Wikinews

Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Archive 10

< Wikinews:Admin action alerts
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Admin action alerts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.
← Archive 9 |
Archive 10

Information warfare in troll space

I'm deleting the following comment in comment space, aka "troll space", which is unusual enough I'll offer some explanation here.

Deleting "opinions" stuff is rare — though I deeply regret that I didn't immediately delete a comment, some years ago, that was just cruelly heckling someone who had expressed a fan's well-wish about a musician, an incident that ultimately led to the posting fan having their feelings badly hurt (we eventually did delete the heckling, I recall, but by then the damage was done). In this case, though, it appears to me that the post is an aggressive mishmash of toxic ravings, and such is a hallmark of modern deliberate information warfare. --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it is written in all-caps. But it does not seem toxic to me. Unless BDS means something super offensive. --SVTCobra 14:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up, BDS stands for: boycott-divestment-sanctions which is entirely accurately used in this context. I really have a hard time seeing what is wrong with the comment. Are people going to be emotionally damaged by reading "Bravo to Israel"??? --SVTCobra 14:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: It's nothing to do with "Bravo to Israel", and although I mentioned a case where the stakes were emotional harm, the stakes are higher here.

In principle I'm open to being convinced, but imo this needs great care; it seems to be to be an important case, in terms of how we are to handle delierate information warfare. Here are more of my thoughts on the case. The first couple of sentences are merely strong opinion; which one might disagree with (perhaps even vehemently), but so what. By the third sentence we're into Obama ebola conspiracy theory and Obama-is-a-devout-Muslim-and-extreme-racist. Fifth sentence (if I've counted right) asserts that Muslims routinely spend their time thinking about monstrous crimes. And this poisonous sludge is mixed in with some other sentences that are "merely" extreme. Standing back and looking at the whole, this appears to me to be deliberate information warfare, seeking to make rational discussion impossible. Further complicating matters, the person actually posting it might, possibly, just be repeating insane sewage from outlets they've been taught to believe. In the case some years ago that I mentioned earlier —which was easier in that it was non-political, yet already difficult enough that we flubbed it— we erred in the direction of "free speech"; this case, though, represents someone —and again, perhaps not the poster, which makes it all the more fraught— deliberately trying to prevent rational discussion, when free flow of rational thought is what we are all about. If we don't treat it as deliberately sowing bullshit (which is what I did in my delete action), what is the alternative? From studies of such things, as I recall, it was found that when the first post in discussion of an article is toxic crap it generally prevents any rational discussion from later developing, which, the more I think about it, the more I feel was almost certainly the deliberate intent here. If we spend all our time trying to "defuse" such things with further comments, it seems that it both would not work and would leave us with no time or energy to do anything else. --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: Hm, I see to have misread. On very close examination, it appears that in the fifth sentence they did not (at least technically) ascribe those routine monstrous thoughts to Muslims, but rather to extremists/terrorists. That changes things. I'm reconsidering. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed the actions taken. It's clear to me that we need to draw a line somewhere, but at least for now I'm not confident that the particular post in question should be on the wrong side of such a line. --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Obama comments make the person seem laughable. If Obama is such a devout Muslim, it's odd he would kill so many of them. If Obama wanted to cause an Ebola epidemic in the USA, he sure did fail. However, deleting/blocking the comment, would just reinforce some of this person's conspiracy theories. (Little do they know that we were recently accused of pro-Israel bias, lol). --SVTCobra 15:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: Full agreement here that the Obama stuff, in itself, just makes the poster look silly to normal people; my earlier assessment was based on the combination with the fifth sentence — which on repeated study I eventually figured out does not actually say what I'd thought it said, though I note the attitude it fosters toward Muslims is exactly in line with my initial misreading. --Pi zero (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a scam phone number. how it can be showing over here.

This is a scam phone number. how it can be showing over here. you should block this and remove the entire blog name like this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.244.49.44 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 January 2018

To what are you referring? --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After what I just saw happen now, I am guessing something might have been oversighted while we slept. --SVTCobra 22:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like aggressive oversighting; admins are generally very trustworthy sorts (or they wouldn't be admins) and will usually be far more able to act correctly if they can see things — and of course if something has been hidden from them there's no way to determine afterward whether it was an appropriate use of oversighting or not. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am only speculating, but the edit I rolled back looked exactly like what the Anon described. If it was a global spammer, they might just have deleted and hidden all edits globally. Just a theory. --SVTCobra 23:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential socks present on your wiki

Hej. I may be new here, but I've been working at the Simple English Wikipedia for a while. I came across a Wiki user while doing some research for an RFD we have open, who was (at least in the past) an editor here, and whom I've discovered is a Sockmaster (evidence from an SPI on the English Wikipedia), Diego Grez aka Diego Grez-Cañete aka Lester Foster. I don't know if you want to do something with him, whether he's still active here or not, but you never know, do you? Link to the en.wp investigation is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Diego_Grez-Ca%C3%B1ete/Archive) if anyone wants to do anything with it. Thank you! DaneGeld (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, Diego Grez-Cañete (t · c · b) has not been active here since 2015. The user did obtain adminship, but those rights were revoked even longer ago. Thanks, --SVTCobra 16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld: Appreciated. Afaik there's nothing remotely secret, on this project anyway, about those account names belonging to the same person; so to my understanding, here, they aren't sockpuppetry. --Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Pages using ISBN magic links there are several pages which use the magic links feature i.e. something like ISBN 0870621440 but these may soon be deprecated per the RFC on Mediawiki. All that needs to be done is to enclose the word ISBN, and the number immediately after it, inside the {{ISBN}} template e.g. {{ISBN|0870621440}}, which should have no outward effect but ensures that the link to Special:BookSources is maintained when the magic link is deprecated. I have changed the talkpage and userspace instances but need an admin to do the ones on articles. I thought it might help to leave a note here because I can see the {{editprotected}} backlog is quite extensive. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: Is this cool to go? I can do some of these while I am distracted. --SVTCobra 02:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems okay afaics. --Pi zero (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I think I have gotten through them all. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Phone Numbers" Spambots

