Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive707

Follow up 2

DC connector

This section split from #Follow up 2. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I privately queried Δ about this removal of File:Powerpole.JPG from DC connector this last Thursday. It was clear that the FUR template had the article name wrong (DC Connector instead of DC connector, which has since apparently been corrected [28]) but when I pointed this out to Δ, he then began to argue that his removal was not due to the typo in the FUR, but instead that the image was replaceable and that it violated NFCC. I explained to him that this particular image would be next to impossible to replace given this type of connector, but I got nowhere and finally had to give up trying to discuss this with him. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ happens to be right. This is an article of electrical equipment that exists in the real world. It is not a statue or other artistic work. Therefore, any Wikipedia editor can photograph one of them and release it under a free license. Further, the image wasn't tied to the text in any way. It's completely replaceable. I'm sorry that you're wrong, but that doesn't constitute poor behavior on Δ's part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you or another editor actually put your hands on one of these and photograph it? This sort of argument has come up before for other images and doesn't hold up when you can't actually obtain one of these to photograph. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• For transparency, I'm noting here that I've undone this edit by Hammersoft which was made without an edit summary. If this image could be replaced by a free image I would be all for it, but when one cannot actually obtain the item to take a photograph, it is impossible to create a free photograph of the item. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is that a current piece of equipment? If so, this is not like trying to get a free photo of the Unibomber. Couldn't someone just go to their local hardware store and take a picture of one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's funny you say that because a very old painting of Kim Jong-il was deleted for that very reason. You know, because every wikipedian has a special forces team at their disposal to break into north Korea.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• As I understand it, no. It is a proposed standard for DC power distribution in data centers. The connectors are highly specialised and are not readily available (meaning one can't just go out and buy one), otherwise we could create a free photograph of one. I would actually love to replace this image with a free photo too, the quality of this one is not that great. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I give up [29] I'm tired of this sort of bullshit. No, it isn't available, although the manufacturer would probably be happy to custom manufacture 100,000 pcs for you. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, here is a random though, email the company asking for a image released under a free license. Most companies would jump for the chance for some free advertising on wikipedia. But no, instead of taking a few minutes and attempting to get a free file lets just ignore the m:Mission and and use a non-free file. Or try emailing someone/group that installs these, or has one in their facility. With a little leg work getting free versions of files isn't that difficult. Yes no free version exists now, and if we dont attempt to get one, one will never exists.... ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just spent a few minutes, drafted and sent an email to Anderson requesting a freely licensed file we can use. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Gosh, so why then Δ couldn't you have done that in the first place? Is it just far easier to just remove the image [30] without any sort of notification to the uploader, or perhaps bite a newbie editor such as Webwat, as some others have done with templates on his talk page? (It would be nice if people would be nicer to new editors such as Webwat.)

  While most manufacturers are not going to be willing to license product photos under a free license (legal worries, concerns of competitors using their photos, concerns that people may think their designs are free, ...), you are certainly welcome to try. Here is a link to the section of their site for these style of connectors and there is a customer service link at the bottom of this page. Maybe you can obtain a photos of these custom connectors.

  As I explained to you previously Δ, you aren't going to find anyone "out in the field" with these connectors, period. The only people who might have them are either the original manufacturer (although they would likely be more than happy to manufacture and sell you a large order), or previously, one of the demonstration sites (which likely no longer exist given how long ago this was). As far as I'm aware, despite the standards, no one is using these connectors in production devices. See these links for more information: [31] [32] [33] [34] (this pdf file being the source of the photo in question) Note that these documents have been cited elsewhere, too. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)...and on that note, a much better version of the original photo can be found on LBL's site here which is linked from the FAQ here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be blunt, it's not Delta's responsibility to do that. I have to say I'm quite impressed that he's going above and beyond the call, to model the way for future newbies (and old-bies, like me) on how to go about getting, or trying to get, a free image. Perhaps that kind of info could be included in the simplified instructions that 28bytes is developing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• True, and to be fair I wrote the above reply before Δ replied a second time here. I also just now noticed the note Webwat added to File talk:Powerpole.JPG. Others might find it worth reading. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. It indicates a willingness to work with us, and that's good. It also occurs to me that a willingness to work with Delta, instead of beating up on him all the time as some users do (and which I used to do also), would be more productive for all concerned. Let's hope all this discussion results in a good step forward for all of us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• He also asked about the ".jpg" vs. ".JPG" stuff, which is one of the technical oddities about this site. The file could be renamed, although perhaps it would be better to see what result Delta gets from his e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we do keep the file and rename it, it would be best replaced with this version anyway since it is higher quality and does not have the artifacts introduced from being included in a PDF and then extracted.

