Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hiromi kirishima
Line 367: Line 367:
::::::"Purge" and "rid of" are definitely warning signs. Reporting it was not overreacting, and was absolutely the right course. Regardless of whether or not the person intends to carry out these threats, it's best to report. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::"Purge" and "rid of" are definitely warning signs. Reporting it was not overreacting, and was absolutely the right course. Regardless of whether or not the person intends to carry out these threats, it's best to report. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::To me it sounded more like an immature reference to [[Purge (film)]], but yes always better safe than sorry. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::To me it sounded more like an immature reference to [[Purge (film)]], but yes always better safe than sorry. [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] ([[User talk:Alex Shih|talk]]) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

==="Crap on my talk page"???===
I'm all for letting consenting adults do what they want behind closed doors, but when I look at the title of this thread I'm moved to suggest that there are more discreet ways of meeting people willing to fulfill one's fetishistic desires. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


==Carles Puidgemont revisited==
==Carles Puidgemont revisited==

Revision as of 06:22, 29 June 2018

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Big rangeblock? for banned user Sugar Bear

    Is it possible to set a rangeblock to stop banned User:Sugar Bear? He was indeffed recently as User:TheRealBoognish, and he's been using IPs from Oregon and North Carolina as well as others that geolocate to the US in general. One from Oregon was 74.42.44.222, used during August–September 2017, and the other was 74.42.44.210, blocked yesterday by Ponyo. Also blocked yesterday was Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172, who was getting into a giant revert battle with me. Below is a list of similar IPs that might be blocked as a range. Can we do this without too much collateral damage? Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved IPs


    Torchiest and I call the big one bitey have tangled with this person. Care to comment? Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I'll just add some history. SB originally created his account in 2005 under the name Ibaranoff24. He was blocked a few times under that name, including an indefinite block in January 2009 that was rescinded. He was doing quite a bit of sock puppeting around that time too. In January 2010 he had his account name changed, but then ran into more trouble in mid-2010 until he was finally banned entirely. Ever since then, he's been making a string of sock puppets that fly under the radar for various lengths of time before being discovered. TheRealBoognish was just the latest in a long line. Considering he's been banned for eight years and keeps coming back to fight the same fights over and over, I don't see any reason to believe his behavior will ever change. I don't know how damaging a range block would be, but again, I have no doubt that he will continue his behavior into perpetuity otherwise. —Torchiest talkedits 17:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Torchiest and Binksternet: Just entering a few of these IPs into the calculator generated 166.182.86.116/9 which is too large of a range to be blocked, or even generate contributions. Home Lander (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BernardZ disruptive editing

    Blocked indef per WP:CIR. There's also a clear consensus to implement a TBAN, which is moot, but it should be formalized should an unblock ever be raised. Swarm ♠ 10:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BernardZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has made many unexplained edits in the past few months; in fact, most edits have no edit summary. Some are incorrect and have been reverted: [1]. Yet the user undoes the revert, sometimes only partially: [2]. User has altered quotations: [3], and again undoes the revert: [4]. User has been warned several times, but is unresponsive and has blanked own talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have experienced many of the same issues with this editor. For example, here he modifies a different direct quotation. See my recent reverts for a whole bunch of reversions of dubious copy edits. Most of the user's edits are copy edits, that sometimes mangle the grammar and change correct English idioms into wrong ones. That is disruptive. The editor further shows no indication of wishing to end the disruptive editing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example: here BernardZ introduced a grammatical error, the edit was reverted, then BernardZ reverted that. This happened after I warned the editor of possible sanctions if he does not use more care. (That post from the use4 talk page has subsequently been removed by the editor.) I think a community ban from copy editing is warranted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is yet another change to a direct quote, again after my warning. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please see this re-addition of an external link and User talk:Jc3s5h#Trusted_timestamping edits, where User:Paulg222 indicates advanced skills are required to determine if the site is safe for users to use.

    One concern is that to provide the free service, the user must go through motions which, to a user who lacks advanced skills, are indistinguishable from uploading a file. (I am not proficient with Javascript coding and am unable to determine if the file is actually uploaded or not.)

