lot stiffer than trouting) that also precluded any delusion that the project benefited from what they did, or even that they "got away with it". Maybe TUFKAAP should have gotten some additional censure —two week suspension of reviewer privileges comes to mind— but, to your likely detriment, you've so far gotten off more lightly than they. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh really, Pi zero? That, I didn't know. I make the formal call then that C628 is appropriately censured for this breach, knowing that the article is already in publication, and unlikely to be recalled, I request by way of sanction precisely what you have suggested, a 14 day suspension of reviewer privileges, and in addition that they be subject to a suspended block of 7 days, to be implemented should they further self-publish articles in the future without requesting appropriate peer review. BarkingFish (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather not dig into punitive measures on this, the discussion here is "enough duramah". This is a case where we need a partial review option. C628 should have been able to make these changes, and review on all points except verifiability. Thoughts? --Brian McNeil / talk 06:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to change policy, create a new topic at the appropriate venue. WN:AAA is for action over specific issues, not a change in policy. — μchip08 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Microchip08. And Brian, the request for removal of the reviewer rights is not punitive, it is preventative, as all measures should be. It would prevent C628 reviewing their own work, and the suspended block is purely there to act as further incentive that the user should seek review, lest they wish to be blocked if they decide again that site rules are not worth following. With that in mind again, I ask that at least the withdrawal of reviewer rights is implemented if nothing else. BarkingFish (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Scope, yes. Preventative action due to a straightforward violation of policy is standard fare for AAA. Suspension of privilege for a cool-down period, less extreme here than a block as the policy violation can be prevented without suspending edit privileges.
  • The measure seems proportionate; enough to be noticed and thus allow a meaningful cool-down. I agree with 14 days as a duration.
  • There is no need to speculate on what measure would be appropriate in some future hypothetical situation after the suspension expires; that would be depend on context we can't now anticipate.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Revocation of reviewer right for 14 days

Based on the above discussion, and the fact that C628 did violate site policy by self publishing, in direct contravention of WN:IAR and general policy, I am revoking the right of C628 to review any articles on here for a period of 14 days from today (15th July 2011), in order to prevent them from actioning further self publication. BarkingFish (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I granted the right back just now, but I still believe the best course of action was a reconfirmation. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You should have said something above then, Mike - I'd probably have gone along with that. BarkingFish (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • We could have asked, I suppose. Afaik, the only precedent for an involuntary reconfirmation process (as opposed to a nomination for removal of privileges) was the ArbCom remedy in Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious. --Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I was off for the day around that time (iirc) and I'd completely forgoten to bring it up. My fault I guess. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary pages

Some helpful little oik of an IP address has discovered how to create Summary: pages in LQT; a great way to "claim" the final word in an argument.

Can these be blacklisted? They just don't fit with our LQT usage. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me based on the current usage, and it doesn't seem like LQT will be expanding into other namespaces any time soon. Hiding the link is easy, just a simple addition to MediaWiki:Common.css. Anyone else have comments on this before I go ahead? the wub "?!" 11:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done [9] the wub "?!" 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruption and copyright violation

I would like to draw the attention of administrators to inappropriately raised discussion on Talk:Main page. As stated at the top of the page, "If your query is not really directly related to the Main Page, consider the following locations". That, I believe, should be clarified to relate to the appearance of the main page; and, that content drawn from articles should – if disputed, or otherwise of concern – be raised on the appropriate article talk page.

There is an additional concern related to this, which is generally considered a serious offence on any wiki – namely, copyright violation. Not only did Mattisse (talk · contribs) violate the copyright of by copying their definition verbatim, xe denied this was a copyright violation, and duplicated this offence on the Water Cooler.