Hi, I would like to call the administrators that in case of encountering more spambots of this type, these will be reported in SRG through Meta so that the stewards can also globally lock those accounts and prevent them from possibly moving to other wikis in case of being frustrated when being blocked here. Regards and Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlvaroMolina:, Yes, we have a growing problem here with phone spams. How do we report them to Meta to help the overall effort? It is already very hard just to keep deleting and blocking on the local level as there are so many. Any help will be appreciated. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in the 5 minutes since my last comment, I had to delete 5 more. --SVTCobra 02:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a similar problem for several weeks last year (see here). Abuse filters have been implemented and the CheckUser tool has been used but without results that solve this problem definitively. The only thing that can be done is to block as soon as they are discovered and report them in Meta so that they are blocked globally and prevent them from spreading to more wikis. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated Wikinews:List of phone number spambots, though there's many accounts to add so I'm still in the process of updating it. —mikemoral (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WN:AAA broken?

I feel that mikemoral's change in this diff broke the page. It adds a bunch of white-space when I view the page, instead of removing it. Also, fonts on some things became tiny. I don't want to just revert, in case it is just my browser and not everybody. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki:Common.css, table.mbox-small - Amgine | t 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amgine. But that is too technical for me. But the problem seems to be around the box for speedy deletions. It is the one creating the white space and the one appearing in small font. The box is empty now, but when there were 12 items, the whitespace was huge. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I un-smalled it, perhaps that helped? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I feel about it. With the way the two boxes appear at the top, the page looks more like a disputed article than anything else. Why was the speedy deletion box changed at all? Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably to simplify this page. Most of the mbox presentations have clear:both; in their styling, which means they will not overlap with any other block-level html - such as other boxen, the table of contents, etc. The navboxen, iirc, do not have this, but someone should examine their core and css to be sure. - Amgine | t 17:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to reduce whitespace did not seem so successful. I'll gladly revert the speedy deletions box when I'm at a proper computer. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table of content was inside the "speedy" red-dashed box, so I made this change. Hope it is agreeable. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

abuse filter mismathch for Unregistered or New User blanking other people's user or talk pages

Just because I want to remove old link dumps and add fresh links to my userpage without logging in, the filter is preventing it. The filter needs to be smarter than just checking for content blanking.
150.129.88.45 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's user or talk pages is a particularly suspect activity; it's the sort of thing one tends to require authentication for. So it doesn't, thb, sound like an occasion for weakening an existing abuse filter. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The filter needs to learn what is wrong, what is not. That is why we are nowhere near having a machine which passes Turing test.
•–• 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An IP blanking a user page seems to be a valid positive for the abuse filter. --SVTCobra 12:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, there's the rub. The filter would have to exercise sapient judgement, and we cannot endow a technological artifact with sapience; as Acagastya says, we're nowhere near being able to do so. (I might add, I don't think a Turing test is a sufficient measure of sapience, either.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP blanking the page is different from IP updating the links. And sometimes, IP has to blank the content when a spammer is inserting bs.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So a random IP can come anD chANgE my user page, perhaps even BLANk it and just claim to be me? --SVTCobra 04:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vague descriptions aren't really going to shed light on this case. In principle, somebody should check the filter logs to see what it was specifically that triggered them (though probably we don't then want to be too specific in describing it publiin a cally, since abusefilters are too easy to get around if the black-hats know exactly what the filters prohibit). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pi zero (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 if you want your userpage to be protected, change the protection level, SVTCobra; but I use my user page to dump possible sources. Don't make me suffer because of your insecurities. {Bet that is similar to what is happening with the Muslim ban}
103.254.128.130 (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what??? "Muslim ban"? what are you talking about? I have the luxury of being able to protect my user page. But mine is just one. If Wikinews has a filter that prevents IPs from blanking user pages, I am in favor of keeping that. How often do you need to blank your pages? And when you do need it, is it really so time-sensitive that it can't wait until you are in a location where you can be logged in? You are asking to put the majority of users at risk, merely for your personal convenience. --SVTCobra 05:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there is a difference between blanking a section and updating a list of links. Do you understand what I am saying? Also, the filter does the same thing when I am changing five lines of information. Stopping that is clearly a problem. And yes, it is time sensitive to save it at that moment; and how many times were the userpages vandalised? (Oh I remember; you were hardly active on the project for the last three years go get an overview of what is happening on the project in recent years) and just stop treating like all the IPs are vandals. Okay?
•–• 05:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the problem described in the headline of this discussion. It specifically refers to blanking pages. --SVTCobra 05:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you talk about risk; yet there is a risk a registered user can blank a user page. Or even a published story. I understand that they are slightly different considering the anonymity involved however the filter needs to be smart enough to detect what it and what isn’t disruptive.
•–• 05:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
 Tbh, this doesn't seem worth a great deal of protracted discussion. An abuse filter can never really discern what is and isn't disruptive, because that's a problem for a sapient mind to try to judge (and even a sapient mind can't always figure it out). Perhaps an admin can look into this case, and once they do, they may or may not find a way to improve it; there's probably no need to say more than that. --Pi zero (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This bullshit was allowed, yet when I have more meaningful content to substitute, the filter stops. It may not be a big deal, but well, just had to point out.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to our company website