    Another concern is the user has only made a few edits, all if which are related to this website. The user is unwilling to state his/her relationship to the site. These circumstances suggest a conflict of interest exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I just think there are too many ELs on that page. Links should have encyclopaedic value to explain the topic not have a oh here’s an implementation in case you wish to use it or here’s a link to s version. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the Trusted timestamping article fall under Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies ? Fish+Karate 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blockchains are only one way to achieve trusted timestamping, and were not the first method used for this purpose. So putting it in the suggested general sanctions category seems like a stretch to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc3s5h has made multiple incorrect statements about the website and now about me. I would like to have those addressed. I have never denied involvement in the site. Jc3s5h asked what my relationship was to the site in the context of a discussion about his/her incorrect statements. I wanted to get those incorrect statements resolved first before discussing my relationship with the site to avoid having that discussion derailed (as has now occurred). Also at this time I was not informed or aware of COI rules and felt that the question about relationship to the site was too broad and an attempt to change the topic from Jc3s5h's incorrect statements and editorial reasoning, so I wanted to defer COI discussion till later. There is also a doxxing issue to consider given the form of the questions being asked. Jc3s5h first incorrectly stated there was a security issue and cited this as the reason for their removing of the link. When notified about the incorrect statements, Jc3s5h did not make any attempt to correct that and continues to cite security as an issue (like the title of this admin notice) and has made further incorrect statements about source code on the site. Jc3s5h now however, is citing a different reason for why the external link should be removed. Actually 2 reasons: COI as well as non-encyclopedic value. Which one is it? Why did Jc3s5h not cite COI concerns or External linking rules as their original reason? Why continue to site security as a reason when it has not been established that this is an issue (in fact it has been established there is no security concern)?Paulg222 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As for COI, yes I have a relationship to the site. Again this has become a distraction though to the conversation. If Jc3s5h has a general objection to external links in articles, then Jc3s5h should site those as reasons for removal when editing. If Jc3s5h has reasons to expect COI, Jc3s5h should cite those as reasons in the original edit rather than make false statements about a site that can have a negative impact on that site.Paulg222 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    One would think that in a Wikipedia article about a security related technology, and in a discussion about a site that provides a security-related service, all concerned would expect that either the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern, or would have established a reputation for trustworthiness through independent review. Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    expect the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern – Wha??? EEng 14:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This conversation and the arguments are all very well but they’re irrelevant. Wikipedia isn’t a collection of links and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does. As a result per WP:EL it’s not eligible for inclusion. That should be the end of the discussion here, based on policy. We don’t provide links to “here’s a service that does this.” Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd."

    Perhaps you are confused here. There is no expectation of advanced knowledge for Users of the site. Users can either choose to trust the site, it's explanations and it's claims or not and those with capabilities to do so are welcome to use their expertise to validate the claims made on the site. This validation will then lead to further established reputation for that site if those few experts choose perhaps to write about it elsewhere. However, for you as an editor of Wikipedia to make false claims about the security of a site without anything to back up that assertion nor even with the expertise yourself to understand security or websites in general means you are not qualified to really edit external links for security reasons and you should refrain from such actions and defer that to people who have such knowledge. Merely not knowing if a site is secure or not is not a reason to exclude it. If you have questions about an edit, asking for further explanation or enlisting someone with appropriate expertise is the proper move.

    In the case of Trusted_timestamping it is not a requirement in general to not upload files, it is just something this site in question has implemented as an added privacy feature. In fact submitting files to a trusted 3rd party can be a valuable service. One key aspect of timestamping is being able to maintain a perfect copy of the original files. Some programs like Microsoft Word and others can easily alter a file if it is merely opened on a persons computer, thereby destroying the original copy needed for later verification. So a trusted site could very well be used to upload files for storage, just like people upload to Google Drive and other backup services. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does."

    As to whether a particular external link is proper or not for Wikipedia is a far different discussion. With my biased view of course I think in this case it is warranted. Trusted_timestamping is not exactly a well understood practice and even less so with a Blockchain being used as the TSA essentially. By including an external site that actually allows for free timestamping users will have the ability to gain greater knowledge of the practice in a way that the article does not allow. In fact the blockchain aspect makes the timestamped data (sha256 hashes) public so that users can even verify on other 3rd party sites the validity of the data. Thus in fact Trusted_timestamping itself has been advanced perhaps where even the TSA is no longer a centralized source and the TPP is merely a pass through of hashed data. The site goes to some lengths to explain some of this process both on the create, verify and faq pages. This content could perhaps be put into an image flow format (similar to other images on the Trusted_timestamping page), however in lieu of that the site itself does provide encyclopedic knowledge that is not clear on the Wikipedia page. Thus the assertion of no value is flawed. Please see the explanations on the site itself. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed for WP:NOTHERE editor "Elman Həsənli"

    Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 08:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Elman Həsənli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The typical stuff. Account created recently, on a single purprose mission, spreading ethno-nationalist unsourced nonsense throughout numerous articles. Received numerous warnings, never bothered to respond to any;[5]

    • Adds the Azerbaijani transliteration to a historic entity not related to Azerbaijan, without edit-summary; [6]
    • Huge copy-vio on the History of the Middle East article, without edit-summary/attribution. Of course, he added a pseudo-historic twist to it as well (claiming the Ilkhanate as "Azerbaijani"); [7]
    • Adds the Azerbaijani spelling to a non-Azerbaijani ethnic group, no edit summary;[8]
    • Adds the Azerbaijani spelling to a historic ruler in India, no edit summary, no source; [9]
    • Unsourced addition to the Turkification article, no edit summary; [10]
    • Tries to claim historic rulers of Syria as being of "Azerbaijan", no source no edit summary; [11]
    • Removes sourced content without edit-summary from the Azerbaijani language article; [12]
    • Changed Turkish spelling into Azerbaijani, no edit summary; [13]
    • Adds the Syrian Turkmen and the Iraqi Turkmen to the Template:Azerbaijani tribes, in order to claim them as "Azerbaijanis"; [14]

    - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Has not edited since June 18.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kent IP rangeblock again

    Done. Swarm ♠ 08:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Relative to this case, a new rangeblock needs to be placed on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:119B:8000:0:0:0:0/64. This person has also been blocked on a number of IP4 addresses, with Special:Contributions/86.164.74.139 being the most recent. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Still going at it... Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Range blocked for a month. It'd probably help if you included a few diffs that show obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible content dispute

    Still at it after the attempt at a short semi-protection, so I've upgraded the protection to semi for a month. Please direct future requests for page protection to WP:RFPP. Swarm ♠ 08:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello , all admins , please look into this carefully. There might be content dispute at Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5) with an IP who is reverting edits by pending changes reviewers. Kpgjhpjm 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I semi protected for a couple of days. Perhaps they can decide should be preferred.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Emercoin

    Page protected. Feel free to request re-protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes necessary, of simply ask Dlohciakrgaklsdfjk. Swarm ♠ 08:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This article was recently deleted at AfD. Someone is obviously organising a campaign to spam WP:REFUND with requests for it to be restored as we've had ten requests in the last hour. It would be good if some other people could keep an eye out for them. I've just been reverting the recent ones as they're duplicates and pages deleted at AfD don't qualify for restoration at WP:REFUND anyway. Hut 8.5 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:REFUND has been semi'd. If problems resume after it expires, I'd be happy to reprotect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Wxzapghy

    Copyvios removed and revdel'd, user blocked for 72 hours due to the fact that they have already received a warning for inserting copyvios. Please re-report if further issues arise, and I will block indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 08:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wxzapghy (talk · contribs) removes templates including maintenance and Proposing article for deletion tag on Indian Armour, which is not comply with EV since it talked about mythical story, Mahabharat and then historical facts. Also, the article has 18.0% copyvios and unreliable reference. I drop the issue here and request admin to handle. Thanks. --AntanO 09:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you identify the source(s) of copyvios? You can report those to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. PROD is just what its name says, a proposal to delete. If anyone objects to the proposal, it is dropped. You can nominate the article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if you want to pursue removing the article from Wikipedia. As for the removal of the maintenance templates, I see you did warn him about premature removal of maintenance templates. If he again removes maintenance templates without explanation, we can further address that with him. - Donald Albury 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LudicrousEditor

    Blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 08:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LudicrousEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor seems to be primarily focused on adding personal details to biographies, sometimes BLPs. Their first edit [15] was to add unsourced information about the minor children of a businessman, and that pattern describes many of their other edits. Some are sourced only to the WP:DAILYMAIL, such as this diff about Spiro Agnew. They also regularly use the "minor edit" tag for edits which are not minor. They don't seem to be responding to the multiple warnings on their user-talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't the recently-blocked Iistal have a penchant for adding all sorts of this kind of crap to BLP's? Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know about that, but this sees like a typical “fly under the radar” strategy where a user gets lots of warnings and just ignores them and never speaks to anyone, so I’ve issued a block for both the editing and the refusal to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Obi2canibe

    Obi2canibe is reminded that personal commentary is prohibited, and that includes good faith behavioral complaints. Such allegations should be made in the correct forum, as opposed to in the article space during content disputes. See my comment below for a more detailed commentary, and feel free to follow up on my talk page or file a new report against BB. Beyond the reminder here though, this complaint is not at the level of being actionable. Swarm ♠ 10:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The user Obi2canibe is casting aspersions and making personal attacks on me.