I would like to request that another administrator perform the required re-education; and, act accordingly if the offence continues to be denied or downplayed. Further to this, it is my opinion that Mattisse is now becoming needlessly disruptive. I believe the latest "I'm leaving" threat is at least the fifth such attempt to blackmail the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, xe could claim fir use/dealing for the dictionary definition, although why a somewhat closer and more freely-licensed dictionary was not used instead is a mystery. As for the disruption, etc., I'm not going to comment, because I'm pretty sure I count as involved. DENDODGE 12:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Re fair use, the verbatim quoting seems gratuitous to me; there's no reason she couldn't have simply referred to it without a bulky quote. (I've never found a good moment to suggest to Mattisse that making one's case verbosely does not go over nearly as well on Wikinews as making it briefly. When relevant, the observation has seemed unlikely to be received well.) Verbatim quotes from elsewhere is one of Mattisse's standard styles of argumentation; she used it on the talk page of that first article I tried to help her publish.
There's a simple reason she might have preferred not to use Wiktionary, btw — the Wiktionary definition does not straightforwardly support her position. I suspect a gradual shift in common usage of the word over at least the last several decades. --Pi zero (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: Fair use, that could have been asserted if a single definition had been used. However, citing the entire content of a page is a blatant copyvio.
I agree fully with Pi Zero's assessment, and would characterise it as "Mattisse thinks that throwing thesis-length complaints, or versions of her point of view over a disagreement, is winning said argument". It is a common method of discourse on Wikipedia, and a common failing of people from there to assume it's welcome here. I can't be bothered with it; I won't read a dozen lengthy paragraphs of whingeing; nor, I believe, will most Wikinewsies.
In any case, can we at least have some consensus that yet another "I'm leaving" threat will be enforced, rather than tolerated as blackmail? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Frankly Brian, I can't speak for everyone else, but I think we're probably all getting to the stage where the Mattisse thing is becoming too much. If once again, we get another "I'm leaving" threat, I'll probably enforce the bloody thing myself. Anything to shut this entire fecking saga up and give us all a quiet life. BarkingFish (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I am quite aware of your hostility, but you did not get another "I'm leaving" threat. If someone speculating about leaving is grounds for being banned, than this "rule" should be applied evenly. I have seen many "I'm leaving" threats on users pages, and they have not been banned. In fact, some of them even voted in the arbcom elections after having "left". I have tried to be nice to you but I see it is to no avail. Are you saying that I should leave, as you do not want me here? I have made friendly overtures toward you but apparently those have not been reciprocated. What have I done to you that is so awful as to deserve your efforts to drive me away? Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice from BarkingFish to all admins

Hi. At the moment, I'm working on the abuse filter, and as a consequence of this, am creating some extra accounts to see if they trigger filters, and to test them. As a result of this, I'm blocking these accounts on impact, to make sure they don't get used in any way by myself, and to prevent any notices re socking. If you see a few peculiar ones turn up, and I mark the edit sumamry as Filter testing, please rest assured they'll be blocked once tested. Sorry for the inconvenience. BarkingFish (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

have fun! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser - steward intervention

Just to make things perfectly clear, and on-record.

I've pestered stewards into clearing our CheckUser backlog. This is them 'bending' policy and classing this as an emergency. This is my responsibility, not theirs. They've responded reasonably to a request from a local project 'crat in the absence of local CUs.

I'd emailed Cirt who is not at home and, sensibly, refrains from using tools like CU or nmap on other peoples' computers. Skenmy and CSpurrier haven't been seen for an age.