Hello,

I am the Group HSEQ Manager for Stevin Rock LLC and I am experimenting with wikinews to see if we can set up a collaborative forum that initially acts as a group news bulletin. Let's see how it goes. I have full clearance from the GM and additional proof can be sent to you if required. There will be no confidential information on this site, only very general information of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevin Rock (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevin Rock: Hi. Two things.
  • From your description, it seems unlikely to be compatible with Wikinews's publication criteria. You can read a compact overview of what we do here at Wikinews:Pillars of writing.
  • We have a policy against role accounts. It sounds as if your account would qualify, based on the name you've chosen for the account versus the name of the company.
--Pi zero (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I got this error

Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and it has been disallowed. In addition, as a security measure, some privileges routinely granted to established accounts have been temporarily revoked from your account. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Pattern vandalism #4

What I did is {{makeprotected}}<br>~~~~ to Talk:Daniel Carvajal. Can you please fix this?
•–• 05:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X2; fixed; filter may need to be updated. Gryllida (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks, tentatively, as if that filter cannot be modified by anything less than a checkuser (it looks to have been created by a checkuser in 2009). (I'm also, of course, struggling with the perverse esoteric language of abuse filters to work out how most usefully to modify it.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Autoconfirmed has been restored so Bawolff (t · c · b) - you may safely remove "confirmed" from the user. — revi☏ 13:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@-revi: How does one tell whether a user is autoconfirmed? I have the most awful trouble trying to figure this out whenever the question comes up, although on at least one occasion I succeeded in finding it, so I know the information is accessible somewhere. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Userpage/User talk/Contribs/Log pages, you will see "view user rights" (or for admins, "modify user rights") in the sidebar. It will show you explicit permissions and implicit permissions. The UserRights is also shown in Special:ListUsers. In this case, Special:UserRights/Acagastya now says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". — revi☏ 14:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now. As a bureaucrat, I'm able to toggle the confirmed priv; so,   Done, and bawolff isn't needed this time (I wasn't around when it came up last time). --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter and blocks

Hi, I'm writing this message because you have the 'block' option enabled for abuse filter, but no-one can enable them, since no-one has the required right assigned. So, I'm asking whether you want that right to be assigned to some user groups (if so, which ones?) or if the 'block' option should be disabled. Please ping me since I don't watch this page :-) Many thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki abuse

I blocked {{vandal|184.96.229.38}} on Wikisource for abusing other users (with zero constructive edits) and now he's targeting me here saying [1] "If you want the attacks to stop then downgrade the block. simple as that." Can someone please block this account, whose only edits on Wikinews have been attacking an admin for a Wikisource block? (I almost wrote "arguing about", but there's no reasons being given.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of responding to this, he reverts the section[2], saying "i don't like being fucked with".--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Threats of vandalism aren't something we get very often, though it's not obvious why not. But this is the second time today I've encountered it; previous was 192.160.131.57. I've locally blocked this IP for one week, same as the last one. --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero:, 184.96.229.38 (talk • contribs (logs) • block (block log)) is back. Bidgee (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May want to look at range blocking Bidgee (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given that particular IP a longer block, since one week was evidently not long enough for them to either learn the error of their ways or lose interest. --Pi zero (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user being rude again


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Anonymous user 117.198.187.77[3] appears to be trying to pick a fight on talk:Second confirmed death of migrant child in custody of U.S. border authorities this December. Their first post was not impolite, so I responded. They came back with "Improve your writing skills instead of bullshiting, will ya?"[4] Their third post was similarly rude and aggressive.[5]

I think this person is trying to pick a fight because their third post does not acknowledge my and other editors' attempts to change the headline, which is their purported reason for posting. If this person were trying to improve the article, they'd either have acknowledged what we were doing or taken a turn at fixing the headline themselves, and even then their incivility would not be okay. My current guess is that this is a Wikinews user with a real account who's using anonymity to be ruder than they otherwise would.

I tried deleting the third post, but this was reverted by another logged-in user.

I think blocking this IP address would force this person to either log into their account or create one, and then they'd express themselves in a civil manner, no block record, no foul. But if someone knows of some intermediate measure that might work, that's cool too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the logged-in user who restored the IP's comment. As I posted on Darkfrog24's Talk page, I didn't think that comment was particularly troll-like. Ca2james (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I think the IP does express themselves unnecessarily rudely with respect to Darkfrog24. Although I didn't think the third comment (the one I restored) was trolling, I do think they crossed a line with their second comment on that page, where they said, "Improve your writing skills instead of bullshiting, will ya?" That comment may also not be trolling, but to my mind, it's an unacceptable comment. Ca2james (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24 is, in my experience, an exceptionally polite individual with a low tolerance for undiplomacy in others; and then, on top of that, the points the IP was making undiplomaticly are criticisms of Darkfrog24 that, I have a fair degree of confidence, Darkfrog24 is not particularly receptive to — which to my mind would be all the more reason for heightened diplomacy when expressing them. With the undiplomacy, it seems the water has now been muddied, making it hard to envision atm a cool discussion of the criticisms; but I do not perceive them as trolling.

