Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive153

I just discovered some long-standing vandalism

Frankly, I don't like it. A completly nonsensical article, Lonny Fame and the Belltones, just came to my attention due to a change I caught on RC patrol. This band only garners 89 Google hits, is filled with pure nonsense straight out of Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica and this idiocy has been up since January. Subtle vandalism to Shawnee Mission School District relating to this group was added as well; I've since removed it. User:Rsherm was the editor responsible for adding more nonsense atop the nonsense a few moments ago. The account was just created and has no positive contributions whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nocturnal emissions control device". Love it! --Jenny 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems highly likely to be a hoax, but since an admin has just removed the speedy tag I guess it should go to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very clever and that's what worries me. The admin who reverted the speedy didn't read down the page. It starts out relatively plausible, but degrades into a refugee from Uncyclopedia about halfway down. It's a speedy under several different criteria from band vanity to pure nonsense. I hope it doesn't clog AfD since these bozos have had enough fun for the last six months. WP:SNOW really would apply here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without checking, I believe hoaxes aren't normally speedies except where they are so blatant they qualify as a G3 i.e. pure vandalism. I reckon that's the case here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to agree with Jenny that the article is funny and I wish to heck that BJAODN was still around. Another cultural phenomenon lost to the ravages of time, I fear.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And doggoned if it isn't on AfD. At least it's a good-faith nomination and I've voted accordingly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Enigma ^message 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. That red link was a relief. I can now head off to beautiful downtown Dreamland secure in the knowledge. Nice working with you all today.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted at User talk:Shii/Hoaxes --Iamunknown 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity it's gone, really. It was a gem among hoaxes. "For fans and critics alike, the Belltones' musicianship was only half of what their fans tried desperately to avoid. The other half was the paranormal-like connection the members of the group had with each other. (...) But yet, like the partnership between heat and humidity, it was like the Belltones, from day one, breathed the same air, had eaten the same food, and worn the same type of underwear". A classic ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is (or was) a "Lonny Fame and the Belltones" - they were a fifties-nostalgia act at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I like the sound of our version better though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects templates

Needs immediate tlc

(That I can't give today)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F is totally messed up currently, I suspect a side-effect of a missing set of nowiki's or of what I started to report below... someone fiddled with a key template while not knowing where and how it was used! (Hot potato. HELP!)

my original post began

I've recently found several redirects (the {R from... }) tags which have been indelicately altered, shall I say so they won't work properly in pages where they are directly included. (Wikipedia:Templates/Redirect templates for one, there's at least a second, and perhaps more [Added some linked below].) While this isn't overt vandalism, people are apparently breaking things through ignorance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_other_template&action=history R from other template] for another)

1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C_misspellings.2C_tenses_and_capitalizations -- Looks okay, but extra eyes might pick up something I missed.
2. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages my quick peek, suggests okay, but ditto on extra eyes checking.
3. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages -- ditto again.
   1. Wouldn't hurt to have someone look into why some of these table cells show a <hr> and others don't. Looks like there was a now obsolete reason for some of these having a <hr> and I suspect most can be eliminated, while opining the tables would look better without.

Gang up on these guys, a nickle for every incompatibility found! <g> Don't want essential "How-to" to look crappy. // FrankB 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{rfd}} and WP:RFD. If you're thinking a major change in categorizing stuff, that should be discussed at the village pump and/or Category talk:Categories or sometimes Wikipedia talk:templates. You were interested in altering redirects categories, from what I saw in passing, so that discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock assistance please

Resolved

 – released by Maxim

I'm not in a position to take care of this myself right now, so could someone please release the autoblock on Giano II? It's a complex block history so it may take a few minutes to figure out which block/unblock is causing the problem. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maxim. We're having serial power failures here and I've already had four crashes today. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'Login successful' page corrupted

Hey. There's a problem on the UserLogin&wpCookieCheck=login page. The link to the WP:HELP page isn't displaying properly. The page is also not W3 compliant, 7 errors.

