Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Archive 9

Archive 8 |
Archive 9

Omdo (talk · contribs)

Are these edits allowed by current Wikinews policy? They appear to be some questionable changes to try to establish notability of and interest in the topic of Sarawak. One of their edits were rejected in this change. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Our rule of thumb is, don't create a category until there are at least three published articles about it. When someone creates a category for which there are no published articles, we can generally speedy-delete it; when it has one or two, we'd tend to want a formal vote to delete, which is a nuisance so we don't always get around to it promptly. I for one sometimes drag my feet on small cats like this because I've been considering proposing (eventually) some tweak to our best-practices on category creation, to make it easier to create all of a set of categories (such as the states of a nation) when some of them are underpopulated.
Omdo created the category to accompany an article, iirc, but the article didn't work out. I may have hesitated to delete the category at the time on grounds that, had the article succeeded, we would then have had two published articles for the category, only mildly under-quota. By the time the failed article got deleted after two days' notice of abandonment, I'd probably forgotten. --Pi zero (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
What were the articles about? Did they contain potential copyright violations like what happened on the English Wikipedia? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what happened on en.wp. How unfortunate.
It appears Omdo has done some things here on en.wn that aren't proper procedure, but nothing that was repeated — nor did Omdo attempt to do anything over correctly, either.
The one article here, "Independence of July 22 for Sarawak", was created in early-to-mid July of last year. It was never reviewed, so no source-check was done at the time; checking the deleted text now, I chose a sentence from the middle, googled it, and was led to a copyrighted source, not listed as a source for the article, that contained that sentence verbatim. (It was an attempted self-publish, which newcomers sometimes do through misunderstanding; we removed the attempted self-publish, tagged it developing with a note that it needed explaining for an international audience, and the author never tried to fix it and submit for review; hence, no review.)
Some months earlier Omdo also uploaded an image to en.wn; I've no idea why; which was tagged by one user for deletion as under copyright, and deleted by an admin for having no source information. --Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Is there a reason that {{votings}} is unprotected yet {{votings/complicated stuff}} is semi-protected? Would it not make sense to have them both under the same protection (whichever one deems that to be)? — Microchip08 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well... {{votings}} is regularly updated with those counts that are maintained by hand. {{votings/complicated stuff}} consists entirely of things that are maintained automatically, so there's no reason to tinker casually with it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


If you haven't changed your password, now is the time to do so! The WMF have recommended all users change passwords in the wake of the Heartbleed vulnerability. This is obviously more of a priority for privileged accounts, but should also be highlighted in the sitenotice for everyone else.

And, for those with email addresses, please change your passwords there too! The SSL cert for the hosting company has been replaced, but this does not help if someone has managed to purloin your password. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin Succession Controversy - Wikinews

I have followed link given from google search.

Mufaddal Saifuddin Succession Controversy - Wikinews, the ...‎ Apr 4, 2014 - A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rukn950 (talkcontribs) 07:57, 22 April 2014

And? I'm sorry, this is too garbled for me to tell what administrative action you're seeking, or why. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think they're letting us know that a google-search lead here but the article doesn't exist. Mufaddal Saifuddin Succession Controversy‎.
@Rukn950: Thanks for letting us know, but this isn't actually a problem. It's an article that was never published. Once an article has been published, it's official output of the project, and we go to great lengths to maintain its url so it doesn't create a memory hole; but articles that fail to achieve publication are eventually tagged as abandoned and, after a two-day waiting period in case someone wants to attempt to rescue the article, they're deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and you are welcome. I just wanted to notify that google search was leading to non existing article.Rukn950 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I just tried searching Google, they no longer give a result that points here from the article title you clicked on. Checking Google News for Wikinews as a source gives most of our recent articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


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

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

While it would be better for wikimedians to not edit projects without following the local policies, it's extremely unlikely en.WN could convince Commons members to set up a bot account for their bot editing. But it's something of which admins should be aware. - Amgine | t 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking

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

Caron Carus

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

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

Crime in Benin needs to not appear.

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

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


Rvplpr (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

This user is, quite clearly, a single-purpose account. I've had enough of what's RVPL PR — i.e. the PR department of Rvplus Inc, which lists Cary Lee Peterson as chairman, and as the holding company for penny stock ECCO2.