The user apparently involved has technical reasons for often not logging in, and regardless of whether you agree with those reasons, I'm inclined to think the reasons are sincere. --Pi zero (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pi zero, if you know which user this is, please tell the rest of us.
In my first response to the Anon, I asked them to say who they were. They decided not to. When I can't log in, I just write "Darkfrog" on the post. It's no harder than writing anything else. Again, I think this person is using anonymity as an excuse to be rude and to avoid taking ownership of what they have to say.
Telling this user "Sign your anonymous posts in some way or else we'll block the IP address that you tend to use" may be the intermediate measure we need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to think that the user is too lazy (in a negative way) to log in and is 'justifying' it using weird means. And he has refused to tell what he has told Pi zero off wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the logging in issues, but is it outing to connect the IP with a named editor if that editor doesn't do so themselves? I think it's outing on en-wp but I don't know whether it is here or not. Obviously it would be better if the anon was logged in, assuming they have an account, or otherwise connected the account and IP addresses. Ca2james (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, good point about asking a third party to do the outing. Best not to cross that line. But I see no problem in telling this anon, "If you don't identify yourself, we will block the IP address" or "the rest of the community has standing permission to delete any unsigned IP post you may make." Whoever it is, they can't handle anonymity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I am baffled by the hypocrisy: "If this person were trying to improve the article…" When I pointed out the exact reason why it is a bad and misleading headline, instead of fixing it promptly, Darkfrog24 is wasting time, even though it is very clear that we have a constant race against time. As far as the "fights" are concerned, just because I did not address XYZ…guess what, Darkfrog24: I do not owe you any acknowledgment. You wasted time when there was an easy fix. I have all the right to call out bullshit. And as far as "improve your writing skills" is concerned: What's wrong in that? Every newbie gets that. Some newbies improve and get past that. Some don't improve and when we try to tell them what should be done to improve their work, they don't. Chastising people for obvious facts, are we? You know, another problem is that you do not prioritise things, and wasting time of many. Just because others do not tell you, it does not mean that is not the case.
2401:4900:16A1:F02C:B8A2:D3E8:B5EE:FC14 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the comment by Leaderboard is something that I expect sheepvoters would say: there to say something, with no consideration for the focus of discussion. Seriously, do you have any valid point for working with time? Do you know how crucial that is? These comments distract from the original goal, someone who is attempting hat collection.
117.222.92.148 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be claiming "I'm not trolling! I really want to give constructive criticism about the way you, Darkfrog24 write on Wikinews!" I'm not buying it. I think you just want to pick fights and cause trouble. If there really were an easy fix, you'd have made it yourself or pointed it out.
Sign in so that I know to whom I'm speaking. It's also possible you're one of our colleagues who's using anonymity as an excuse to be ruder and more aggressive than you otherwise would be. If that's true, then you're someone who's just naturally more polite when not anonymous. That's the easy fix here: sign in.
I request permission to delete any unsigned talk page posts made by these IPs at my discretion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hat collection? What has that to do with the focus of this discussion anyway? "No consideration for the focus for discussion" - that's what you are doing with the gibberish you're bringing in. I very well know the value of time. I also know that logging in takes about 30 seconds, and even otherwise letting the community know who you are 10 seconds. If your reasons are secret all but one, then I can easily see how others are irritated by this. Leaderboard (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go and fucking read the comments before chatting shit here. And then decide who said things to the point, and who got side tracked.
117.198.190.199 (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this applies to you rather than me. And this type of comment (colourful language) is why it was brought up here in the first place, so stop doing that to prove your meaningless points. Leaderboard (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread serving a useful purpose, at this point? Seems by now to be just stirring things up more. I recommend, depending on whether one deems remarks trolling or trollish, either don't feed the troll, or don't feed the pseudo-troll. --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible actions to take:
  • Block these IP addresses so that whoever this is has to sign in.
  • Give this anonymous user an official warning of some kind, such as "If you can't sign in for real at least type in your username."
  • Give all signed in users blanket permission to revert talk page posts from these IP addresses.
  • Other.
Care to propose one, Pi zero? I see "pretend that the troll wasn't rude and take orders and/or shit from them" as feeding the troll. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest pretending they weren't rude, I suggested ignoring them. --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find I do not have the patience to stand still and take it from this person with everything else that's going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs), I don't have an inkling as to what the current controversy is, or what "everything else" is. However, given your history, I think your skin is thicker and your patience longer than you would have us believe in this post. --SVTCobra 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about what you said, SVT, and here's my issue with it: You're reacting to me and not to the anon, not to the anon instead of me, not to both. I'd like you to correct that. This person is straight-up swearing at Leaderboard. You seem to be saying "Darkfrog24, put up with it," and it would probably be better to tell the anon "Stop doing it," preferably "stop doing it or we'll [take specific action]."
Look, I plan to delete their posts if they do it again. Everyone else here okay with that? It doesn't matter that the third comment wasn't as bad as the second one; the second one established that it was time to show them the door. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think posts should be hidden; that would go against a core principle. However I think blocking the user is fine, and I'm a bit concerned about Pi zero's unusual silence over this. Ignoring someone who continuously uses bad language is unfair in my opinion. Leaderboard (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think posts should be removed as a matter of course (except on one's own Talk page), particularly if most other editors don't think the posts should be removed. Yes, the anon tends to express themselves rudely but that's not grounds for removing their posts. Ignoring the posts as if they weren't there is the best option if you truly think they're trolling you. Ca2james (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not okay with that, Ca2James. Silence is encouragement and it amounts to saying "Darfrog24, it's your job to be spoken to like this." If you can think of some other action to take, I for one would love to hear it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Silence is not encouragement. Encouragement is making a big deal of these posts and calling for disproportionate responses to them. By responding the way you have, you are giving the posts and the poster (and your own behaviour) quite a lot of attention. If the IP were trolling, you've played right into their hands by giving them all this attention. Not responding - at all - to posts like that robs them of their power. Ca2james (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Disproportionate"? Ca2James, you do know this isn't the first time this anonymous users has done this right? The IPS shift a few digits each time, so it doesn't show up on user contributions, but this has been going on for a long time. Years. I have no reason to expect that this person is going to magically start leaving me alone.
You know what works? Deleting the post with no response. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for excessively rude and/or offensive, nonconstructive comments being removed. I am also in favor of ignoring them without taking personal offense. Yes, I would have words with the anon if I could be sure to address the anon. I have my suspicions as to the identity (I am not that dense), but what use would it be anyway? I suppose a check-user investigation might yield some overlap and be enough to give a user a block. Would that stop it though? I doubt it. I don't see a range ban on a dynamic IP potentially used by a wide swath of people being a good idea.