This section here is to give the stewards something to point to. I would appreciate other admins backing up my appeal for this intervention. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We really need some more active CheckUsers, given our recent sock infestations. Anyway, I watched the chaos from a safe distance, and would be willing to stick my own neck on the line by backing up your appeal for intervention - we need it. DENDODGE 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Request done, accounts blocked, most often ranges blocked. Yes, you do need active CUs. Feel free to ask stewards for help if needed, but please give it a while in non-urgent cases. Time sensitive requests can be made at m:SRCU. Regards, fr33kman t 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Fr33kman, your timely intervention is much appreciated. You won't find a single local admin who objects - at least, I very much doubt such. Cirt is usually an active local CU. I would put in for the priv again, but I'm not exactly "flavour of the month" with various groups. I am more than technically capable, proactive, and you'll see plenty from me in the archives of the CU list.
If I can be sure of lots of backing, I'll ask for the priv again. I think I've learned my lesson regarding being provoked. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, would support. The rights themselves were never abused, and you are clearly more than capable of performing the task - one which is much needed on the project right now. Of course, you are a controversial figure, and I expect not everypony shares my view, but I would say you could expect to pass if you were to re-request the rights now. DENDODGE 20:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If I get a bit more indication of support, I'll re-request CU. I was an idiot to let some muppet provoke me into threatening to CU them for suspected malicious behaviour. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I just re-read my comment. Did I really say "everypony"? I need help. DENDODGE 20:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Although I am not an admin, I would like to register my objection to Brian McNeill obtaining CU privileges, based on his faulty filling of a CU against me in which he failed to follow the CU instructions printed in big letters, and provided no evidence whatsoever to support his accusation that I was a sockpuppet. Cirt shut it down for lack of evidence. See: (signed at Brian McNeil's request, since apparently each paragraph must be signed independently.)Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Although I am no longer the prolific contributor to this site that I once was, when I was writing almost an article a day or helping one of the students get their articles published, I would like to feel welcome here and have joy in contributing. I feel that Brian McNeil has has a chilling effect on wikinews at a time when the site desperately needs more contributors. Unfortunately, since I have been here many editors have left, including my mentor Blood Red Sandman. I do not feel confident at all that Brian McNeil would not abuse his privileges if granted CU. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
BRS hasn't left. He was on holiday. He got back today. DENDODGE 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll start looking into whatever needs/needed my attention for the past while in the next day or so. To be fair, it was a long - and unanounced - absence. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
And I did email you and got no response, so I thought I had lost the help I badly need to deal with this site. Please be my mentor. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies; but, I only received your email late last night. I didn't just leave WN for a month or so; I left the Internet entirely. I should really have made an anouncement somewhere, but the task got lost in the pile of tasks to go pre-departure. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place for such a discussion, but I'd like to quickly note that any volunteer news project (including this one) will have a tremendous attrition rate, due to the enormous amount of work that can be involved in single-handedly writing an article. While some users have indeed left due to a "chilling effect", many of those that you've met here are periodic contributors, who will come back in a few months or years, when they are over their burnout. This is a normal pheonomon:). It's also one of the reasons why we need a minimum of a thousand periodic contributors. I'd estimate that at least 70-80% of our contributors are inactive at any given time. 20% of ~100 means that we only have ~20 active contributors at any given point in time. If we had 1000 periodic contributors that would instead be a couple hundred people, which is about how many active people we need. If anyone feels the need to reply to this, copy/paste this to my talk page and reply there so that we don't clog up the AAA. Gopher65talk 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not "burn out" and have plenty of energy to contribute at the rate I did before. Rather, I do not feel welcome here. Fortunately, readers have expressed their appreciation for my articles, but continuing in a hostile atmosphere is difficult. Wp writing requires far more effort and the requirements are higher, yet people continue to contribute at a high rate there daily for years. The "burn out" rate is not nearly as high a percentage as here where turning out a short article based on few sources is relatively easy. Repectfully, Mattisse (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It really would be best to get at least two active CUs on this project. Just one active CU may mean less oversight of each others usage of the tool; something that it is designed to do by the two CU minimum. Stewards can't look at the CU log without becoming CU so at least one other must be elected or the current ones becoming active again. fr33kman t 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The remarks, both signed, and unsigned, by Mattisse (talk · contribs) are, in my opinion not competently enough put together to discourage me from standing for this privilege. I have had issues with this user and, when their past multiple sock problems elsewhere were raised, xe challenged me to CU them. I could not, raised said with existing CUs, and all hell broke loose because of this users persecution complex. This is irrelevant.
At-issue here is having project contributors who can do the work well in place. I see no evidence Mattisse (talk · contribs)has returned to socking; it was, at the time, raised due to problems on other projects. I would ask that user review my work to protect the project then comment further. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now signed the first comment above, although I think it is obvious that I wrote both and the additional signature is not necessary. I have not socked on wp since September, 2010 (the only site I have ever socked on) and have functioned since July 2010 on Wikisource with no problems and no accusations of socking. When a CU is requested, the directions at the top say clearly that you much provide evidence in the form of diffs. Unsupported speculation is not considered "evidence". Mattisse (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that anyone requesting CU privileges should not misuse CU and should follow the rules when filing a CU. You had no evidence, and since that seemed ok to you to file a CU anyway, then I doubt your abilities as a CU. And a CU cannot be requested by a user to "provide innocence", so I could not have filed one anyway. I felt bullied and flustered in being attacked and accused of socking because of an anonymous email that you received that contained no evidence. I admit I reacted badly to the attacks, but I was new to the site and was under the impression that that newcomers would be welcomed and encouraged rather than attacked. I was wrong and I fully understand that now. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Brian McNeil, shouldn't you sign your first paragraph above? It is not signed. But apparently I must follow different rules from you and if I make two paragraphs, I must sign each independently? Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bengali Language Code Input

Bengali Language web site

Cyber_core_Computer (CcC)

  • How is this in any way relevant to English Wikinews? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there; can somebody 'autoconfirm' me?