Does someone else want to wield the bannhammer in as SEO-friendly way as-possible? Ideally, linking to the SEC suspension of trading? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No. If there's consensus to block, then we should do so neutrally; we shouldn't use the block summary for revenge, or a soap box, et cetera – merely to record the circumstances of the block. Have we warned the user regarding their edits? They look like they're at least trying to work within the framework, even if the content is a bit off. Microchip08 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Check their deleted contributions; they've repeatedly attempted to use Wikinews for this deception. ECCO2, similarly, is a penny stock with no trading and a tenuously fictional connection to the UN.
This is an attempt to defraud, which is the basis upon which I believe any user/user talk ban message should be worded. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Just link to this discussion, or an archived version thereof. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   ban I try to allow for multiple scenarios with these folks, but in this case I find it's no longer tenable to suppose they're anything other than a PR instrument. Having dealt with them directly for months, I see clearly they aren't trying to work within the framework. Thank you, brianmc, for clarifying what I'd not quite got a handle on, though I'd been sensing it, the meaning of the account name — Rvplus PR.
An interesting feature of this unambiguous case of news-site abuse is that the person perpetrating it may have a worldview making it impossible for them to perceive what they're doing as wrong; on the contrary, they understand "news" to mean "vehicle for disseminating propaganda". This can be a difficulty in discussing memetics: the intentions often belong not to individual people, but to larger entities that program, or select, their minions to think in ways that will promote the entity's agenda. Ultimately what matters for us is the individual's dedication to fundamentally news-antithetical behavior. --Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Lol. In the above description of "larger entities" I refrained from citing religions as a classic example. But I see Rvplpr's latest remark actually refers to "doing God's work". --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite. By impeding some "God-given right" to publish their crap on Wikinews, I'm apparently libeling them. If they want to try and make that allegation stick, they'd have to come out from behind their PR account and challenge what I said as defamation in a Scottish court.
Instead, we've the "Brian's a horrible person" grandstanding. Yup, I am. I'm one of the horrible people who'd have to defend anything Wikinews published. Part and parcel of that is nobody should have to try and untangle deliberate obfuscation and deception around a Balkan-sized conflict of interest. Persisting in peddling this crap does take faith, only God could forgive them for pushing such piffle; certainly nobody would forgive Wikinews for actually publishing it. I'd be surprised if anyone forgave Yahoo for publishing their pressers, but I don't know anyone who looks at Yahoo for news. This leaves me with the unease that when this 'stuff' is being politely rebuffed, the general Google search ranks it highly.
If this user had registered as "RVPlus Inc PR.", they would've been banned months ago. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Entertainment value is increasing with this user, I am now to be reported to the "Wiki board". I really would like more input, hopefully leading to a quick consensus to ban. I did note an IP stuck the latest Peterson promo-piece up for review again; that IP resolved to NYC, making me conclude it could-well be Peterson, if not a close friend of. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    There are slight differences between libel and defamation: e.g. communicating libelous statements directly to the alleged victim, with or without an audience, does not generally constitute defamation. - Amgine | t 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Immediately for disruptive legal threats and patent dishonesty. To be clear, a community ban requires consensus to overturn, unlike a block which can be appealed straight to any administrator. We went over that difference for Saki/Saqib. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the nonce. First, this is probably not the appropriate venue for a community ban? dunno. Second, although annoying and offensive, I'm not sure the user's behaviour has been shown to be persistent. Too soon, my angel. Patience.1. (On another hand, by all means extended block for legal threats.) P.S. I hate that I actually 'voted' on this. - Amgine | t 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Amgine, is the evidence they've been out to promote their "client" since February over on the deletion request for the latest insufficient evidence of persistence? Perhaps we should be calling for Rvplpr being given a topic ban on Cary Lee Peterson?
The legal threats don't bother me, they're inept and not credible whilst xe remains more anonymous than the 'Urban Spaceman'. My concern is they're successfully using Wikinews for SEO; even with nothing published as news, their repeat attempts to promote Cary Lee Peterson are coming up on the first page for regular searches on Google and duckduckgo.
BRS suggests an immediate block; as the one with administrative rights who called Rvplpr out on this, I've refrained from doing so. Having seen the search impact xyr work achieved, I've added __NOINDEX__ to both the latest article, and a local page for the image (hadn't seen that tab before, I'd just tried creating local pages and been happy to find it worked).
Amgine highlights this might not be the place to discuss a ban. It is, though, where to ask if there is someone happy to take administrative action. I think I can be considered to have recused myself from ArbCom down. How we proceed, after any block is imposed, and the matter is discussed within the community — perhaps with the pseudonym action is proposed against — isn't SEO, I'd prefer if it were SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh, for obvious reasons I was unaware of that history. On another hand, so long as the user is not disruptive over their constant efforts at promotion being deleted, I'm not sure they really need a ban. This user, on the other hand, is becoming disruptive that their efforts are achieving nothing.