Perhaps, I have spent too much time in the YouTube comments. At this point there isn't a thing anyone could say which would get under my skin. If they throw mud, I fling shit right back at them. Or I ignore them if I see it as flame-bait. I know, I am commenting here without seeing what was said; the page was deleted and I don't have the inclination to go through all the clicks to view the deleted revisions.
Maybe my advice is bad advice. I just know that I have refused to be deterred by insults or intimidation for more than a decade without getting myself banned (and this included some lunatic SJWs on Wikipedia). A clever insult is always more stinging than a barrage of swear words.
Well, as I said in my first edit summary on this, it was probably a mistake to interject myself. I have certainly had disagreements with anon in the past.
Happy New Year to all of you and Wikinews as a concept. 2018 was quite awful in my estimation and I hope 2019 will be better. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks, that was useful. I concur entirely with your 2018 vs 2019 views. The article was renamed, not deleted. It's currently here:[6]
So parties who are in favor of my "delete rude posts with no response plan" include Darkfrog24 and SVTCobra and parties against are Ca2James and Leaderboard, though both believe the comments aren't good. Pi zero has not weighed in on that particular point and the anon's opinion in this case doesn't count, though they do have complete discretion about whether there are any future rude posts to delete, so it all balances out. As things stand, those are my plans: Delete rude posts with no answer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not your place to remove such comments (I'm supposing we're not talking about your user talk page). --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Am I to assume the offending statement was "Improve your writing skills instead of bullshiting, will ya?"? If so, I am less than impressed. I think "bullshit" has become acceptable on American broadcast TV (and no, this is not a joke about the news). Despite the word "improve" in the sentence, there is actually nothing constructive. So, even if Pi zero doesn't think an editor should revert or remove the comment, I think it should be acceptable to remove it without an Admin doing it or a protracted discussion about it. I sure as fuck hope this is not the extent of this debacle. If I am seriously contemplating whether "bullshitting" is something acceptable on a talk page on New Year's eve, then I am losing grip on reality. --SVTCobra 03:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was objectionable and unacceptable but was not the one Darkfrog24 deleted and that I restored. I think, if such posts are to be deleted on article talk pages (and I don't support their removal), they be deleted by someone other than Darkfrog24 (preferably an admin who can, if they choose, take action against the anon).
Darkfrog24 has called non-hostile comments hostile, non-rude comments rude, and has alleged that reviewers have screamed at her (which I'm not sure what happened was screaming). These are all interactions with logged-in editors. Because Darkfrog24 has mischaracterized comments other editors and reviewrs have made to her, I don't think she is best-suited to judging whether or not a comment can be justifiably removed.
I also have a concern that, given license to remove comments that Darkfrog24 thinks is rude, she will begin removing comments from other editors also. The thing is, the anon is rudely expressing sentiments that have been expressed more delicately by others: Darkfrog24 does spend time arguing about review comments rather than working to improve her articles and Darkfrog24 does write articles that aren't up to Wikinews standards. I don't think it's rude of me to say that, but if Darkfrog24 does, is she going to start removing my comments? What about reviewer comments when they bring up concerns? I foresee edit-warring in that future and I think that future would be even more disruptive to the project than these long conversations are.
I think the least disruptive options for the project would be a) Darkfrog24 ignores the comments totally as if they weren't there (and yes, I know the comments have been going on a long time, and this is a difficult ask), and b) Darkfrog24 reports to someone else comments that she thinks are rude and that someone else, if they judge it appropriate, is the one to remove them. Is someone (preferably an admin who can deal with the anon) willing to do this?
Also: Happy New Year! Ca2james (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you brought it up, no I don't write articles that do not meet Wikinews standards. But yes I do contradict reviewers. Reviewers themselves often contradict written Wikinews policy, professionally published sources, standard English practices, each other and themselves on different days. That's because they're ordinary human beings.
b) requires waiting for a third party to respond, which is unlikely to happen in a timely fashion. I'd have deleted the "bullshitting" comment but Pi zero had already replied to it. a) is unacceptable to me. I've already taken plenty of punches from this person.
Here's my standard for deleting comments: 1) It has to be an anonymous poster and not someone signed in. 2) The person has to have made at least one comment in that conversation that violates civility standards. Once this IP started cursing at me, it lost the right to participate further because it had established that it was there to start a fight. Ever been in a conversation when someone starts yelling and then quiets down ...and then starts yelling again? That.
Maybe those comments didn't seem rude to you because they were not directed at you. If you want to put up with that level of hostility when it's directed at you, at your discretion, that's one thing, but it's not okay for you to tell me to do it.Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're proposing to delete not comments from the anon that you deem rude, but any random not-rude comment in the same conversation the anon makes after a comment you deem rude? The former I could sort of see (done by an admin or someone else who brings an objective eye to the table) because it's removing inappropriate comments. Yes, you'd have to wait for them to do that, and they might not do it but truly inappropriate comments would be gone. I strongly object to the latter no matter who does it. Ca2james (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an unknown element. I'm proposing that I keep doing what I already did. You agreed the comment was inappropriate.
You're proposing that I stand there and take it until someone hos and hums and decides whether they should maybe think about asking the other person to stop. No good and I don't plan to do it. Heck, no one in this thread told the anon to stop.
Tell you what, I'll delete it and report it here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You inappropriately deleted a comment calling it trolling when it wasn't trolling. Your rationale was false and you had no justifiable cause to delete that particular comment. No, it is not ok that you do that again. Not even if you ask forgiveness afterwards by reporting it. Even if the anon is unquestionably rude, that does not justify inappropriate behaviour on your part. Ca2james (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be asking for forgiveness; I'd just be reporting it. Deleting unquestionably rude comments from anons is not inappropriate.
Look, this anon might just be mimicking things that other people have said about me because they think then they'll be able to get away with it. It's working. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting unquestionably rude things may not be inappropriate, necessarily (although it's better someone else do it), but that's not what you're proposing to do. You're proposing to delete non-rude comments on article talk pages, and that's the unquestionably inappropriate thing. If you don't have consensus to do something, do it anyway, and report it after, you're asking for forgiveness for it. There's no consensus in this thread for you to delete posts by the anon. Ca2james (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could send the IP some kind of official or unofficial warning or admonishment and ask Pi zero to make sure it gets to the right person. No outing, no foul.
Right now, the IP is likely to read your comments here as encouragement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have wasted how much time pinging every admin with your whingeing about someone using "bad language" on an alert page, and you think someone else is encouraging the troll? - Amgine | t 04:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. And if you think the problem is just bad language, then you couldn't have "wasted" much of your time on this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely mistaken of my view regarding this conversation. You are trolling the admins. You are disrupting the wiki to make a point. You have altered another user's comment with whom you have a conflict. You should, at the least, be given a 24-hour cool-off block for your actions, in my opinion. This page is intended for notifying admins of current, active issues in need of immediate address. I have just notified them of this and this will be my last notification on this issue. - Amgine | t 18:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes

I am reminded, by recent drama, that I've been intending for a long time to close this discussion down. Full disclosure: This is a course of action I proposed offwiki, in an email with Darkfrog24; I have their agreement to mention this in the interests of transparency. The last thing anybody wants is the appearance of a cabal.

The IP, it must be noted, is clearly associated with an active user.

My thoughts on the above is that focus on an individual comment is unhelpful, and a waste of time; an individual sternly worded comment, however ineffective it might have been due to going overboard, is not really here nor there. Thus, the closure.

I also view that there is some evidence of a persistent campaign directed by IP(s) towards frog. Frog does not handle criticism well, but, is open to it. There has been an appearance of a campaign to direct the most blunt and strong comments towards frog and frog alone, possibly in the hopes of riling them up. If this is correct, it is unacceptable; it is harassment. Following this interjection, the IP has largely (afaik) cooled down. Nonetheless, if ongoing harassment were to be demonstrated, that would be much more worthwhile a topic to focus on than any individual remark could ever be.

The linked talkpage above is getting real ugly real fast. Frog, please don't become the bad guy here. You're better than that. I don't know if the IP has made a conscious effort (one likes to hope so), but for all they are as, ahem, 'robust' as ever they have cut down on the sarcasm and the passive aggression, are making attempts to back up their position, and are engaging properly. All these features have previously been largely absent, a cause for my concern when leaving them the comment on their talk. That they swore is neither here nor there; that they continue to be very rough in tone is, to put it extremely mildly, unfortunate.

Lashing out against what you see as one problem runs the risk of creating a bigger problem. For example, I like you immensely; I'd be worried that if I reviewed one of your articles and found cause to knock it back, the two of us would fall out.

This whole debacle makes me see why other wikis are so fond of interaction bans. I am not; I think if one is doing worthwhile work, one should be free to do it. In any event, they cannot ever work on a small community such as ours. I'm reluctant to hand out blocks to valued contributors, especially as I genuinely like the parties involved. I hope these words will act to bring some sobriety to all. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


revision suppression suggested

Email address, postal address, phone number. - Amgine | t 13:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke request

These contribs should probably go away. Xwiki harassment. Account now globally locked. GreenMeansGo (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tad slow ;) Got 'em already. Thanks! BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LTA on my talk page

User talk:Doug Weller this is pretty normal for me now on project where I don't edit. Can someone also semi-protect the page please? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

abuse filter mismathch for General spam

I'm trying to edit my page, and it is saying "General Spam Warning". Don't know why this is happening? J-Man11 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be able to edit your page without a problem. --SVTCobra 03:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are, occasionally, weird problems with spam filters. Some years back, we had a problem that appeared to only affect certain articles; it turned out the filter had been wired to notice certain puerile obscenities as substrings, including "poo", and as a result it consistently caused problems on articles related to Liverpool. --Pi zero (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

There seems to be a contributor with multiple accounts. I don't want to call it sockpuppet abuse, but there are weird redirects and signatures which reflect other names. I would like the user to clarify what is going on.