    I asked him several times to stop attacking me and to comply with the Wikipedia policies WP:AGF and WP:TALKNO, in talk pages and on his own talk page, without result. See more details here User talk:Obi2canibe#You are casting aspersions and making personal attacks.

    He's a valuable editor, but I think he he has conceptual errors sometimes. I want he to stop the accusations and not judge me in bad faith. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the talk page section listed above makes it quite clear that Obi2canibe is not going to stop. I think a block might be in order. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments were criticism of BallenaBlanca's behaviour, not personal attacks or bullying. I'm sorry if BallenaBlanca has construed them as such. WP:AGF isn't a shield shield against criticism nor is it a tool to suppress discussion. My views on BallenaBlanca aren't borne out of any personal prejudice but as a result of observing his contributions in Catalan articles. e.g.
    BallenaBlanca has been involved in numerous content disputes with several other editors on Catalan topics (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). There are numerous others, just go through his contributions. And this is the fourth time in the last six months that BallenaBlanca has been involved in a ANI discussion, all arising from content disputes on Catalan topics (1, 2, 3).
    BallenaBlanca is showing many of the signs of gaming the system but doing so in a civil manner. For example, he has changed (see contributions) the opening sentence of numerous Catalan/Basque biographies by narrowly interpreting MOS:OPENPARABIO to mean that only citizenship can be used in the lede. The spirit of this policy is clearly different, as shown by the outcome of this RFC.
    All of this has led me to conclude that BallenaBlanca is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather push a particular WP:POV. I'm sorry if me calling a spade a spade upsets BallenaBlanca.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Obi2canibe is very senior contributor has been around since 2008 with 35K edits and has been editing for over 10 years and major content contribuor. The issues above are more on content rather then personal.Content disputes are not personal ones and clearly cannot see any incivilty or personal attack from anybody.The content issues can be resolved in talk page or Other boards if unresolved in talk page. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Obi2canibe: I don't doubt your stated intention to simply call out bad behavior as you see it. However, the concept of WP:NPA is fairly straightforward: do not make personal commentary. This still applies even if you think you're legitimately calling out bad behavior. You should compile your evidence and make your case here. I commend you for doing just that here, but reviewing your diffs as an uninvolved observer, I don't agree with your assessment, or at least, I don't see the problem you're describing. For example, the most serious accusation, that of "vandalism", was the removal of an unsourced claim that Catalonia is a sovereign country. There's totally a possibility that the user has a POV influencing them, but if that kind of thing is unambiguously vandalism to you, your own POV may be skewing your assessment of their behavior. In sum, please cut it out, and if you want to make a complaint, start a new thread and make a proposal with diffs. As is, though, your complaint is not sufficient IMO. Swarm ♠ 09:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Legal threat retracted, and subject's content objection has been tentatively resolved under BLP sourcing considerations. I have posted some followup comments on their talk page, in order to clarify that their birth year is still technically allowed over their privacy objection, and that this project is not under the jurisdiction of the EU law they were attempting to enforce here. I have also warned them not to edit their article again. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Liviut11101 is making legal threats at Liviu Tipurita. Edit summary read, "Once again, I'm removing the year of my birth as it infringes my right to privacy under the new European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation as it constitutes personal identifiable information (PII) of sensitive nature. Should you continue to publish any reference to my date of birth, I shall lodge a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and start legal action against Wikipedia." Edwardx (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He shouldn't be making those threats, but you shouldn't be continually restoring the date without clear sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You might also wish to review WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY before trying to restore the use Companies House records as a source. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the editor for the legal threats. Do not restore the date of birth without gaining talk page consensus. Please read WP:DOB. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certainly was a sockpuppet of WinFilms, who made identical legal threats with the same article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WinFilms was blocked as a group account. The same person, probably the BLP subject, then created an individual account. That part was OK. The legal threats weren't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to leave out the DOB unless it appears in a secondary source. I would leave it out in any event just because of the whole identity theft concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is currently sourced to the pair of statements "Născut și crescut în Sibiu, Liviu Tipuriță s-a mutat în Marea Britanie la vârsta de 20 de ani pentru a studia regia de film" and "Am plecat în Marea Britanie în ‘90, pentru că voiam să fac film și nu aveam încredere în școala românească de atunci." from [16], which looks like synthesis to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jonathan A Jones, but I do not see how that would be WP:SYNTH. In an interview he states that he was 20 in 1990, and we can use {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}} to deduce possible birth years and a current age range. That is what that template is for, and its use is widespread on Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edwardx I think it depends on the quality of the source. I am not sure why WP:SYNTH is relevant here as we are not presenting any arguments here; and I am dubious about identity theft as a concern in this very case. For me this looks more like a BLP subject wants to maintain control of their page, but I think removing DOB is fine if no quality sources other than a pair of interviews are available. Alex Shih (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex Shih The two quotes are from the same interview. I agree that it is not an ideal source. I also agree that identity theft is a red herring here. In my experience with engaging with our readers through editathons and elsewhere, two of the leading issues on BLPs are the lack of a photo of the subject (not an issue here), and the lack of any sense of how old the subject is. Of course, we should not include a full ddmmyyyy DOB unless the sourcing is solid, and I remove uncited ddmmyyyy DOBs frequently. It is reasonable that we should seek to give our readers some sense of a subject's year of birth and/or age. It is frustrating when a subject or their representatives try to edit a well-intentioned NPOV biography to something more hagiographical, and I do not respond well to threats, but in this case I am okay if others think we should remove the year of birth and age info from the lead and infobox, as long as we can leave the "Early life" as it is. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PreciesJJ adding unsourced info again