If you're using the W3 validator, make sure you're sending the page itself, not the URL to the page; W3.org is not logged-in to Wikipedia ;).

Have a nice day/evening. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be fine, when you actually log in. I don't know what's going on with index.php but the problem is only when you call it from the link above. --Selket ^Talk 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also validation passes XHTML Transitional on copy-paste from view source. --Selket ^Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. [1] [2] --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail)

Reported at bugzilla:14709. --- RockMFR 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request Page Move Help

Resolved

 – Page moved; next time, post request on WP:RFPP.

Please move the page at Violetta Blue to Noname Jane as this is her correct stage name and she is barred from using Violetta Blue anyway. I would do the move myself, but there is a conflicting redirect that I cannot remove. Thanks so much! --BenBurch (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a move to Ada Mae Johnson not be more appropriate in this case? Anyway, for future reference, thre is Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is appropriate for an actor/actress? Is John Wayne's article under Marion Robert Morrison? Whatever the standard is. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, with all double redirects fixed. Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) stipulates that using either legal name or stage name is correct. —Kurykh 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! If you are an American, have a great Independence Day Holiday, and if not, well, have a great weekend! --BenBurch (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New category:administrators willing to make difficult unblocks

Resolved

 – User is free to create category. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. In fairness, there should be a category of administrators willing to make difficult unblocks.

It is well known that administrators are unwilling to unblock. People have called it the cabal, gang mentality, lynching, etc. This category will blunt such criticism.

It is also well known that administrators who don't like certain ideas but who can't think of a logical way to explain their feelings resort to calling things trolling or make accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not trolling. If you are an administrator and are not willing to make difficult unblocks, you simply don't list your name. It's that simple!

Once again, this category blunts any criticism from Wikipedia critics who call us cabalism. Voxtel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! That's quite a second edit you got there Voxtel. Have you been an IP for awhile to get to know the place, or a lurker? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited for months but I have edited. I lost my password and user name. I have some idea but does it really matter? Voxtel (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto proof that the cabal sucks at being a cabal: they can't keep people from unblocking people everyone wants blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can only read "difficult unblock" as "unblock against consensus". Not sure we should encourage that. We get quite enough of it already. Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No fair. Friday stole my comment and then edit-conflicted me. :) OK, try this: We don't really need categories that describe an admin's willingness to perform basic administrative functions. How about Category:Admins willing to protect pages in an edit war? Or Category:Admins willing to adjudicate complex 3RR reports? Or Category:Admins willing to block Giano? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then should we eliminate the category "admins willing to make difficult blocks"? Voxtel (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer (from me anyway) Yes. It presumes there are easy blocks. No block I've ever done has been "easy". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said, Keeper76. Blocks are by policy; difficulty would reflect situations where it's not clear how policy applies. In that case, seeking consensus in advance would be best. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to MastCell, I think we need to worry about a parent category first. Let's create Category:Admins willing to create difficult categories :) _{I's say my sense of humor's workin today.} Wizardman 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the smart thing for admins oppose to this idea would be to simply say nothing, hope that nobody signs up, then delete the category after it remains empty for a few days. That's fair! Attacking me, trying speedy delete, and other tactics are unfair and devious. So oppose it, there's an easy fair way!Voxtel (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with that "difficult blocks" category. The description of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, however, does make me stop short of recommendng its deletion. We have had cases of administrators being targetted by vengeful stalkers and the like, so this category (if it serves the purpose described) is likely to be useful in cases of harassment. --Jenny 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't see this discussion until afterwards, but I've CfD'dCategory:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. I'd suggest that if this conversation is going to continue, it continue there. – iridescent 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec: cat was redlinked as of this writing)I'm afraid that it's not going to happen. It's not an issue of ideology or opinion— it's part of the blocking policy, in big bold letters. Admins usually don't undo blocks without consensus to do so or in obvious situations. This mainly is done to avoid wheel-warring between admin actions— something that is highly discouraged and frequently can result in desysopping. Therefore, the only possible definition of "difficult unblocks" is one that is done where there isn't consensus to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be difficult. That said, you're totally free to create the category, but it probably won't exist for long as we usually remove underpopulated categories within a few days of it being empty. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fine with me. a few days and it remains empty then it's ripe for delete. Voxtel (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be time to work on some articles in the meantime, eh? MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be more useful to create the category Category:Admins willing to make the tea. It would help in dispute resolution, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject of an article requesting deletion of references to himself