<Which brings to mind a non-sequitur rant about a statement made today by Canada's central bank: as the 6 years of near-zero interest rates have not achieved their goal of economic stimulus, the financial industry should assume severely loose credit will be continued for the foreseeable future. Have they never heard the chestnut definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome? end rant>
Anyway, I would suggest we wait to see what happens after the block expires. - Amgine | t 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've nailed in a lengthy immediate block in the absence of any opposition to that. I intend that to be a block, not a ban. That ends any instant disruption and lets us get on with deciding if we need a full ban. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I've obviously not quite got the deletion request for Rvlpr's upload to Commons right, sorry to prod whoever we've got from Commons to look at that — but there are several images xe chucked on Commons to drop on stuff here; almost-all with that ridiculous PR claim xe denies here and reference to the never-registered --Brian McNeil / talk 04:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I investigated Brian McNeil's argument and there is obvious bias and attempt to slander Peterson. Look at his comments and look at the rebuttal and supporting content. Trying to understand if Brian knows Peterson and has a personal vendetta against him or he just has a hatred toward people in the world doing humanitarian and philanthropic works. News articles about goods works should be exploited. How could you call this propaganda? They're simply reporting an action or event that happened to support a cause and that is news. Brian's demeanor is out of place and he is the only party that should be banned in this situation. You can observe the proofs and media content from Peterson or his affiliates and see the truth. Brian sounds a bit angry and jealous. Just my thoughts as an outsider looking in the window Mickeechen (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at their contributions, so I can't judge on that. I can, however, say that anytime someone has an article deleted and immediately says, "yeah!!?? Well then I'm going to sue!!!11!", that's an instant ban. No legal threats are allowed on Wikinews. The individual in question violated that involite rule, and deserved to be banned for that reason. — Gopher65talk 13:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of this Wiki dispute and see no mention lawsuits or threat of any kind. The writers and users are clearly stating a fact that McNeil has gone out of his way to pass biased comments as official facts based on information that was created from his own opinion. The tone of the comments clearly displayed this negative altercation that allowed him to abuse his authority as an admin for Wikinews. Every statement made by the user Rvplr were viable and verifiable. You guys should be a better job policing these incidents. Rvplpr did nothing wrong and you can even see postings in Talk history where they aksed for some help and support revising and submitting their articles. Since when was it righteous the flout and rebuke a person who is merely asking for a little help from the senior Wiki users? See my point? Mickeechen (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We're neutral, seeking to report objective fact. We welcome those who value neutrality. Those who do not (for example, those who think it's not propaganda if it's for a cause they believe in) should find a different outlet. --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pizero, I appreciate your feedback. Whereas, bias is bias. Slander and libel are what they are. Brian McNeil had no reason to say what he posted as a respected authority of Wiki community. Its people like that that start hate mobs and ugly motives that are not positive for our community and history as we know it. When you dish out ugly comments and opinions that transgress facts you are now part of the negative affect and no longer considered neutral or positive. Mickeechen (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Which would be your home wiki? I only see three edits on Wikinews, so you're new here. This individual, which you cannot see due to their contributions being deleted, set out to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes. When called on it, they resorted to legal threats. Their talk page gives you absolutely no indication of the amount of people's time they've wasted.
So, please clarify how you can have reviewed a dispute which refers to deleted nonsense which, I repeat, you cannot see; a whole four months-worth of deleted nonsense. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to come past and make the exact same query, point and what ever else. How has one adequately "investigated" Brian without access to the context?
It appears to me that Mickeechen is someone related to or closely affiliated with Rvplpr. The discussion contributions are very similar. If my observation is correct, then this would be a clear example of meatpuppeting — a blockable offence on this site.--RockerballAustralia contribs 07:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is why the discussion is here, on WN:AAA; it requires administrative privileges to review the context. In fact, you'd probably need administrative access over on Commons too. I had every reason to post what I posted; were I as-horrid, and vindictive, as is being implied here I would've nominated a good-deal more than a couple of self-promotional images over on Commons for deletion. Not my home project, so I can't say if posting a scan of an honorary degree contributes much there. I would, however, expect something with trademark in the filename to set off alarm bells. Strange that the uploader says "own work, I'm Cary Lee Peterson" there ... but it might explain the serious problems with xe contributing here and not disclosing their conflict of interest.
I hope you, Mickeechen (talk · contribs), have no such similar conflict of interest. If you're prepared to state so, and provide an email address, someone with admin access will happily provide copies of the deleted contributions. Only then would you be in a position to say whether or not my remarks were uncalled-for. The already-visible evidence (over on Commons) strongly suggests they were. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