  Given the image was created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is funded by the United States Department of Energy, I've been wondering about the copyright status of the image too. LBL publishes a copyright statement here, but it directs inquiries to the page owner.

  Because these are custom connectors, I'm still not sure that APP is going to be able to help us, but LBL might. This page has some contact information and this page gives a contact email for high resolution video. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Crossmr

Delta has taken steps to improve the fair-use message he was leaving. To me that shows a willingness to work with us. Crossmr needs to back off a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I 'backed off' a day and a half ago now. The last two discussions that were petering out had nothing to do with Delta at all really.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see here:

• Regarding your page, I was not the only one who thought it was a mistake for you to close it. Baseball bugs also said that he was going to open it again if I hadn't of
• Regard fastily's page comment, I was seeking clarification on his why he made the decision he made, and I was not the only one. A group of admins later blocked Delta over that edit war, but then it was overturned because they didn't know there had been a declined 3RR on it.
• Both Future Perfect's and Sven's talk pages are replies to comments on my talk page. I am allowed to reply to people who write on my talk page right? Both of these discussions are not even really about Delta, they are more about the discussion and their edits and my edits.
• Future perfect's warning is nothing more than baseless personal attacks. Which he was asked to support with diffs and refused, and for which there is no basis to support his claim that I was either forum shopping, nor persistently badgering admins about how hard they sanctioned Delta [35]
• As for the 3RR noticeboard, I posted my interpretation of policy and the situation surrounding it, one someone else had already basically stated. I didn't even address delta by name or ask for a specific action against delta. I was actually speaking to Mickmacknee's edits more than I was speaking to Delta's. I still don't see where I'm prohibited on commenting on an open thread.
• and Beestra's warning? Well His warning is based on nothing more than his view that two people can't have a conversation about someone on a talk page without notifying them, otherwise it's uncivil. I asked him to cite the relevant policy that stated that, and I still haven't seen it.
• and 28byte's and I's disagreement was based on a misunderstanding between us. One we've already drawn to a conclusion, he thought I'd ignored him, I thought his close sounded spiteful. If you note above he came back to the thread and we had no problem continuing our dialog.
• Just for clarification where was it that you notified me about this? You know, as required by the page header above, since I'd already stated above that I was done with this discussion, and in fact stated that in a couple places (since you went to all of them and checked). it was only by chance that I caught this. just so we're clear here:
• You disrupted a discussion by closing it, that another user agreed was inappropriate
• You started a thread a day and a half after I clearly stated I was done and made no further comments about Delta here asking "when I'm going to stop"
• You failed to notify me of this thread as required by the noticeboard

I guess I could turn around and ask you the same. Oh an my continuing to post [36] has nothing to do with Delta, and it's about Future perfect's unsubstantiated allegations. I recommended on your talk page that you should read things more thoroughly, I'll repeat it here. No where in that post was I complaining about delta, I was going over my edits to clarify them with FP.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so there is no further confusion, I consider this conversation about Delta done. I considered it done a day and a half ago (other meta conversations aside that weren't directly about Delta). While some others also have yet again taken issue with the way delta edits, it's clear once again we'll have no consensus. Hopefully Delta will improve his process and we won't ever have to have this conversation again.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Crossmr, you reported ∆ to Rd232 for typing an all-caps edit summary - unlike typing 'fucking twat', typing in all caps can be a good faith mistake (forgetting to turn it off) - I agree, it was unlikely here, it turned out that it was not a case of forgetting to turn it off, etc. But still, there was a good faith explanation possible, which you simply ignored). You did not ask ∆, you just went to Rd232 and reported him for incivility (and also there you did not show that you considered it could have been just a plain mistake). To me, that show a lack of assuming good faith on ∆. Then you do go immediately to an admin, you do not notify ∆, you do not talk to ∆ about it. That is, just by common sense, uncivil. We do not have policies and guidelines for it, but if editors come complaining to me about another editor without talking with that editor first about the situation, I do say "did you ask the editor", "did you try to talk to the editor" - similarly, if someone reports an editor to AIV, and the editor did not get any warnings before, then the vandalism should be pretty grave otherwise it will simply be ignored (I hope).