Currently, there is an AFD about a book by an author, which seems likely to be deleted. However, the author of the book, Ed Williams, who does not appear to have an article going on this disambiguation page, is claiming he wants references to himself in articles such as Kay Parker and Bachman-Turner Overdrive deleted, although I cannot find any references to him in these articles, so I'm not sure what should be done (if anything). Just letting the admins know.--Les boys (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Williams (novelist) - strangely it had been turned into a redirect to an article about an actor. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, that explains things. Thanks. Well, it seems like he wants that article deleted, and any references to it (or himself) in other articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to raise this here, anyway, going on the BLP policy.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I found a mentions in two of the articles he mentioned and have corrected the links to point to the now-restored article about him. I think he wasn't so much requesting removal of mention of him, as saying that without the article on him we may as well remove them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note DektopBSD logos (and images with this logos) should be deleted immediately

I used {{db-i3}} on Image:Desktop bsd logo.png and Image:Desktop bsd screenshot.png, because DesktopBSD logos and artwork collection are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. Ref: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 According to policy for non-free content and CSD I3, all images, including DesktopBSD screenshots with DesktopBSD logos or/and artwork will be deleted immediately Shooke (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This was cross-posted (and is being discussed) at MCQ. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminate on Sight: youngbird

Resolved

 – Edit war terminated on sight; complainant and subject are both edit-warring and thus the article's been protected. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngbird is a supporter of a competeing artist and has been vandalising the T.O.S. page repeatdly despite warnings! PLease take note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhasin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not happening. Page fully protected to stop you two from edit-warring. Talk it out on the article's talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

User:Xasha, already blocked twice under the Digwuren restriction, persists in making egregious insults and contributing little of constructive value. In this edit, he writes: "Moldovans consider themselves "not Romanians". ethnicity is a matter of personal choice everywhere (OK, it wasn't in Nazi dominated countries)". Given his introduction of a source stating that the Romanian government does not recognize a separate Moldovan ethnicity, this comes quite close to implying that Romania itself is Nazi-dominated, a clear violation of the Digwuren warning: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee."

To accuse a country's population to be "Nazi" is actually rude insult against this population.

Moreover, Xasha, in response to a post by User:Vecrumba defending the notion that Moldovans and Romanians form part of the same people, repeated the Nazi accusation: "Please don't revive the Nazi tradition of arbitrarily assignign ethnicity based on God knows what invented criteria."

I hope administrators duly note these two inflammatory messages in blatant violation of Digwuren, and also take into consideration the user's block record and general pattern of tendentious, unproductive editing. --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first use quoted to be only an allusion, and not a accusation. I'm a little unsure about the second. DGG (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a badly-worded comment, not an "issue of concern". Civility warning. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and read this, too. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, might I point out, Xasha again invokes the Nazi spectre here: "The similarity with lebensraum discourses is not just a coincidence". In response to the warning he received due to his conduct, he combatively pledged to continue employing this sort of language. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reminded Xasha of both the conditions of the restriction, and what happened when they were previously violated. If it happens again in short order a block will be required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. Anyone in that dispute that can't avoid all that fighting is due for a long block. Last chance here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He is now continuing to conduct a long revert war against several other users, running up to 3R within the last 24 hours at this point, but with numerous previous reverts in the past few days. It's at Latin European peoples (an abomination of an article, but that's a different matter), and it's all about whether Moldovans should be categorised under Romanians or on the same hierarchical level with them, in a tree list of "Latin" peoples. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reverting an user who is always restoring edits by banned sockpuppets of Bonaparte and now is removing reliable sources to prove it's point. I'm not ashamed at all.Xasha (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to revert ad nauseam, so I'm blocking you for 96 hours: 72 for the lame revert-warring and 24 for the incivility. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is modifying the article Latin European peoples and he ignores the discussion on the talk page. Somebody stop him please! --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here to explain Xasha (talk) that talk pages shouldn't be emptied without archiving a discussion. Maybe he's doing it to cover up former conflicts with other users caused by his permanent zestfulness for edit warring, harassing other users or using the encyclopedia as a battleground. He was several times requested by other users not to empty his talk page. However, this is the list of all the discussions deleted by him: User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users can do anything they want with the contents of their Talk pages -- delete, archive, whatever (except change other people's words). Corvus cornix_talk

