Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 19 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 98 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 305 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User restoring edits of banned user and 4 years old sock-puppeteer

Hello! I want to ask the administrators about the assist given by different users to the 2-times banned user User:Stubes99, This editor had tens of socks but many times some users (in the last case User:Norden1990 [1] [2] [3]) restore the information inserted by him (sometimes we talk about mass illegal editing - entire paragraphs added by this banned user - [4]). What is the opinion of the admins about this situation? How is User:Stubes99 penalized if his edits are validated by his supporters and remain on the site? Stubes99 defies our community and can create a new account whenever he wants (because he owns several IP ranges) to continue his work. He is socking for 4 years - the original account is Celebration1981 [5] and the earliest known sock account is User:Celebration81 - and no one and nothing was able to stop his editing in illegality. His status is only formally of a banned user, because in practice he can activate like any well-behaved contributor. The never ending cycle is the following: he creates a account, makes edits, he is blocked, his edits are reverted for being illegal, and then his edits are reinstated by his friends. Users like User:Norden1990 who support his edits simly encourage him to go on in his socking. I am requesting a solution for solving this.

It seems that User:Norden1990 started acting like a meatpuppet of User:Stubes99. Some days ago they started e-mail communication [6][7][8] and now he began restoring his edits and now they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail.

User:Stubes99 also posted a message in Hungarian language on User talk:Hobartimus, which can be translated as "Hello! Why do not you set your profile to wikis by e-mail, which could communicate with you? Thanks for your response!" [9]. Hobartimus is old friend of Stubes99 [10].

Another question: Why does not Celebration1981 a.k.a. Stubes99 appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Long-term_abuse_-_Active after 4 years of continuous socking?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Newnou, who reverted the sockpuppet's edits, was also banned, so I just brought back the article to stable version. It was strange for me that a sockpuppet remove long details from an article before banning. "It seems that", "they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail" - there are not appear to be evidence. I cooperated with Balkony (I did not know that (s)he is a sockpuppet, maybe I only suspected) in tha case of Central Europe where I helped to him to add statement from Western European historiographical works. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What stable version? The stable (the last valid version) is the version before-Stubes99 and before-Newnou. User Newnou only removed the ilegal edits made by the other banned user: Stubes99 added text, Newnou deleted added text going back to the previous version, and you restored the ilegal edits. Take this example: Stubes99 added text [11], Newnou reverted to Fakirbakir's version [12] and you reinstated Stubes99 edit [13].

The problem is that you validated the content added by a banned user, encouraging his activity. Tomorrow he will create a new account and resume his editing, knowing that you are behind him to restore his edits in case someonw will revert him.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop this hysteria? Newnou was also a sockpuppet, so he had no right to delete someone else's edit. Anyway, Balkony additions were sourced and referenced, using Western historiographical publications, so I checked these modifications. Indeed, in the case of Vona, I made a mistake accidentally, but it is very interesting that edit was not reverted by you, unlike the others, proving that the contents of the edits that bother you and not the user itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't block Balkony as a sock until 28 hours ago, if that makes a difference. I might have just missed it, but I didn't see where you have discussed the issue with the other editor before bringing it here, so I naturally have to ask if this can be handled on a talk page, particularly since we have one set of socks reverting another set of socks, so it is possible for an editor to revert to the "wrong" version, all in the best of faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not contact Norden1990 directly, because this user has done a lot false personal attacks against me and a constructive discussion([14][15][16] etc.) is really very difficult with this user: he called me recently "chauvinist user" [17] or named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist... [18]

It seems that Norden1990 continues restoring information added by the banned user [19].

Unfortunately Stubes99 sockpuppet factory is working at full capacity. He created 4 new accounts in the last days: User:Drickler, User:Sovietsco, User:Rightfullruler, User:Antisockpuppeterer to restore his deleted contributions and it seems nothing can stop him. Isn't posible to find an antidote against this man? On Austria-Hungary article he has new supporters (who in fact probably don't know Stube99), who reinstated his lawless additions [20] (full paragraphs, and tens of thousands of letters).--Omen1229 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also important that we find a solution against Iaaasi, whose activity is harmful for the Wikipedia. Dear Omen, a constructive discussion is not difficult with me, see lot of cases in my talkpage. I reserve the indicatives about you, I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note - Norden1990, comparing any other editor with a sock is not constructive. If you have anything to complain about Omen1229 please use the wikipedia channels(boards or similar) to clear that up, otherwise your comment can be interpreted as an act of bad faith. Also you are not a new user not to know that you should NOT preserve SOCK edits. It is important to stop all socks, but in this case User:Stubes99 since he created this problem. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About this problem (sock edits) as according to wikipedia rules (WP:SOCK and [[21]]) should be reverted. Because if we let this edits remain, in fact we are allowing a banned user to contribute and participate as a legitimate user. As for this particular case I am a little torn, because this is one of the few User:Stubes99 constructive, non-partisan edits. But this may be the case of "good hand - bad hand" (WP:GHBH). If we were to respect the wikipedia rules the data should be removed immediately, but in this case I don`t know what to do. The best way is to let some experienced administrator decide what to do. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear some administrator clarifying this situation because this is starting to became and edit war on many articles. Some users are adding some SOCK data, some removing. If someone could explain clearly what to do in this situations. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• If reverting one sock's edit will just put another sock's edit back into place, just use your best judgement. Reverting socks is a goal, but the bigger goal is having a correct and proper article. The best rule of thumb to use is "what is best for the article?", then do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary notification system