Hi guys, I am an admin on the English Wikipedia. I wish to expand my role here. Can somebody guide me to the page where I can request the autoconfirm or equivalent right? Thanks. Wifione (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah, found it myself. Thanks.Wifione (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

London looters in Wikinews

Hi there,

Can you undo and protect the page, please ?

Yours sincerely,

Ultrogothe (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an unpublished incomplete article with the {{develop}} tag on it; there's no reason it shouldn't be renameable. Note that the original title would have had to be changed before publication anyway, as it did not conform with our style guide ("flame" should be lower case, just as, after renaming, "burning" should be lower case). --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit a protected page

Hello, the template:Wikiquote has been protected. It would be great to change the png image to a svg image. I suggest to replace the file:Wikiquote-logo-en.png by file:Wikiquote-logo.svg. Thanks. Nodulation (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DoneGopher65talk 23:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Whenever a bureaucrat gets the chance, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs)'s RFA needs closing. Thanks, Tyrol5 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Blood Red Sandman. Tyrol5 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

sock warning

A message from Dirtyboy123: "Hey guys. I'm a sock puppet of Kittiesonfire5. hello (: what's up? let's open up a discussion here lmao."


Ragettho (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He performed a second edit, in which he removed the phrase "a sock puppet of" and used the summary "CheckUser is a piece of shit." Not that it matters what he thinks... apparently we won't have to use Checkuser in this case anyway! =) Ragettho (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Indef'd. Autoblock enabled; account creation, email, and talk page editing disabled. It might be worth a CU to see if it turns up any other accounts created using the same IP that we haven't caught yet, but I think he's probably just moving from one proxy to another now. DENDODGE 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, Ragettho, it's best not to feed the trolls. Revert, block (or report here), ignore. DENDODGE 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Robbygay (talk · contribs)

Beyond redemption?

Has caused a mess of disruption recently, and is ranting about filing complaints to the board - if you can make head-or-tail of any of the unformatted mess on his talk.

A quick check in The Other Place™ indicates xe did similar there before moving here where this idiocy has a bigger impact.

Would an uninvolved administrator care to take a decision on a long block, and restoring the {{Howdy}} template to xyr page for educational purposes? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Xe has crossed the line now. I received, twice, more ranting drivel via email. This smells like troll. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Since xe now has the welcome template, lets wait for the next move. I'm happy to be the second admin calling a decision; but, having been offered one final chance, let's wait and see what they make of it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Somebody mention a fresh sacrifice er... victim for the banhammer? If all else fails, I'll happily drop the cluebat on him. Just say when and where and it will be done. BarkingFish (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The reply to my "do not email me again" email (yeah, 10 Watt Energy-Saver there) indicates a supposedly elderly/retired individual. Hence the repeat of Howdy. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, xe is blocked and xyr talk deleted. Posted, verbatim, email I sent with a signature stating the content was "confidential and for addressees only". Bu-bye troll. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Desysop

Hi all. Just making you aware that, via IRC, I have requested a temporary desysop from Wikinews for a period of at least 7 days. The reason for this is that on Saturday, (17 Sep), I sustained a head injury which has left me with issues of memory loss, stitches in my head, and concussion. I am not in any fit state to be making administrative decisions on this site when I can't even remember the password I use to log in :) I'm not joking - I had to reset it this morning. As soon as I'm well enough, I'll request reconfirmation through the normal channels. Thanks all. BarkingFish (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you feel better soon. Bawolff 21:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Block User User:

Please block User: for vandalism. :) Thanks --Onewhohelps (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)

Something went horribly awry. An article was published five days old, with a glaring date error in the lede ("today", written five days past). Other symptoms suggesting inadequate checking. I have no definite knowledge of what happened, and of course have no reason to make any particular assumption (but my imagination can provide explanations ranging from the extremely mild to the really dire, and independently ranging from the mundane to the bizarre); I've asked Fetchcomms on xyr user talk, but since xe isn't around much, it may be some time before we hear back.