We expect ∆ to be civil, ∆ has been very civil for thousands of edits, except for some (one?) case(s) where he was treated with continued incivility, rudeness etc. He was blocked for that, and ∆ did not complain, no-one complained that that was a improper block. Yet, ∆ is confronted on a daily basis with unnecessary incivility (like this remark about ∆, by you, to Rd232, what was the problem to first ask/remark to ∆ first, or to notify him, even if you were (or turned out to be) right, Crossmr? - especially since this was not a clear cut form of incivility, people do forget caps-lock sometimes ..). If we expect ∆ to be civil, then I also expect editors to be civil against ∆ - if ∆ is uncivil, well, he is under civility parole, he will run into an immediate block then. But I will, increasingly, be warning editors who are uncivil against ∆, I will ask them to take care, to try and assume good faith. And just as single cases of incivility by ∆ will result in immediate blocks of ∆, I will block (and have blocked) editors who are repeatedly incivil against ∆ (of course, after significant warning). You did not, by policy or guideline, have to notify ∆ that you were talking about him somewhere else, but that does not make such behaviour civil. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S., you've got my name spelled wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I made that comment based both on the fact that it was all caps, and the fact that he made that edit summary before he'd communicated to the user that he didn't want to receive talk back messages. I'll also point out that nowhere in the message did I ask for any specific action against Delta, nor at any time did I recommend he be blocked or banned during the discussion. As I've already said, Rd232 was seemingly handling all things Delta at that time, and I commented on it to make him aware of it. only after I discovered what I felt to be a further example of uncivil behaviour directed at the same user did I suggest a warning a most. If I wanted to make a formal complaint about him, I would have brought it to AN/I (which would have no doubt been drama inducing) and notified him as I did here.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So that basically confirms that you ignored the fact that it could have been a good faith case of forgetting to turn off the caps lock .. ánd you think that talking about editors around their back is a form of civil interaction between editors, Crossmr. I am disappointed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Who was talking behind his back? As Delta stated, he has the talk page watchlisted. He was the first person to respond to the comment a very short time after I posted it. He'd posted to the page a mere hour and a half before I had and responded only 22 minutes after I did. The discussion was no mystery to him. For all the time you've spent insisting that you think I was somehow assuming bad faith for commenting on a sanctioned user without first talking to him, you might want to remember that in assuming good faith yourself you have to remember that I felt I was making edits that were for the best of the project, and as the policy states ..there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose., and yet I've almost lost count of how many times you've said it. You are right though that this entire situation is rather disappointing. You might have a case to make if I'd made this comment in secret somewhere insisting repeatedly that he be blocked immediately, but that is not the case.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a weak excuse, Crossmr. ∆ has the page watchlisted, so it is fine? No, it does not work like that. And it is actually ashaming that they were answering before being notified (I got such a remark because I was writing out a long remark after blocking someone - I did not notify the editor of the why of the block!). And so when it is not written down in policy or guideline, one can do whatever one wants? Crossmr, there is a lot not in guidelines and policies on Wikipedia but still it is not done. And note, I did not accuse you of bad faith, Crossmr - I just noticed your lack of assuming good faith (I mentioned '.. you would have been right to assume bad faith' - I did not say that you assumed bad faith).

But well, if I understand you well, you were just chit-chatting with Rd232 about an all-caps edit summary by ∆ for the best of the project. I am not sure how this exactly helps the project, I don't see how it in any form would improve an article, but maybe you can enlighten me on that (same goes for these endless discussions about all the massive, unrepairable damage that Delta is doing - editors could use their time better - e.g.:). Anyway, I think that it is better for the project if editors (you, perhaps?) started to help out ∆ with removing images which do not have a fair-use rationale, to talk to editors who blindly revert ∆ while his edit is right (or help them solve the perceived problem), to talk to editors who blatantly yell at ∆, throwing insults or incivility at him (or at others, for that matter, I get the same type of insults). Or maybe the very best - actually start writing all the missing rationales and make sure that all non-free images are following our

WP:NFCC policy - if that all is solved, then you have solved the problem with ∆ - his work in NFCC would be redundant, he would not need to make all the edits he is making, he would not need to yell at editors that throw insults at him (not that ∆ should yell at them, but that also goes for the people yelling at ∆). Or if those editors don't feel like helping out ∆, there are other policies and guidelines which need enforcing (there is enough: remove some unreferenced material, superfluous external links, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

07:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how it would help the project? Now where is your good faith? Were you not here years ago when this started? Your account seems old enough. Do you not remember all the AN/I threads started on Betacommand about his civility and interactions with users? The reason why he's on civility patrol now? There is far more to helping the project than just improving articles. As I pointed out above, I don't want to see anymore users leave the project because of an interaction with Delta, and after finding the second comment, as I'd mentioned in that discussion, it was starting to look all too familiar. Yes, initially it was just a chit-chat. As I'd stated, rd232 had closed and started all the major discussions on Delta when I made that, so he seemed to be the go-to admin. It certainly wasn't a block request, I was leaving whatever action he felt was necessary or unnecessary up to him, but given that Delta is under sanctions for that kind of behaviour and that it was a major source of drama/problems in the past, I thought he should be aware of it. As for your suggestion, I already stated above, you're treating symptoms, not the problem. There is absolutely no need for him to yell at anyone, regardless of what they do and if you honestly think there is, I'd say our discussion is done.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny though, my impression (and probably a few more people as indicated here and this sub-section) felt that your recent activities revolve around using every opportunity related to NFC to lynch at Delta and try to get him blocked/banned/sanctioned/reprimanded. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Crossmr - I know that he is on civility parole and why. But my point is, that that is not a free ride to be uncivil to him. He has been civil for 25k edits with one exception. Yet, I can give you a string of diffs by editors who are uncivil to him (or to other editors who are doing exactly the same work as ∆). The diff about which you were chit-chatting with Rd232 would be a minor case of incivility (and it might even have been a case of 'forgetting to turn of the caps-lock' at the moment you started your chat), and I agree, ∆ should not have yelled. But you insist to keep him on a very, very short leash (and maybe you are right), but I am also keeping others who are uncivil on a leash now - ∆ is not allowed to snap at anyone, however uncivil they are against him, however I am allowed to snap at editors who are uncivil against me, or at ∆. It would have cost you nothing to show some basic respect and notify ∆, it would not have cost you anything to talk to ∆ - whether you are right or not, that does not matter.

And I do agree, there is no need for him to yell at anyone, but there is no need for anyone to yell at anyone, there is no need for anyone to be uncivil to anyone.

It looks all too familiar, indeed Crossmr. People are still excessively yelling at ∆, people are still treating him in an uncivil way, people are still not showing respect. And if people are leaving, it is because they feel the need to be excessively rude, uncivil towards Delta. You do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with Delta, I do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with someone else. I do not expect ∆ to snap (note that I may be even the person who blocks ∆ on such an occasion), but I also do not expect others to treat ∆ in that way.

Regarding "you're treating symptoms, not the problem.": diff - so I am a problem as well? No, Crossmr, I am treating the problem. ∆ is not the problem, Crossmr, the editors treating ∆ (or whoever) uncivil are. A bit of respect and a normal conversation goes a long way, also with ∆. Give it a try.

So no, I do not see how reporting that edit summary to Rd232 is helping the project, Crossmr. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is another notice board to post this on so please move it if necessary. In fixing this nonsense edit [37] I came across these two editors Mskusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Synjruler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both were created this month and the bulk of their edits are to each others user/talk pages. Other edits seem to be dubious at best or to be "taking the piss" out of Wikipedia. I apologize for dumping this on your doorstep but I am about to log off for the night and I think this might need some sort of action. I will be leaving the message informing both editors about this as soon as I am done here. As I say please feel free to move this to a more appropriate message board if needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I am not sure how they will see the ANI notce as their talk pages (as well as there userpages) contain a large batch of nonsense on them MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Recommend checkuser to see how many other accounts are being abused. Look like vandal socks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Inconclusive – There is a match, but that is coming from a school, which leads me to believe that these are two separate people who are editing in tandem. –MuZemike 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I chose one article-space contrib at random, and it seemed to be entirely constructive in intent (adding two references to a poorly referenced article?), so unless there is a significant amount of actual vandalism going on, I'd suggest ignoring whatever strange behaviour they have towards each others' talkpages, in as much as it's not disruptive to the encyclopedia. --

talk

) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin opinion) If it hasn't already been done, a reminder of

WP:NOTMYSPACE? umrguy42

13:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Giardiasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making a legal threat here and blocked them. Now they have requested review in an email which includes the words: I request that a different administrator takes a look and removes the defamation I've suffered on this Wiki page that you block me from in my attempt to defend the false defamation that you choose NOT to block, thereby aiding and abetting reckless defamation which means I can apply to the police to get your contact details to prosecute you in a civil court. I'd be grateful for any further opinions. --John (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion: Good block. As blatant a legal threat as I've seen. If he's got issues with article content, he can follow the rules to improve the content. One caveat: Is there any possibility that the article (whichever one it is) contains incorrect (i.e. potentially libelous) info about a living person? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits in the dif link above is signed one "Jane Francis". The editor seems to be referring to the article Milperra massacre, where someone (possibly the same Jane Francis) seems to have persistently trying to add something that looks like soapboxing, also here using another account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Obvously a personal agenda of some kind, abusing wikipedia in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The original entry was here, nearly 2 years ago:[38] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be the background. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• pretty bright line, and you left info on "unblock" .. so good block. —
   ? 
  09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Very good block, and how interesting that it's basically their only contribution. (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• A request for an unblock when there was no block: [39]. This was followed by an administrator replying that she was never blocked to begin with: [40]
• A complaint again about being "blocked from uploading": [41]
• A fake unblock message indicating that she is unblocked from uploading: [42]. This was followed by my question to her about why she would post her own unblock message when she was never blocked to begin with: [43]
• An accusation that I blocked her (I didn't and I'm not an admin) (A second reading indicates I misinterpreted what she was saying.), and a request for help: [44]