McNeil, lets stay to focal aspect of this discussion. You critiqued 'Peterson' related media content. You claimed it was not news worthy and it was propaganda when in fact it was connected to actually current events, which are deemed as 'news'. You made a major effort to ban the media content based on personal opinion and nonfactual reference. I'm new to the community and yes I do support Peterson and his fight against human trafficking. I do not know him but found your rubbish in Google and felt I should voice my thoughts on the matter. You maybe need to do your research on who you attempt to cast defamation and slander towards. Your actions only show your bigotry and over the top liberal outlook on reality. Thus, you have no business being an administrator on this website doing such a wicked and corrupt act. Mickeechen (talk)

  • I am sticking to that, and quite like your description; if Mr Peterson wants to get a blog, that's his choice. It would take time, and effort, to push the ranking of such. Wikinews is not a blog, and Conflict of interest is quite a serious matter here. Would you like a copy of what I based my conclusions on? Or, are you going to continue to deflect attention away from why opposing what looks like Peterson, a friend, or business associate, from trying to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes was the right thing to do.
The block is finite, and will expire. The only other aspect of the matter that might be worth you looking into — instead of trying to attack me — is deletion requests. I'm sure when what looks to be Mr Peterson's account is unblocked, that's the policy route he'd prefer to go down. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

McNeil still avoids the focal aspects and topic. Show what your motives are and what you really have to prove. I think its just bigotry and corruption. You are abusing your authority and its becoming very obvious. I know the characters and you stand out like a bad rash. The community needs to rid these types of derelicts that contaminate the internet with mob and witch hunt antics. Read the history. Standard compliance was far bypassed here due to your abuse of authority as an admin and I've read enough McNeil. You're tagged and we see your true colours. Mickeechen (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Go troll in traffic, I'm not taking your bait. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock blocks

  • Following the results of a CheckUser; and, seeing that one unearthed account seemed intent on resuming the previously-observed SEO activities, whilst the other sidestepped queries as-to their relationship with Rvlpr, I have duplicated the original block expiry timestamp from Rvlpr's block. Talk page access is not blocked for the two accounts in-question; I will leave it up to others to review whatever tales might accompany unblock requests. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian McNeil has carried this matter on and its began quite toxic to my observation. I've read the history and the argument. The users mentioned clearly support the right to submit an article about an actual event that took place and the group or individual responsible for the event. I've read a series of exaggerated, falsified, and defaming statements posted by Brian McNeil. The users were banned for what exactly. Telling you that you are wrong for what you are doing? The truth is the truth and you are abusing your authority on here. Something that I will address with superiors above your head. The direction this is taking is totally counterproductive and quite ridiculous. Not sure why this type of behavior is allowed. These characters give Wiki community a bad name. Mickeechen is my relative and yes I'm writing this because I was disgusted to talk with her and hear about this situation and what it is all about the begin with. I do not know why you think cyber-bullying is something that you can get away with and hide behind a screen name. You do appear to be helping the education and transfer of valid knowledge to the public. Lindachen82 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian has expressed a collective frustration in a very non-PC way. Mickechen has claimed to "investigate" Brian but has, apparently, refused to look at the relevant deletion request or the deleted articles (for which Brian offered access). Such a refusal, coupled with the accusations being made are considered trolling on this site.
The articles relating to this issue were contributed by Rvlpr. This contributor repeatedly refused to write in house style, refused to write to our NPOV standard and appears to have gone out of their way to cause a general annoyance. Another example of trolling.
Both users were blocked because of this trolling.--RockerballAustralia contribs 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@RockerballAustralia: I am sorry but I am not familiar with the term 'trolling'. My sister and I express no negative intent. We speak only from factual observations and the sequence of events. I am a full-time medical student and do not have time to spend on Wiki community to learn your language and lingo. My sister is an intern for United Nations and knows the two users that you banned. The acronyms you use are unfamiliar as me using one of the medical terms that I use on a day to day basis with you. You all should have some consideration for new users and focus on educating them and not making effort to cyber-bully or cut people down. The finger pointing and falsifying statements or twisted comments are a form of manipulation and abuse. Like it or not but it is true. I've read what all sides have written and its quite clear that Brian McNeil was the instigator of this ordeal. In square one McNeil should have made effort as an admin to help Rvplpr modify the content for Wiki format rather than insulting someone who was simply making a conscious effort to publish an announcement of a current event that she thought was important for the rest of society to read about. We could carry-on ages about this matter but its probably more wise to shift your efforts to positive activities. Publishing news about politics and philanthropy are quite important in society. Would you prefer to read about serial killers and rapists or articles about organizations that help victims of rape and poverty? Its a shame to see this some of negative discharge from a community of individual who are supposed to be quite intelligent. Lindachen82 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In consultation with other admins, I've extended the block to Lindachen82, timestamp duplicated again. Obvious meatpuppet; on recommendation, didn't bother to investigate sockpuppetry. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair call. Meat puppet by their own admission. --RockerballAustralia contribs 00:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, they're claiming to be a meatpuppet and giving the relevant excuses (same household) to call into question accusations of sockpuppetting. That doesn't wash because this new puppet popped up to start defaming me before the automatic block on the underlying IP address would've expired. Being issued with a new DHCP lease 'just in time' to create a new account and pick up the reigns of their slander-wagon? That would require quite a bit of luck.
Here, we're also being presented with a call to publish the "sort of news" they desire to publish, so I don't hold high hopes that this is resolved. No fault is seen in attempting to use Wikinews for propaganda purposes, and not a single policy the various accounts have been referred to appears to have been read. This is not a recipe for modified behaviour. I'd rather not raise the matter with the UN's Press Office, but if they persist I will. Should such be the route I'm pushed into, they'd get all the deleted contributions from Rvlpr — unlike the account we're now told is an intern, who ignored requests to state their conflict of interest to obtain the evidence they claimed to have reviewed. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Username: Arb

A bit over a year ago, I blocked user Arb, after hesitating a bit, for "unacceptable username". The user has now contacted me via email, asking me to reconsider. Xe is evidently a longstanding en.wp user, and remarks xe's never once been approached by anyone to arbitrate anything.