Of course they can do anything with their talk page. I know that very well. But: concerning the user Xasa, there is a small additional problem: he likes to modify the wikipedia articles without giving any explanation and when asked about the changes, he just empties his talk page instead of talking about the disupted issue. After the talk page is emptied, he reverts the edits of the disputed article again and he behaves further as if nobody would have ask him anything about the disputed article. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, repeated insertion of loaded comments like this one can be considered harassment ("why are you beating you wife?"), provoking Xasha to remove all comments by that particular user. As for modifying wikipedia articles without giving any explanation - heh, it took you two blocks to notice the existence of talk pages yourself, Olahus. Although your behavior doesn't excuse Xasha's, perhaps laying off those accusations of "Stalinism" as well as not rushing to revert back once you get reverted yourself, but using the talk page first might have a better impact on the general editing atmosphere in relevant articles? --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A short view in the revision history of some articles disputed between Xasha and me is anough to demonstrate that you actually fully support Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) . So, I don't wonder youre attitude regarding me in this discussion and you're role as Xasha's advocate. Besides, in his talk page Xasha didn't by far remove just my comments. A short viev in the revision hístory of his talk page is the best proof that it is actually a common attitude of his regarding users that contest his POV.--Olahus (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, but of course! Otherwise my boss at Lubyanka might cut my wages and I really don't want that, seeing as how most of the money goes to bribing the admins here into not blocking me for my blatant Stalinist POV-pushing. Crap, I let it slip! Ok, please, look at the tip i. You saw nothing unusual today. Please, move along.<

Xasha's free to do with his talk page what he wants (except changing other users' words). The history page is there for all to see, after all. What I disapprove, is that by deleting stuff like that he loses any challenges automatically, thus weakening his point.

If you want to prove something to me, better do it on my talk page. I might want to hide the Truth as well, you know. --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by User:Xasha in the article Groschen which altered Romanian Principalities to read Danubian Principalities, because the edit was marked as minor and was not explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Xasha reverted my edit - this looks like part of a campaign to remove mention of Romania from articles involving Moldavia, doesn't it? However, after further research I think that it was a good edit. I think that, in this case at least, the only problem is a lack of adequate discussion and explanation (multiplied by the usual $ETHNIC problems, of course). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse Vladimir Socor for fallacies and "outrageous fabrications". And even if he was accused there is unclear if it can be regarded as a reason to neglect the estimations regarding the Moldovans from Romania, because Vladimir Socor is a venerated analyst of East European affairs and the accusals of William Hill (indeed, William Hill accused Vladimir Socor, not the organization OSCE) have nothing to do with the number of Moldovans from Romania (see here).--Olahus (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pirat Clone of Wikipedia: http://www.adorons.com/wiki (?)