    PreciesJJ is repeatedly adding unsourced information to the above article. The user is insisting on updating the qualifiers for the tournament after each event is played. This violates WP:OR because the Order of Merit is updated on a monthly basis while PreciesJJ updates it after every tournament played. On my talk page PreciesJJ insists that "If you really want to check it is right you need to do the maths yes. But they dont have to, because it is right". After warning the editor not to update the article with unsourced info PreciesJJ did so again.

    The user was slapped with a 48 hour block for violating 3RR back on 22 December 2017 and a 2 week ban on 26 December 2017 for persistently making disruptive edits. PreciesJJ has continued their behaviour. Dougal18 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Order of Merit is updated by the PDC after every weekend, I update the page only a couple of hours earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreciesJJ (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @PreciesJJ: Well, update it a few hours later then, after PDC updates the Order of Merit, and - problem solved. byteflush Talk 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali mjr

    @Ali mjr: The user has been attempting to add largely unsourced POV-ridden content to the Alireza Beiranvand article and has been reverted (twice by me and once by another editor), resulting in a final warning on their talk page. The user continues to readd the content..

    diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. (N.B. I have 'unapproved' the most recent edit, as it does contain one source, although it doesn't come close to satisfying WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:OR). Nzd (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I just involved myself by reverting. Someon uninvolved could block for 3rr or protect the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave them a 3rr warning. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Revenge editing

    IP blocked for 72 hours by NeilN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Following the semi-protection of Mary Hopkin (see above), the same IP editor (at 27.131.59.42) had added comments on my user talk page and elsewhere – I can live with this. The same editor has taken more disruptive action by reverting several of my edits to unreleated articles, in what I take to be a revenge attack, see [17]. Is a block appropriate? Can an admin do a bulk rollback of these edits? Verbcatcher (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I mass-reverted their edits. Home Lander (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I blocked the IP. --NeilN talk to me 03:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rafasyah Orvala Sukoco

    Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 09:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This editor's edits is good faith but they always moved a page to official/full name and seem to not understand WP:COMMONNAME. The editor has warned several times but never care to explain why they edit that way. The last warning this editor received is in 7 June 2018 but still make disruptive editing until 21 June 2018. Hddty. (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like WP:CIR. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that the editor itself never respond in the talk page. Even my message in id.wiki never got replied. I ask the editor there why they add unsourced non-Latin script on biographies in id.wiki (and also in en.wiki), we even had a discussion about this at WikiProject Indonesia. Hddty. (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Indeffed by 331dot. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fujiko Pro has claimed on the article on Perman (manga) that he would take legal action if the page were to be "recreated." He has a name that indicates that he may be part of the company by that name. Apparently, he had previously blanked the page. He described this edit by claiming that it was resolving "copyright violations." After this, he made his first legal threat. After that threat was removed, he threatened legal action once again. ―Susmuffin Talk 08:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the links you want are this and this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Odd new account