I don't have super-strong feelings about this. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tough one. I can see where you're coming from, and I might have done the same thing myself. Given how anal the admins are on Wikipedia about things like this, I'm not sure how much of a leg we have to stand on. They have an Arbitration Committee too, and they haven't seen fit to block him. Maybe we could contact an admin on Wikipedia who deals with this sort of thing and get their opinion on the name? I understand that we have different rules than they do, but this is one of those situations where I think collaboration would be beneficial. — Gopher65talk 03:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've temporarily unblocked the user while we deal with this. I don't think they're being malicious, given their (short, but reasonable) edit history. If the user goes crazy before a decision is made we can always reblock. — Gopher65talk 15:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Gopher65. Some background. This started due to Unified login - Arb is my username on 36 of the 37 wikis (all except pt). I edit primarily at en and commons; see Quentinv57's SUL Info Tools. There have been no issues with the name anywhere but here. Arb (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Being bothered by User:Pi zero

He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. --Nikebrand (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Nikebrand (talk · contribs) has earned xemself a 72-hour block for mass-spamming admin pages, and trying to post month-plus-old news (i.e. not news, but history). Xe has been pointed in the general direction of Meta, where user rename requests are carried out. Talk page is not blocked, so xe may-well wish to appeal that block duration; I won't complain if someone decides to shorten the block, but please only do so if you believe some 'clue' is being taken on-board. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Threatening users

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

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

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

abuse filter mismathch for Page blanking

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

Anonymous spam

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User archive deletion

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

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

Disallowing post: code "new user youtube, &c"

I am trying to write an article about the company Style Fashion Week, I have made it as neutral and unbiased as I believe I can make it, but it is disallowing my post, with the code "new user youtube, &c" page is CMS1019 (talk · contribs) Please help!

page move vandalism

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

Nicole Sharp (talk · contribs)

A general note for other admins regarding this user.

  • The user was warned about their behavior some time back, including specifically a warning that a preventative block might be imposed, and some investigation and comments by brianmc. The user went away for some time.
  • The user came back and resumed problematic behavior, and also "archived" their user page in a way that concealed the existence of the earlier warnings. I imposed a preventative block. Since then, the user has claimed they weren't warned, claimed they were somehow not able to reply to comments on their en.wn user talk page (at least, I think that's what they were saying; honestly the objection didn't make much sense to me since their block does not prohibit editing own talk page and they have, in fact, edited that page since the block), and ignored requests to keep the discussion in one place where it can all be found. Lately they've been spreading their complaints to the en.wp user pages of various en.wn admins (where I've explicitly refused to engage in discussion), and also contacted me by private message on IRC, excerpts of which they subsequently made public without my permission.

I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time combing through their past statements to find other inaccuracies to correct. Afaics, they've shown no interest in anything here other than being allowed to do whatever they want. I have no idea what their motives are, but I do consider the block appropriate given their behavior. --Pi zero (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE awards

There's a campaign going on to impel us to publish ACE New York Annouced 49th Annual Film Winners without reference to merit.

  • On review, the more I looked at the nature of the event and of the sources the more unsupported it looked. I not-ready'd. Rather than attempt to address reviewer concerns by any means, the author added a line on the collaboration page "For Wikimedia Foundation legal department surveillance" and resubmitted. I reverted the resubmission with a remark that resubmitting without addressing review concerns is considered disruptive.
  • A new account was created that didn't have "ACE" in its name (and didn't claim to be related), with user page content "Professional journalist with almost 30 years of experience. Testing Wikinews real 'free news' source, and why they ask for donations", which created a duplicate of the article under a different name and submitted it for review. I have indefblocked this second account.

The article refers back to an article I passed to publication in March 2015, on which I later felt I had failed to apply sufficient scrutiny to the sources (though so far concerns haven't reached the level of proposing a {{correction}}). --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ankara and the Wikipedia Ankara Portal

On Wikipedia, the Ankara Portal has a "current events" link that refers to this non-existent category. The non-existent page asked me to let people know here, so there you go :) Maplestrip (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Created the category; more than enough pages for it, just one of the plethora of categories we hadn't gotten around to. Thanks, Maplestrip. --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Have to say, getting actual "current" events would require people writing the articles. Most welcome to give it a go, Maplestrip. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remove my sysop rights


Please remove my sysop rights on Wikinews.

I'm thankful to have had the opportunity to serve the community in this fashion.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Done. --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Blocked. --Pi zero (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


--Queen Laura (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Queen Laura: Yes, we get several of those per day now, typically. I did get a checkuser done on them a while back, which said they looked like zombies, with no fixed IP range. --Pi zero (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Can someone administrator to put the results of brexit?--Wikijournalist (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Βικιδημοσιογράφος: 24 hours after the news article is published, not even the administrators can make substantial changes.
acagastya 12:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But it is not essential . 4 numbers will be added. Do whatever you want .--Wikijournalist (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


abuse filter mismathch for Addiing email addresses to articles

I cannot create my page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:39, 23 October

There probably isn't any need for an email address in an article. If there is, describe the email address instead of actually embedding it. Like, "somebody at whatever dot com"; there's no email address there, as far as an abuse filter is concerned. --Pi zero (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Sro23

Looks like someone is exploiting a feature of WMF's projects to harass and intimidate this person, who is not active on this project except to blank xyr talk page.