I am going to enable a default gadget that will pop up when you receive a notification. I do this because there is a valid concern new editors may not notice the standard red blip on top of the screen. While there is consensus that some form of notification alert is needed, the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notifications/New message indicator is going downhill fast.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Notifications/Popup documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone also going to bring back typewriters, the quill and ink, messenger pigeons, and horse and buggies? That's the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. With a community as afraid of change as this, it's really a wonder they can use a computer. I'll be awaiting a reply with a coconut shell tied to a string... Wikipedia is going to be left far behind if they keep up this stubborn, "I won't allow any changes" attitude. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's a wonder we're not still using the classic skin. — Edokter (talk) — 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in what's really going on here, see Resistance (philosophy). Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still walking on two legs, no? Have you tried breathing through your ass? It's different so it must be progress. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point by a few light years. We did not always walk on two legs. The opposition to creativity on this site will be its downfall. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no creativity in that move. Just the urge to change for change's sake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the most creative acts in proto-human history. Necessity is the mother of invention. You appear to be using a different definition of creativity than I am. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the orange bar on wikipedia is proto-human history? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? It was very clear what I was talking about. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And it was very clear what I said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you were speaking dolphinese to a chimpanzee underwater riding a whale. Totally clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this new gadget has very little to do with the orange bar... Ignatzmice•talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's even uglier than the bar, if that were possible :) But it does the job. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to keep it as simple as possible by using the exixting mw.notify framework, which does not allow extensive styling. — Edokter (talk) — 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No complaints. Sometimes ugly is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And, sometimes ugly is beautiful. Or as it is usually known, "exotic". :) Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that it comes with easy to follow instructions to turn off, and hopefully will address the OBOD concerns. NE Ent 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am one who uses Classic view on XP, and Monobook here. I do so because I find them the clearest and easiest to use. I am all in favour of progress. I just wish that people would stop equating change with progress. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor certainly initiated change. Was it progress? Vista was change. was that progress? Progress requires change. But not all change IS progress. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Give the man a cigar, he wins the "First to name Hitler in an entirely unrelated discussion" award. --Jayron32 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

Could an admin please deal with Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 15 April 2013? Because of its age and the fact that no categories exist between this and 26 April, it is not showing up on the main list. In fact, most of the entries on {{CSD backlogs}} are backlogged. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFD badly backlogged

Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion has a backlog going back two months. I see that many of these old discussions have achieved consensus and are waiting for admin attention. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Before I start doing smth: Do we have a bot I can routinely ask to carry out the moves? I am not sure I want to change the cat in hundreds of files by hands.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a holding pen; put the category name and various other code into the pen, and a bot will do all the moves for you. Can't remember where it's located, but I'll look for it and then come back. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. If you close a category as "delete", just copy/paste and modify the code from the New Zealand knighthoods in the current revision, and then change the details; if you close it as something else, modify/copy/paste the code to whatever the appropriate section is. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

CAT:EP badly backlogged

...in the same vain, Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is also badly backlogged, with latest unanswered request dated 25 April. No such user (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin dashboard stats box

It contains 'Users blocked' and 'Users reblocked'. Is there any good reason why it doesn't contain 'Users unblocked' as well? Peridon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a damn good question. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The person to ask this damn good question of is User talk:cyberpower678, who runs User:cyberbot I which is used to update the Admin stats box. --Jayron32 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He's looking into it. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am. After I'm done the things that need to be done in real life first. I've actually considered adding a bunch of new things.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they're damn good. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's so damn good, that you would give a damn about it. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just have a reputation as a big meanie, so I wouldn't mind having a admin stat that lets everyone know how nice I can be (if there's a damn good reason to be) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Site ban discussion for User:Evlekis

• Evlekis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:RFPP is blowing up with requests to semi-protect articles by now-indefblocked Evlekis, who appears to have more IPs at their disposal than you can shake a stick at; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Besides the usual Balkanist disruption, they're also hounding Peacemaker67 and Bobrayner. I think a formal ban would be a nice signal that this behavior is unacceptable; in addition, I would like that self-congratulatory MySpace social networking thing they put up in the place of a talk page deleted: an editor with such a blatant disregard for the rules here has no right to put a family album (children, exes, resumes, their life's work) on our beautiful website. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been very active with the case, reverting, protecting, blocking, tagging and deleting, which is easy enough since his edits are hard to miss. Keep in mind, he has a one year AE ban for violating his topic ban concurrent with his indef for socking the first time, via User:Sandstein. This is a bit earlier than usual for a site ban, but it is rather unusual circumstances, with a large amount of collateral damage. He does seem to have gone to the dark side of the force, to which there is no return. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the blanking, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