Accounts involved:

Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SVTCobra. Just to clarify. I don't use the account under my real name since 2015 for personal reasons. Since then I have used my alternate account, Küñall (which no longer exists since I have renamed to Cuatro Remos some months ago). I have not updated my signature here, though. There is absolutely no sockpuppet abuse. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have corrected my signature and restored my userpage as it looked back in 2014, to avoid confusion. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuatro Remos: I can appreciate your desire to deal with this in private, however, I felt it was important that other people see this. Even as we speak now, your signature is "Diego Grez-Cañete" but you are posting from User:Cuatro Remos. How do we know who you are? You could be trying to steal the credentials of a vetted reporter. I am not saying that you are, but it would be easy to do for anyone. Just look for an inactive accredited reporter, create some redirects and a custom signature, and viola!. Oh, and as a side-note "Küñall" is not a registered account, just a page and should be deleted. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and I don't blame you :-) However, I thought it would not be trouble to sign here under my real name since I am sure most of the oldies know who am I. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've been more-or-less following Diego's username/account shifts over the years, and I'm satisfied it's him. (Yes, I did double-check when I saw the RFP vote.) The last time Diego contributed, as best I recall (though he's also dropped by IRC occasionally), was to write an obit for Hugo Chavez. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Pi zero. That was my last article. Well, for the moment :-P I can't believe it's been over six years since I wrote that. But well, never took/had the time to come back actively. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: if you are 100% sure, then the list of accredited reporters should be updated and not go through a redirect. I am going to delete User:Küñall and it's talk page in one hour unless someone objects here. --SVTCobra 00:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SVTCobra, I wouldn't mind, but I don't see a benefit by deleting it. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much a rule. It sits there pretending to be a user page when it is a name that somebody could register.--SVTCobra 01:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I don't immediately see why deleting the Küñall pages would be desirable. They were created when User:Küñall was renamed to User:Cuatro Remos; seems like they could be useful history for someone trying to sort out what went on. If they were considered actively undesirable, one might thing someone would have arranged that redirects not be created when users are renamed (though admittedly that's reasoning from an expectation of people making sensible decisions). --Pi zero (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of no doing by Diego and just a quirk of multiple renames/account changes and/or moves. The fact remains, "Küñall" is a name that is currently available to register. If some new person creates an account with that name, should they be saddled with this user page on Wikinews? I think not. However, I do see there are multiple pages within Wikinews which link to User:Küñall, so I shall not be so hasty in my deletion. --SVTCobra 01:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to create the account, in order to prevent impersonation, but I had no luck. "The username "Küñall" is too similar to the following usernames: Kunal l; Kunall; Cuatro_Remos; Please choose another username". I guess it won't be possible to create that account. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I guess I should point out, the actual accreditation is associated with a fourth account: Diego Grez (t · c · b). Are there any more? --SVTCobra 01:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, that one had gone without saying; it was his username during his main active period here. --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: I must insist that this gets sorted out. All but one account seem to be still existing (as in not renamed). Furthermore, User:Cuatro Remos is displaying the credentials which belong to User:Diego Grez. If you are 100% certain, then update Wikinews:Credential verification. If not, User:Cuatro Remos will need to apply just like a new user. (P.S. I also think the other user pages need to say something like "Former account of Cuatro Remos" and not a straight-up redirect.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SVTCobra, I am not sure what the issue here is. I have never tried to cause trouble here, and I believe people here can know for sure this is me and that was me, too. I don't even remember the passwords for all of these accounts, that's why I quit using the one with my real name. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuatro Remos: You aren't causing "trouble" but the issue is when we issue credentials and allow people to make original reports. This is a thing that is hard to earn and you seem to think "I can just close one account and open another and transfer the credentials." And the bit about "your real name" is ... well, let's call it horse hockey. The credentials template displays what you have told us is your real name. You are redirecting from accounts with "your real name" to your new account. Wow. Nobody will find Diego Grez now, lol. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. Well, of course, I am referring to your old reasons. Today, it seems that it is because you "forgot" the password for the old accounts. Frankly, this gets worse every time you contribute. --SVTCobra 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, in these nine-years as an accredited reporter, I have never used the credentials and don't think I ever will. There is no point in keeping it. For sure, I can't thank hard enough those who trusted me back in 2010, but given that, after all those years some people have decided to get picky, I have no other option than to resign the "attribution". --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuatro Remos: I don't see any need for you to resign anything. --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. But we need to get our records straight and control which user pages display credentials. --SVTCobra 00:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to state this officially:
Therefore we do have formal confirmation by Diego Grez that Cuatro Remos is the same person who was accredited while their account name was Diego Grez. --Pi zero (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you then going to update Wikinews:Credential verification or is it too late? I never asked Cuatro Remos to be a part of this discussion. I know we are talking a period of ten years, but some the history you revealed shows even more renames. It borders on disruption in my opinion, but the point of all this is our list of accredited reporters. (who can vote is very secondary). If you, Pi zero, think this collection of account histories link it all together, then change Wikinews:Credential verification. It really is that simple. Put it under "Cuatro Remos". --SVTCobra 01:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SVTCobra, you're coming across rather, well, harshly, and I don't really understand why. Diego is a good friend of many years, and there has never been any doubt about who they are. I have nothing against neatifying our tracking of things on the accreditation page, but I honestly thought, when you left your note here just a few hours ago, that I could take a day, or perhaps even two or three, to find a good moment to sort calmly and carefully through all the pieces of this situation and work out just what should go where. I didn't expect this situation to escalate rapidly over just a few hours. It seems the internet can make human interaction more difficult.