    The account has been checkuser-blocked by Alex Shih. Mz7 (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Domecroak appears to be a single purpose account. This is the only edit from the account as of writing. The edit is also very odd in nature as it a revert of an IP talk page. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Blocked. Swarm ♠ 09:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    See [18] from 47.149.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Home Lander (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're going to make some garbage up for your vandalism, at least make it more believable than it's under USDA regulation. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They're trying to hide the fact that the actress is really a carrot? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP is such a kidder! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2600:8800:1880:91e:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26

    The IP stated on my Talk page that they do not intend to pursue this further.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi, 2600:8800:1880:91e:5604:a6ff:fe38:4b26 had an issue with me archiving talkpage discussions too soon, I moved the discussion to my talkpage[19] and stated I'll leave 3-6 months worth (or more) .... but instead of the IP furhter discussing this or accepting my offer if you like they've instead decided to go to various talkpages and start RFC on my "archive frequencies" [20][21],
    Not entirely sure how to go about it - I've admitted a few were archived too soon and stated I'll certainly slow down and be more careful...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the Twitter RfC because it was improper. I've left alone the other. Unusual behavior for an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Agreed Bbb23, Not sure why but I have a slight feeling the IP is a logged out editor ... could be a sock I suppose... –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be super cool if Davey could avoid leveling personal attacks at me: such as his edit summary, another edit summary, and speculation on whether I'm a sockpuppet above. And we can all do without uncivil profanity directed at me. I would say that once I raised this dispute with him he went from mild denial to 100% belligerent and combative, in less than an hour. I stepped away from the computer so that the dispute could cool down and here we are at ANI. Totally unnecessary for a content dispute, where my major actions have involved seeking dispute resolution as prescribed which were destroyed in favor of seeking punitive measures here. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalized template - not sure what is going on

    Vandalism cleaned up, standard (only) warning issued. Can be reported directly to WP:AIV for blocking if there are any further issues. Swarm ♠ 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template:Pending Changes backlog-defcon appears to have been vandalized. I've cleaned up what is directly in the source code, but can't find where the rest of it is coming from. I'm seeing some stuff in a non-English language followed by some gmail addresses and phone numbers after the backlog level. Aspening (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Been cleaned up, vandal was this IP: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.89.218.234 --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) It was caused by an edit to Template:Pending Changes backlog/descriptions-short which I have undone. I have warned the IP which made the edit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I've checked all subpages of the two pending changes backlog templates and they appear to be clean. Aspening (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP insists on premature election result

    Ridwan Kamil is projected to win a recent election for governor, but so far results have not been official and media reports only rely on "quick counts" done by pollsters, e.g. [22] or [23]. While such polls are historically reliable, IMHO Wikipedia shouldn't use wording that imply the result is official, e.g. "governor-elect" or "won a landslide victory". Accordingly, RSes are still not calling Governor-elect, but "winner according to quick counts" or something like that. I tried rewording the article to this effect ([24], [25]) but an IP user keeps reverting back. Plus, the IP uses a very confusing citation, like "<ref>Taslimson Foundation</ref>", which is impossible to verify. I don't want to get into infinite revert, so I'm hoping an admin could a version without implying official result (e.g. [26]) and then semi-protecting the article to avoid IP abuses. HaEr48 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute that must be discussed at Talk:Ridwan Kamil, but has not yet been discussed. Go there first and work to develop consensus. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible conflict of interest from IP

    Looking at the edits from 217.138.9.166 (talk) to Frontline (social work), I have a suspicion that the editor is associated with the subject. This IP has been consistently editing this page over the last couple of weeks, with no edits to any other pages in that time. Doing a WHOIS confirms the editor is based in London, the same place where Frontline is based. Already put up a notice on their talk page about the possible conflict of interest, but they have provided no response and are continuing to edit. TheConnorMan (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First I'd say you haven't given them enough time to respond before coming here. However I'm mostly concerned here by the copyright violations of them taking content from their site and pasting it to Wikipedia with little change. So I'm going to have to revert a load of their edits, COI or not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    USER Doprendek

    Doprendek (talk · contribs)

    First of all I do a lot of category page editing. Here's a view of my last 500 and that goes back to late April.