there is certainly more than enough scope for an ARBMAC discretionary sanctions site ban (given he topic banned under ARBMAC before he was indefinitely blocked and began evading) or even a community site ban. It might make it clearer to him that his behaviour in evading his block and topic ban is completely unacceptable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting as the administrator who imposed the recent AE sanctions and the block for their violation via socking, it does appear to me that the sockpuppetous block/ban evasion by this user has reached the degree at which a community site ban is normally imposed, though it doesn't have any substantial additional effect. My understanding is that a site ban can't be imposed as a discretionary sanction, only a topic ban, which already exists.  Sandstein  15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

my mistake. I thought that even a site ban was available under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision, but I'll butt out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to butt out, its hard enough for seasoned admin to keep up with all policies on this. Even I called in Sandstein because he knows Arb issues better than I ever will. Site bans are only enacted by a motion by Arb (long, time consuming, etc.) or by a formal proposal here at WP:AN. As Sandstein has pointed out, there is little practical difference since he is already indef blocked for socking, concurrent with a Discretionary Sanction block for a full year. Anyone can automatically revert his edits on site without violating 3RR, we automatically mass nuke his new articles and edits as soon as we find them, which is very quickly. If you see other socks, file at SPI and feel free to ping me. I've worked all his sock cases so I'm familiar enough to take rapid action blocking/protecting/nuking/denying. That is the most effect method of dealing with it, removing all rewards in the behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse and disruption

• CTF83! Alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:CTF83! Alt just came out of literally nowhere a few moments ago. He didn't like particular edits that were sourced on an article and removed extensive amounts of material by referring to it all as crap, spelt "grap" mind you, as shown here [22]. Before I could even send him a polite message that the extensive amounts of material he was removing as "grap" was all well sourced (which was my original intention), he came to my talkpage and initiated a discussion about it with the following: "Please stop adding the list of disguise, it's unnecessary crap that clutters the page!" (as shown here: [23]). That's when I literally lose it and tell him to stop coming to my talkpage with the funky attitude and that I was reporting him immediately for abuse and disruption. He told me to 'go for it.'

I'm a little confused by this user and his talkpage because it reads: "This account is a legitimate sockpuppet of User:CTF83!, for use on mobile and other computers. If this account misbehaves or acts suspiciously, please have it blocked, immediately!"

Is he a sockpuppet of another user? AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with apparent attack account

An account User:SamEAntar appears to have been created as an attack on Sammy Antar, who was apparently involved in criminal dealings with the defunct Crazy Eddie electronics chain in New York. The account made some edits to the article, which I do not know the accuracy of (also made some edits under an IP address, which was mentioned in a comment on the article talk page that I deleted). The person behind the account claims to be Sam Antar, however based on what he posted to his own userpage, I think that is extremely dubious and the person is perhaps either a disgruntled former employee or stockholder of the company. In any case, it is extremely unlikely the account is operated by Sammy Antar, which makes the whole thing a massive BLP violation. So can someone look into the accounts edits, revdel any BLP violating edits, delete the userpage and block the account? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've deleted the user page--that was easy. Thanks. The rest of your charge will have to be addressed by someone smart; also, I'm clocking out for now. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited in 2 years. Yeah, probably an impersonation account, but because of time-since-editing, what protection are we doing? I'm all in favour of revdel'ing BLP-violating things if you give us diffs to ones that need it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidates not showing up in maintenance categories

Could one or more administrators please re-assess/delete Template:Infobox People, Template:INFOBOX PERSON, Template:Infobox KVOE-AM and Template:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Playoffs Except F, all of which are looping templates either redundant or not usefully employed, and which I nominated under CSD T3 two weeks ago, but which are strangely absent from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates?
Also, near the top of my category namespace edits, there is a collection of about 30 categories that I tagged for C1 at the end of last month, and which are still empty, but which don't seem to have made it as far as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. Could these also pleased be processed? SuperMarioMan 17:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I deleted {{Infobox KVOE-AM}} since it was unused. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Community ban for 50.72.161.19

I am requesting that a vote on a siteban of 50.72.161.19 be put in place for threats and personal attacks. --72.65.238.157 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses are not banned. A registered account may be banned, and an IP sock of a banned editor may be blocked, but an IP, standing alone, is not banned. In this instance, you're talking about a dynamic IP address who is currently blocked for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, they can be but they usually aren't. To clear things up, this is an old IP (50.72.161.19), and they are using 50.72.139.25 now, which is already blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• When has an IP ever been banned without being connected to a registered account? I looked at WP:BAN, and it addressed the issue only by implication. I also looked at the list of banned users and couldn't find any banned IP addresses (perhaps I missed one?). It also makes no sense to me for a dynamic IP, although I suppose it makes a little more sense for a static IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)