Atm I still mean to follow my original plan, taking my time within reason. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 No, I don't mean to. But I thought we had an unspoken agreement that it would be sorted out when we last touched this subject three weeks ago. And I know, Cuatro is not running around in the world, going to movie premieres or anything with our "powerful" accreditation. However, three weeks ago, I thought you'd fix the discrepancy, especially since we are voting on someone else now. I am old, but maybe my time horizon of things I do next hasn't become as long as yours. I have always looked at accreditation as something special, and in order for it to be special, certain limits need to be enforced. I've never asked for it (nor will I oversight) because I do intend to remain anonymous as best possible. Anyway, I re-opened this with my feeling it was somewhat urgent. But as you saw, someone has notifications set for everything. And then I felt like I was being fed a load of bullshit, which it still tastes like. True, I don't overlap in activity with the user in question, and don't share the friendship that you do. And again, I am condensing years, but it just looks crazy with all these accounts. And then to reclaim them with redirects? I have never seen this on any project. If you change your name, your account is moved. If you lost your password, you might be lucky to post a message on the 'dead' account that you have a new name. But this web of redirects which was hard to untangle ... it didn't feel right. And why set it up if one is not participating in the project anymore? Anyway, if I had a pointed comment in your direction, it was because it could have easily been fixed weeks ago as far as I see. It's a simple edit. Why make a note to do it later when it could be done immediately? --SVTCobra 02:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a dreadful backlog of urgent things I'm earnestly trying to get to and am failing to get to; this one honestly just slipped out of my sphere of attention. I don't mind being reminded, although your reminder came to me at a moment when I was not at all in a position to act instantly. Nor did I think I needed to act instantly. When I said you're coming across harshly, though, I really meant you seem to be coming across harshly to Diego. I really try to make Wikinews a home-from-home that far-flung Wikinewsies can come back to and be welcomed; and no, I don't compromise standards for that. It should be possible to keep those things from conflicting.

It's seemed as if you thought, despite my vouching for him, that Diego was trying to pull of some sort of flim-flam. Nothing of the sort. Over the years Diego has not completely lost touch; he was welcome when he came back to write the obit for Chavez; and I verified each thing that happened to his accounts as it happened. Each step was simple and above-board at the time; despite the overall accumulation, there is no mystery here. He set up an alternate account, and used the most basic, standard technique to prove the two accounts were held by the same person: through the primary account, edit the user page of the alternate account acknowledging it as an alternate. I may have advised him at the time on how to do that, though it's been a long time so idk for sure. A bunch of Wikinewsies have set up alternate accounts and confirmed them that way. I have such an account myself, User:Pi one, that I almost never use. Later, each of his two accounts was renamed, using the standard procedure for renaming accounts. All very ordinary.

Re taking action on this particular case: the hard part here isn't acting, it's figuring out exactly what-all to do. Possibly what will be wanted will be to tweak the data on the accreditation page and replace the redirects with calls to {{doppelganger}}; but I want to be thinking very clearly when I look over the situation as a whole and make that decision. I'm sorry things kind of flared here in the meantime. --Pi zero (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

abuse filter mismathch for Prevention of talk page company spam

Users to set specific actions to be taken when actions by users, such as edits, match certain criteria. A filter could be created to prevent anonymous users from adding external links, or to block a user who removes more than 1000 characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QUBESMAGAZINE (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall often seeing removal of more than 1000 characters at a time.

Adding external links is a necessary part of writing an article (for source citation), and I don't think we want to prevent anonymous users from writing articles even though we do very strongly encourage them to get an account. --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP

@Pi zero, Mikemoral, SVTCobra: Hi, please block 70.168.226.150. 大诺史 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like SVTCobra got it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link in wiki page about the Northern Snakehead fish that says “ Snakehead fish appear in large near Potomac River” lead me to empty page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:846:c201:4950:c536:7dd3:cd6b:6316 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this link? --Pi zero (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ip vandalised my user page.

could someone stop that ip please ty. Baozon90 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baozon90: I gave them a temporary block, of the usual length for IP vandalism on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decrease protection

Hi. Can an admin please remove the 'cascading' protection from User talk:InfantGorilla/Archive 1? There are multiple templates transcluded there that should be editable. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any protection on those templates should be decided individually. --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open request for adminship

Wikinews:Requests for permissions#acagastya (talk · contribs) — adminship has been open for over 5 months. Can a crat please close it? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now over 7 months... this is getting a bit ridiculous. Unanimous support so far. Pinging crats: @Bawolff: @Blood Red Sandman: @Pi zero: @TUFKAAP: can someone please close Wikinews:Requests for permissions#acagastya (talk · contribs) — adminship? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of closing it, but Gryllida has now asked a question. I've been wondering quite how to handle that. --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a clear standard length for permissions requests... (COI admitted) The top of Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions says "If it has been over a week and no one has gotten back to you about your request for Reviewer access, feel free to drop a note at the talk page of an administrator.", but I opened my request three weeks ago, and the last edit to the page was almost a week ago. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed lengths like that start to make sense for big projects. I'll take a look at yours soon; acagastya's seems worth dealing with first; I hope to get to that either tonight or tomorrow. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...so, the request for adminship was closed. My request for reviewer is still open, with 1 "wait" and 2 "support" comments. I did some digging, and it seems like the last time someone became a reviewer under non-fast-track procedures was Acagastya in 2017!!! (Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 9#Acagastya (talk · contribs – Edit rights)). Since then, TUFKAAP and DragonFire1024 have both lost their reviewer rights through inactivity. In other words, the number of reviewers is going down, and the last time a new reviewer was promoted was 3 years ago. Before that, Green Giant was promoted in 2015, and before that, the last one I can find is from 2012. Food for thought --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts/Archive_10&oldid=4565265"