Not sure what's going on here, but can an admin look into it and maybe tell her what (if anything) is going on? Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The user created a number of articles that were deleted and trying uploading a number of images that were deleted as well? Perhaps they thought they were blocked after so many attempts?

talk

) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the user has been blocked from Wikimedia Commons for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". See user's block log and user talk page at Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work out well. My attempt to get her some help resulted in her lack of understanding what was told to her and vandalizing my talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I would consider that last edit "vandalism", but rather a misguided attempt by a newcomer who may not know better. However, that is not to say that there still is a rather evident lack of understanding here, as clearly evidenced by the block on Commons. –MuZemike 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

n user writing a fake message to incorrectly inform someone that a page the user has nothing to do with is nominated for speedy deleted isn't minor vandalism? In the context of what was going on, I would think it could fairly be considered that, and a Level 1 or 2 caution is appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to damage wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why all the user's edits are being marked as minor, or is this some means of attempting to evade responsibility for disruption? –MuZemike 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a somewhat more detailed comment on his/her tal page. Having a delve into ther contribs, it looks like the vast number of minor edits are due to lots of little edits for tags and such. The user doesn't seem to use the preview button at all before saving the page. --Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No. —

talk

) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

can you remove wizard191 ability to use twinkle? he uses it for edit warring and has been warned repeatedly. --Tck350 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the user. What conflict are you involved in with him?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples to provide? Searching through 40,000 edits to find the problem doesn't seem like fun. --Onorem♠Dil 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's talking about this.

Interstingly enoguh, he never notified User:wizard191. Looks like he never even posted except for two other pages, one for this issue and the then the Village pump. Anyone hear quacking ? KoshVorlon     20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very loud quacking. In any case, the recent update to Twinkle did away with the ability to blacklist users. —

talk

) 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as each other:

• Tck350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tci350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomtom350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wizard350 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kci357 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wdk789 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked Also, due to abuse of talk page in the past, talk page has been revoked from all sock accounts. –MuZemike 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was one big honkin'

WP:Boomerang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. He almost hit the Flying Doctor! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has been bugging the RD for a long time (their questions weren't terrible but sometimes a bit juvenile or easy to answer and they would often ignore answers given) under many different identities more then listed here. At first they weren't usually banned just abandoned an identity after it started to wear out its welcome (they usually blank their talk page so some people may not have noticed they'd been warned before even ignoring the many identities). I think they were also causing a few problems outside the RD (removing content they didn't appear to agree with regardless of sources sometimes even saying unsourced in the edit summary despite sources while sometimes adding stuff without sources themselves). Ironically this is the first time I've ever seen them sign their post. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In an ongoing dispute in

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one: [47] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [48] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I add that maybe Wran should read

WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And

talk

) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Has Wran understood the warning [49] he received from LHvU? He appears to be continuing to edit war on the DSK article. [50] Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned not to attempt to add her name in to the article and not to personally attack editors, I don't think that means he can't edit or add in the other info (obviously not past 3RR but otherwise). I've just read through all the relevant talk page info and this stuff is a bit more complicated that what's been presented here. There are good points on both sides and I can see why Wran is frustrated. Personally, reading that article, I would expect to learn something about the accuser (not the name, but from what I read Wren specifically said they don't want to include the name), and as of now I think that information is lacking. It shouldn't be presented the way it has been, but I think something should be there and I think you guys all need to calm down, take a step back,

assume that the other side simply wants the article to be the best article it can be, and work together. N^oformation ^Talk

03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle content disputes. I brought Wren's behaviour up here after he/she started describing contributors as 'liars' and 'fascists'. Of course it is 'more complicated' if you want to go into the minutia, but that isn't the issue - what matters is Wren's abusive language, and combative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no excuse for that and he has certainly been unpleasant.N^oformation ^Talk 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this Wran fellow in all the back and forth between Mac and WW1. Was he the one calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just a lot of bio detail, see diff here. But this issue is more about behaviour than content. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)