To forestall the more dire possible explanations, till we hear back, I've applied a preventative suspension of reviewer bit. --Pi zero (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Fetchcomms has replied. On one hand, xe forgot xe was on Wikinews rather than TOG. On the other, xe has stated xe doesn't care about Wikinews, doesn't care that xe published an ultra-stale article, and deliberately rubber-stamped some articles before leaving "to see if anyone would notice". And doesn't want the bit back (not that we'd want to give the bit back to someone who's confessed to deliberate sabotage). (Xe also edged over from semi-clueless ranting like that into fully clueless ranting, but by that time it wasn't much of a surprise.)
At least we've got clarity that Fetchcomms is no longer a Wikinewsie in good standing (which was one of the more dire contingencies I was providing for). --Pi zero (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Is there anyone else now active on TOG who'd like to request de-privved? I see no conflict in people contributing to both, but actively sabotaging one over the other isn't acceptable. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to publically state my intentions to contribute to OG as well are now in question. I'm reaching the conclusion I'm unlikely to be welcome if I also stay on WN; problematic, as OG and WN have manifestly different goals and should be able to beneficially co-exist. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The projects should be able to, I agree. Although I have no interest in contributing to OG myself, that's exactly because the different goals there don't happen to interest me.
It is rather disconcerting to realize, also, that even someone moving back and forth between the two projects in good faith could, apparently, lose track of which project they're on due to the two projects having much the same look and feel. --Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabotage? Really? I'm no longer in good standing? (Oh, wow, like that means anything other than you got to take your little dig at me.) Firstly, can we stop calling people "xe"? I'm a "he", I have a gender. Secondly, I resent the labeling of my ranting as "clueless". I will remind the community that "clueless" bloodthirst is what caused the Matthewedwards scandal. Thirdly, I never "sabotaged" Wikinews over TOG. You do realize that TOG was started after I stopped actively contributing here?

Let's go over this situation again: I never "sabotaged" Wikinews. Just because I don't care about it doesn't mean I'm hurting it. And what if I never actually "sabotaged" (read: very carefully manipulated a process unsupervised due to lack of users bothering to provide oversight) anything? You just proved that you are still assuming good faith that I was telling the truth on my talk page. Which seems at odds with the initial, good-faithless reaction to my article publication. Unless someone wants to check every article I've ever reviewed, then there will be an assumption of good faith that I did immediately check all the facts after publication, too. So does Wikinews support good faith or not? It's not either be "soft" or be rigid. You have to be soft or you'll see everyone else disappear by this time next year, too. Remember the internal division some months ago? Don't make the mistake of alienating enough others to make it happen again.

BRS, I don't understand your statement that you are unlikely to be welcome to TOG if you stay on WN, too. I, nor any other TOG user, judges you for staying on Wikinews. My personal opinion is that Wikinews is a failed experiment, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't participate in the next experiment. TOG should be about freedom, not rules. Could you elaborate on why you don't feel welcome there, then?

It is very distressing to me that history is repeating itself here. What I did is irrelevant now. How everyone else is reacting is ridiculous. fetch·comms 03:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  • My comment is aimed in general, not at you, based on some time watching goings-on there. I cannot elaborate without various fairly strong words against people I like; so I shall not, preferring instead to wait. I do actually suspect OG will be an easier place when it has settled in for a while, so I'm going to try and avoid rocking that boat. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Blood Red, I fear you may be overly optimistic. Because politics doesn't come naturally to me, when faced with profuse misstatements by someone clearly either unable or unwilling to self-diagnose, my instinct is to stop responding. Which saves oceans of words in the short term, and works long-term when the second party is motivated primarily by a malicious desire to stir up pointless debate (i.e., a troll) — but if the second party will go on to proselytize, the lack of political response is a disadvantage.
The OG community has by its very nature to lean toward folks likely to be influenced uncritically by what they hear. And what they hear is being shaped by a core of systematic misapprehensions about, and resentments of, Wikinews. Realistically, that community seems pretty sure to settle into a state institutionalizing the misapprehensions and resentments. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I am confused. Am I a troll now, or were you referring to someone else? Are we here to discuss me or OpenGlobe? (OG is irrelevant here. I don't understand what the whole politics thing is about, either.) What's relevant is the hypocritical treatment of "good faith" principles here. I'd like to know how long Wikinews is going to react to people without good faith while relying on good faith principles. Are you going to keep on running people off the project with overreactions? fetch·comms 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Crosswiki spammer

Hi everyone. I don't know where else I should ask this, so that's why I'm doing it here.

Please block the account above locally for infinity and also delete the pages Notebookdepo and User:Notebook. It's a crosswiki spammer and "Notebook" is a nonsul account (link) - I'm therefore unable to lock it. Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the right place.
I'd been waiting for a chance to try out Special:Nuke. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! One more spamonly nonsul account: Bibika (talk · contribs). Could you block this one too please? Thanks in advance. Trijnstel (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Pi zero beat me to it :P Diego Grez (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And another one: Phentermine (talk · contribs). Please block this user locally (it's a nonsul account again). Thanks! Trijnstel (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)