I would suggest the two anon IPs be temporarily blocked, and Sro23's talk page be partially protected against anon edits, as a kindness to xyr. - Amgine | t 00:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amgine: We give 24-hour blocks to the IPs used for that childishness. There have been many new-style IPs used (and one old-style IP). We haven't bothered to dignify them with semi-protection or a range block. --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Could temporary semi-protection please be added to my talk page? I'm not active here so anon IPs should have no need to leave me messages anyway. Sro23 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
<shrug> I don't see them as worth giving in to, but I don't care greatly either way so if it is upsetting you, then sure.   Done, two weeks for now since they are pretty persistent. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 00:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 22:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Account globally locked, all edits reverted. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by


Could somebody do, eer... something against this IP? Thanks! Litlok (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Pi zero   Litlok (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming nonexistent users

I don't recall seeing this before, but in the past 24 hours or so we've had three different IPs each create a welcome page for some username that has no account attached to it. I didn't bother blocking the first, but gave the second and third each a 24-hour block for inserting nonsense/gibberish. Just a heads-up. --Pi zero (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for Addiing email addresses to articles

I was flagged for adding a contact email for a police department which has asked for the public's help solving a crime. The email address was given in the media sources I was citing, so I added it. I shouldn't have been flagged for this. MarHM (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lightprevails (talk · contribs)

Noting my actions re this user here, for clarity. Re boundaries of acceptable behavior in trollspace comments space. The user posted on the comments page of 2006 article Four Korean women accuse JMS leader Jeong Myeong-seok of rape, about the leader of a splinter group of the Moonies, claiming all the accusations were false/slander and linking to a site revealing all. The site gives an impression of being by the splinter group; preferring minimal action, I merely arranged that the urls weren't live links (but were still visible) and pointed out some obvious points about the situation, including the lack of reputation and appearance of COI of the poster. They pivoted, acting as if they hadn't just pretended to be a disinterested party, waving the banner of right to defend oneself when slandered in a "democratic society", asserting their own trustworthiness (i.e., Trust Me), and again linking to their own site as the place to find out about what "major news companies" had said (gosh, it's a shame major news companies have no way of getting the word out for themselves when they have something to say). At that point I'd had enough. I removed the spam from the comments page, with a note acknowledging its presence, and indefinitely blocked the user. --Pi zero (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for new user youtube, &amp;c.

what does this means?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aloeforever4you (talkcontribs)

Delete page -


why Deleted our page, while i had provided all links of related rashtriya sanskriti mahotsav.

Please check it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onlineumesh (talkcontribs) 10:20, 4 April 2017

Looking at the listed reason for deletion, and comparing the deleted article text to the referenced source, it appears the page was deleted after observing that the fist several paragraphs were assembled by copying sentences from that source, with perhaps a word changed here and there. See WN:PILLARS#own; also, WN:Plagiarism. --Pi zero (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nongoloza articles

We've recently had a series of articles on the theme 'Nongoloza cult'; so far, one of them has been deleted as abandoned, the other three are still around as of this writing. They haven't offered credible sourcing; there's been citing of Wikipedia articles, citing of other unpublished Wikinews articles in the same set, mentioning of unrelated terrorism-related incidents and citing sources for those, and in one case citing a "terror alert" site that afaics is itself unvetted. They do this stuff not only initially, but after not-ready reviews for lack of sourcing.

I've put notices on the three remaining articles that from now I'm going to treat them as abandoned, to be deleted after two days' notice, unless I see a genuine effort to source them (which I think unlikely). I also propose to treat any further unsourced articles on this theme as spam, to be speedily deleted.

The user accounts used to edit these articles keep shifting, too; I suspect meat/sock puppetry, though I'm not sure there's even any point pursuing it with a checkuser.

List of the articles:

List of the contributors:

--Pi zero (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • : Articles are marked as original, it is quite simple to assume that users conscientiously post news about the events they witnessed. They do not quite understand what needs to be changed. SashaFAQ (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@SashaFAQ: We can't simply take the word of anyone on the internet who makes a claim. Original reporting has to be documented extensively, and the less of a pre-existing accumulated reputation on Wikinews the original-reporter has, the greater the demands on the documentation. It is not valid to "assume good faith" about news reporting. See Wikinews:Never assume. --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I am a parishioner of the New Apostolic Church. I can send you screenshots of threats as evidence. In this form will the evidence work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SashaFAQ (talkcontribs) 09:49, 13 April 2017

Single-purpose account SashaFAQ unmarked a couple of these; I've re-flagged them as abandoned. I've also raised a sockpuppet investigation over at Wikipedia ( after a new account made an article about the Nongoloza cult, making the same unsourced/libellous claims about its members. --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@McGeddon: GOod to know about the sockpuppet investigation; thanks for the heads-up. --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Marco Jovani and Kimi Afka were blocked on Wikipedia a few weeks ago as socks of Michel Sher. --McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SashaFAQ is continuing to upload potentially libellous images (a photo of a named person captioned "WATCH OUT! NONGOLOZA CULT'S LEADER!" across the bottom, an email screenshot purporting to show a terrorist bomb threat received from a particular name and email address) with no sources for the identities beyond their own claims. The images were previously uploaded to Commons by User:Marco Jovani and deleted yesterday (along with some Google Street View screenshots), and all re-uploaded at Wikinews by SashaFAQ a few hours later. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The "WATCH OUT!" image is, atm, not being hosted here. --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Solutionsbythirdparty (talk · contribs)