Resolved

 – Banned by the devs. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform administrators and Wikipedians about the not complete copy/clone of Wikipedia [3] but it exactly looks as the real Wikipedia - I think - something is not correct with it (?)--Cerber (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror site, with no advertising added (makes a change) but it's pulling all the images from Wikipedia directly. What's the policy on these? Based on WP:MIRROR, I've added it to m:Live mirrors - do we need to do anything else? Neıl 龱 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. This site been noted since October 2007— Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Adorons.com. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a remote loader website, see [4]. Do the devs know about it? MER-C 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it does have something. Click view source on any page, and go right to the bottom (or search for a013.com) - it's doing something with an advertising sitetracker. And it's definitely remote loading, right click on any image and see "properties" - they're coming from upload.wikimedia.org. I've added it to m:Live mirrors, so the devs should know about it fairly soon. They were pretty quick about e-wikipedia.net a few weeks back. Whois data for www.adorons.com: [5]. Neıl 龱 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That was probably because it was on Slashdot. You might get a faster response on IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/wikimedia-tech (see this comment). MER-C 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use IRC, but if someone wants to drop a note there, feel free. They still haven't fixed the one before adorons.com on m:Live mirrors, which is full of adverts, either. Neıl 龱 14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Bugged the devs on IRC. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous site (http://www.adorons.com/wiki) is very misleading especially for "Google search" using visitors, on the other hand, is it really an exact copy of the authorized official Wikipedia and not a modified/manipulated mirror? I also would like to know - What's the policy on these?--Cerber (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are using the WMF logo and Wikipedia globe, which is not released on a fee use licence so wouldn't be in breach of copyright on that account. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant is: that it is a copyvio! Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The site now redirects to Leech (computing) and displays an "access denied" message. We're done here, at least for now. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Giano II

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, has voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest MascotGuy idiocy

Nearly five years by my reckoning is too much to bear and something needs to be done and soon. His latest incarnation, User:Chopsticks Guy created a whole slew of nonsensical redirects, far too many for me to want to tag for speedy deletion on an individual basis. I found a slew of unreverted edits and new redirects by blocked sock User:Animal Guy, among others. Would someone be so kind as to check the edit history of those two socks and blow off his original contributions? I mean, we know where this guy edits from, we know his name and we know who his IP is. How can this be stopped once and for all? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The Animal Guy sock has left a whole bunch of similar new postings and redirects in its wake. I've rolled back as many as I could, but I have to sign off. Please, could someone just delete his entries and send the checkuser to his IP for (hopefully) a major TOS violation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to create user page...

Resolved

 – User and talk page created for user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to create a User Page for, "Tiny giant what???" When I try to make the page it say "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse." Am I included on the Blacklist because of the "???" on my name? What do I need to do to create a user page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny giant what??? (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a user and talk page for you (the system allows admins to create restricted titles). You can go ahead and modify them as you see fit. I'm guessing the "???" was probably the cause. Keep in mind that you'll have this problem again if you ever need to create subpages in your userspace, so you might want to consider being renamed at some point, but for now all is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest MascotGuy idiocy

Nearly five years by my reckoning is too much to bear and something needs to be done and soon. His latest incarnation, User:Chopsticks Guy created a whole slew of nonsensical redirects, far too many for me to want to tag for speedy deletion on an individual basis. I found a slew of unreverted edits and new redirects by blocked sock User:Animal Guy, among others. Would someone be so kind as to check the edit history of those two socks and blow off his original contributions? I mean, we know where this guy edits from, we know his name and we know who his IP is. How can this be stopped once and for all? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The Animal Guy sock has left a whole bunch of similar new postings and redirects in its wake. I've rolled back as many as I could, but I have to sign off. Please, could someone just delete his entries and send the checkuser to his IP for (hopefully) a major TOS violation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to create user page...

Resolved

 – User and talk page created for user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to create a User Page for, "Tiny giant what???" When I try to make the page it say "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse." Am I included on the Blacklist because of the "???" on my name? What do I need to do to create a user page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny giant what??? (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a user and talk page for you (the system allows admins to create restricted titles). You can go ahead and modify them as you see fit. I'm guessing the "???" was probably the cause. Keep in mind that you'll have this problem again if you ever need to create subpages in your userspace, so you might want to consider being renamed at some point, but for now all is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)