    This morning I found a whole group of categories that were overcategorized. Namely 'Hotels established in 1970' were both in establishments in 1970 and companies established in 1970. Hotels established in 1970 is in Hospitality companies established in 1970, so the other two categories are overcategorization. I fixed the category page[27]

    Editor Doprendek created[28]] the 1970 Hospitality category, added it to the Hotels established page but didn't remove the establishments in 1970. When it should have removed. This editor actually knows this. See their recent edit here[29] for example

    Anyway I made similar fixes to Hotels established in categories here[30] here[31] and here[32]. I also fixed other miscategorization by Doprendek here[33], here[34], and here[35] for a few examples.

    Doprendek reverted my edit[36] to Pharmaceutical companies established in 1970 with the edit summary- "Undid revision 847873358 by WilliamJE (talk) Don't be a creepy stalker. I was following practices established by others, but you are leaving those others intact and targeting categories created by me. I do many of these and I try to be consistent with existing practice. When mine are changed and totally analogous ones created by others are left intact, thereby CREATING inconsistencies, that is not good faith editing."

    I reverted to the right version with the edit summary explaining the page was overcategorized. Doprendek reverted again[37] with a edit summary similar to the first one above.

    I reverted again and addressed him at the talk page[38]. Where I addressed his accusations against me. He reverted again[39] I reverted and came here. BTW that isn't the first time I've gone to this editor's talk page about his category page work. Check here[40].

    This is a case of WP:DISRUPT. He is reverting my edits not because they are incorrect but because there are other category pages done like this and that I'm targeting him. He accuses me of stalking and not following WP:AGF

    First of all, I have fixed numerous Pharmaceutical companies established in year. Here are the 3 most recent examples. I've worked on them too. Here are 1[41], 2[42], 3 examples[43] since May. That's in my last 500 category page edits. If you go a little further back to my next 500, In April 2018 I fixed such categories over 10 times.

    So I have been fixing category pages routinely.

    I fix wrong categorizing all the time. Banned editor Look2See1 I went and fixed his mistakes. I addressed issues on his talk page here[44], and here[45].

    My behavior isn't perfect but the reasons for reverting is clearly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not that what I was doing to the page was wrong.

    So when I see an editor making wrong categorizing I look at their edits for more of same. Doprendek is not being singled out. He — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • WilliamJE (talk · contribs) I am being brought up on charges, or whatever this is called, for multiply reverting only one serial change in one article out of 11 similar ones [note--more since] made in a very short time by WilliamJE. I made this one change because I could find no other way of expressing how my disagreement (yeah, I was pissed off) in Wikipedia's all-but-impossible-to-understand dispute system. (And FWIW I don't know what the hell is going on here, or whether I am acting "correctly.") Now, WilliamJE tries to characterize this as essentially a categorization disagreement. Admittedly, that's what it *should* be. I don't even disagree with the changes--if they were meant to be applied consistently and in good faith. But these actions were clearly targeting my edits only (which is creepy in itself), as was admitted above by WilliamJE, but for purposes of Wikipedia actually make the categorization, and by extension Wikipedia, WORSE by introducing inconsistency across serial analagous categories, in this case those involving years. When I create categories (and I do a lot) I am not some moron or vandal or whatever WilliamJE tries to insinuate. I am simply following existing practice in those categories--I go to an existing category of the same type is a different year and copy it over. A (I would think obvious) reason for doing this is that it is better to be consistent across related categories, like years, rather than intermittently wrong, creating different little inconsistent blocks of differently-formatted categories depending upon whether one was in, say, the 1920s vs. the 1990s, or just based on whoever edited it last. And having the category formats skip year to year makes even less sense. The reason for this is that the user or editor at least sees a CONSISTENT system of categorization, and, one would think importantly, any corrections to the scheme can be agreed upon and changed universally. Or boldly changed by one user--for previous changes by ALL editors in analagous categories--again, for the purpose of actually improving related categories in Wikipedia, rather than targeting one user's intermittent edits. One would also think that is both more democratic and less contentious then targeting one editor's user history. (Hey, did I mention how creepy that is?) Doprendek (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zee money's article creations #2