Hello. The above user, Solutionsbythirdparty, makes bad pages and is filling them up with spam. Please delete the pages, and block the user. PokestarFan (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: Thanks, got it. We've had very many of these here over the past week or so; there's an ongoing thread about it elsewhere on this page, and a similar thread at WN:CU. --Pi zero (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Pages



Update the list


These users have massively created a lot of spam pages. I request that they be blocked and nuke their contributions. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 09:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC) @PokestarFan: Though this is certainly a neater list, and in a single place, I point out two irregularities.

  • You've removed the discussion that took place in this section.
  • This is just a section of a page that covers ongoing situations. It's not meant to be a permanent fixture, except to the extent of eventually being archived (which should, btw, including archiving the comments that, as I remarked, you've removed). Will it actually be useful, in future years, to have a list of spambots with no dates on them? I have doubts.--Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
When this is over I am subst:ing the list into here and archiving. And if you want discussion I will put a subheader labeled "Discussion". PokestarFan (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: I may adjust the way you've set it up myself, after thinking about what would be most useful. Truthfully, though, I haven't got time to think it all through atm; need to get to review. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How do the owners of the spambots own so many IPs? Even if they were all IPv6, you would need an awful amount of devices in order to create the army we have right now. PokestarFan (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Pi zero:, we have another one! PokestarFan (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing from mobile. We have another one! PokestarFan (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Protect Template:Spambot with admin protection

Should not be updated whatsoever. PokestarFan (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well... {{sockpuppet}} is unprotected. There are plenty of things on the project that need protection because vandalism would have serious technical consequences, but there seems no lasting harm in temporary vandalism of these userpage message templates. --Pi zero (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nuke all of Dadagari Jeelan's pages and block user

This user creates user/user talk pages about himself. He even went as far as creating pages for a user that does not exist. Please nuke and block. PokestarFan (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually that other user account does exist. I think things haven't yet risen to the level of blocking. --Pi zero (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC) (t · c · b)

I leaving a note here that this user posted potential personal information of some person. I've hidden those revisions and blocked the IP for a week. I don't know if anything else need to be done here. —mikemoral (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Massive spambot creation

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/25 to stop massive spambot creation --Melos (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Melos. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 23:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Cool. And by any chance what does the abuse filter state? PokestarFan (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: Well, there's this: if you can't see what it says, neither can the botmaster. --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. PokestarFan (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: Sure it does. If the botmaster knew exactly what the abuse filter excluded, they could just tweak their bots to avoid the filter. If they don't know what the filter excludes, they can only guess how to evade the filter, which is a less efficient and therefore less attractive occupation, and at the very least may take longer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a genius idea, @Pi zero: Let's get the FBI/CIA/NSA involved. With their resources, this should take about 5 minutes. PokestarFan (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The filter is working good (according the log), if you want a sysop can add the "block" option in Special:AbuseFilter/25. Thank you --Melos (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Melos: Note, one case of phone-number spam has apparently gotten through the filter after your most recent update to it — Mack7778. It is, of course, a huge improvement on the way things had been here this past week. --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the botmaster found his way through the filter. PokestarFan (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: I see on recent changes that Melos is continuing to tweak the filter. I think they're doing wonderfully well. --Pi zero (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

I request the block IP for vandalism and edit war in User Talk:Adnim13. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 11:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In late April they were blocked for a week, so this time I blocked them for a month. --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

May you do something about this IP? This user repeatedly vandalizes pages. --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

abuse filter mismathch for <div class="mw-parser-output"><p>new user youtube, &amp;c.</p></div>

Dear Folks at Wikinews,

I don't know how long this will take, but I'm trying to prove that I wrote some lyrics for Sting, and its stolen intellectual property unless he agrees to give me proper credit. So before you quickly judge, please read what I have taken time out to resource and type out. Thank you. Aralia Fresia (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC) re: Aralia Fresia is a ghostwriter for Sting (Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner). Aralia's real name is Lara Nicole Daskivich, but she would rather be known as Aralia Fresia. She provided 80% of the lyrics for Sting's "I Can't Stop Thinking About You," the opening track on Sting's album, "57th and 9th", which was released November 11, 2016. Sting wrote the lyrics only as far as the end of the first stanza. However, Sting had accepted the challenge of finishing lyrics for this new song created from her rant-like rave for his celebrity, in a humorous and paradoxical voice. However, Aralia Fresia has not yet been given official writing credit on "57th&9th" because she had told Sting that his ghosts were being channeled in the lyrics for this new song, thru her fingers, while typing to him in a style similar to his, and making references to literature as he does, namely, a reference to Carson McCullers' novel, 'this "heart's a lonely hunter" -

Sting nods about the reference to Carson McCullers in this short little documentary,

An article on November 11, 2016 published Sting's answers as he was asked about '57th & 9th': 
"I don’t make music by any formulaic, magic process. I just follow my instincts, I don’t know where it’s going… And so on this album, we’ve ended up with something that is energetic and noisy but also thoughtful."