    User:Zee money has been editing since 2008. He repeatedly creates articles without sources and machine translates without copy editing, as well as creating micro-stubs with few sentences. Zee money has been reminded dozens of times to add references and add other fixes, to no avail. In June 2017, following an ANI thread, his autopatrolled right was removed. Examples of his most recent articles are [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Even when Zee money adds references they are machine translated from the articles of other language wikis and often incompatible templates are copied over as a result (he doesn't fix these). In effect, this is WP:NOTHERE behavior – even though he responds and asks questions on other editors talk pages, he does not follow the suggestions of other editors on how the articles he creates can be improved. As a result, I am posting here for suggestion on how to address this issue. Kges1901 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we sure that the "bibliography" section here and the "literature" section here aren't the sources list for those two articles? These are the kind of wordings that happen when languages are put through machine translators. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that creating machine translations without identifying the source is a serious copyright problem, even though he is (presumably) copying from other language Wikipedias. Does he ever add content to existing articles in this manner, or is it always new ones? A ban on article creations could be feasible. (I'm jumping the gun here; Zee money at least needs an opportunity to explain himself, although he will find that difficult in light of the long string of notifications and warnings on his talk page.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Crap on my talk page

    Apologies for bringing this here, but I've never actually needed to ask it before in nearly twelve years. I just received this note on my talkpage after banning some vandals over at Capital Gazette shooting: anything I need to do about it beyond ignore it? What, if so? Thanks in advance. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice: block the user, cut talk-page access, rev-del that, and send it to the Foundation. I'd say it falls under a "threat of harm". —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Will do, thanks. I thought it was likely something along those lines. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, you failed the "low visibility" prescription for these kinds of things. That said, I'm not sure I agree with Javert2113 that this requires an email to the Foundation, since there was no specific threat (even "purge" does not necessarily imply violence). I will, however, as a disclaimer note that I have a history of underestimating the applicability of policies like this (see the two times my userpage has been deleted or revdelled because of WP:CHILD violations). That said, I would agree with block and revdel under R3. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported it. Possibly overreacting, but given a.) the heated nature of the moment, and b.) the origins of the statement (ideologically speaking), better be safe than sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, agreed. Besides, I believe (though cannot verify) that the Foundation requests that it be emailed with these things for legal reasons. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Purge" and "rid of" are definitely warning signs. Reporting it was not overreacting, and was absolutely the right course. Regardless of whether or not the person intends to carry out these threats, it's best to report. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it sounded more like an immature reference to Purge (film), but yes always better safe than sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Crap on my talk page"???

    I'm all for letting consenting adults do what they want behind closed doors, but when I look at the title of this thread I'm moved to suggest that there are more discreet ways of meeting people willing to fulfill one's fetishistic desires. EEng 06:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Carles Puidgemont revisited

    We had an Talk:Carles Puigdemont#RFC on nationality for Carles Puigdemont which was closed after extensive discussion. However, one editor disagrees with the closure and consensus here and then reverting two editors here and here, unilaterally overturning consensus. He also tried to re-open the closed discussion thread here. I tried moving his new comment to the bottom and aded my own comment, here including removing. We clearly need admin action as the rfc was closed a week ago and we had a clear consensus. I don't agree with the consensus but it's consensus and needs to be respectd by all of us. I also consider the removal of my comment unacceptable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User: N0n3up has not made any edit since the most recent warning by user:EdJohnston. So, while a block may not be currently justified, I will close the talk-page discussion and warn the editor that any similar disruption o the article/talk-page will invite immediate blocks. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiromi kirishima

    This user appears to be a long-term SPA here to promote himself and his YouTube channel: he has previously been warned for edit warring a number of times and he's just recreated the twice-deleted-at-AfD article about himself, Paul Pluta, for a third time. He's now revert-warring without discussion again accusing the Crime and Corruption Commission of being a star chamber in Wikipedia voice (his own article has the redlinked "Star Chamber Survivors" category).

    This account has not made a single edit unrelated to self-promotion since 2010 (lots of stuff like this), and even before that did not exactly display a constructive attitude to editing.

    I think it might be time to ban this account and speedy and salt Paul Pluta, because I don't doubt he's just going to remove the speedy deletion tag. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=848007391"