The first single on the album is “I Can’t Stop Thinking About You”. Was that the song that triggered the rest of the songs on the album?

"Yes it was. And once you’ve got the first, everything just follows.

Lyrically, I remember having nothing written. All I had was a blank sheet of paper in front of me, which looked like a field of snow with no clues on it as to what could be revealed there. So that first song I wrote actually became the first song on the album. It’s about that obsession, that obsessive search for inspiration, for a subject, for a muse, for the music to reveal something inside itself… So the album starts with that image of somebody with a pencil waiting to write the story on a white sheet of paper without any clues about where it’s going."

And did you sense right away that it was the key to unlock the album?

"I thought it was a pretty honest statement of what it means to be a song writer. It’s a metaphor about trying to find inspiration. So once I’d found that, I was happy because I was really being true to myself and true to my profession. It’s not easy, song writing – it’s a great job, but it can be a hard job!" -

Also, in an interview in Argentina, in May 2017 Sting was asked about Aralia.

The link to that interview and  translation to what the Argentinian interviewer said: Dice que interesa mucho la politica, interesa mucho cambio grammatico, la cul tierna de l' Aralia que la el mundo comunta hoy ci ay por tu funde muy persona interesante hoy. ~~ Translation: He says that he is very interested in politics, he is interested in a great deal of grammatical change, the culture of Aralia, which the world today is commemorating because of his very interesting person. ~ /

‎ (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

Hello. Please notice that in his/her contributions, there is personal info. Regards, ·×ald·es 05:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I've rev-del'd those edits and blocked the IP for a week. —mikemoral (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Block Aftab Ahmed +923332267638 (t · c · b) due to personal information

If I am not mistaken, his username contains his full name and his phone number. PokestarFan (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious accounts creating spam pages

Contributions by the above accounts should be reviewed. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ad-like pages created by below users

The users above created some ad-like pages. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Within the past day or so we've had many accounts creating these pages; after the first one, I've included puppetry in the blocking reasons, as they all mention granny flats sydney or some minor variation thereof. (That last one you list has disguised "granny" by modifying the "y".) If I had a bit more energy to spare I'd request a checkuser on them. --Pi zero (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I could put "test page" if one user created just a few or little. However, I guess I'll ask next time when I see one user creating a bunch of them. Currently, we have 21 administrators, including you and eight other bureaucrats. ...Somehow, most of them are semi-active; three of them inactive. Seems that pushing off spammers is becoming a harder task than it looks. Asking for stewards' help is impossible unless the project is lacking members of permissions group or an emergency is needed. What else can be done? --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter (documentation, and note especially w:Special:AbuseFilter - which allows exporting filters for local installation/tweaking.) - Amgine | t 10:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC) (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log))

Persistent Vandalism in User Talk:Favonian. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be the whole 66.87.151.* range. I hate dealing with range blocks. If this keeps up, though, I may. --Pi zero (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked the range. --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


This user not only send me the false block log but has also spammed Wikinews with test pages and other contributors with "blocked" templates. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


See User:WAVESONGS. This user posted this same spam to several Wikis, including Wikivoyage, where I am an admin. I promptly deleted it as irrelevant and posted a warning to the user's user talk page on Wikivoyage.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --RockerballAustralia contribs 10:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Acagastya (and alternative accounts)

Historically, this user has been highly trusted, and so in the past I've never been all that diligent about, e.g., declaration of obvious alternative accounts. The ones I can think of off hand, because they've been used in the past few hours, are Agastya and Axagastya. A few hours ago I was notified (indirectly from a member of the Countervandalism Network) that a set of external links on acagastya's user page were malware/browser-hijacking. My first action was to remove the vandalistic links. (I've been consistently rather slow in my actions on all this, not just because I was reluctant to take action against a user I'd been placing a lot of trust in, but also because the whole business started at about midnight my time and my brain isn't moving quickly.) Following reversion I began applying blocks, conservatively at first; eventually it was clear that a short (24-hour) block of acagastya and alternate accounts was called for, as a preventative measure while xe had time to cool down and I had time to assess the situation (including assessing what was going on with xem). The links were apparently put up as some sort of pointy response to what I would have thought a very small disagreement, which xe appeared to have misinterpreted in an exaggerating direction (the exaggeration and misinterpretation seem characteristic of the situation, but overall I'm still not sure what's going on with them). Responding remarks have been a thorough mix of stuff ranging from plausible through wikilawyering and maybe-trolling to pretty clearly trolling — with the caveat that I've lately adjusted upward my threshold for trolling in my dealings with acagastya, as I suspect there really has been some misunderstanding going on that could be cleared up amicably if one could identify what points need clarification. --Pi zero (talk)