Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 2 January 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll note that we do not have a written mechanism for reversal of G5 at the moment. There's a current discussion at WT:CSD about the fact that G5 is technically a zero-tolerance rule. G5 the whole lot of them would be in line with policy, keeping or restoring articles would generally be done under IAR. However that first requires us to determine if G5 is applicable here which is a different matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo, part of the issue with this particular composer is that his credits are 1000+ films long. This is separate from the albums he's released, which are listed on the main discography page. The list that the sock created appears to be any film he composed music for, regardless of the length of the contributed work. This means that he could be the main composer for the soundtrack or he could have contributed one piece of music - we have no real way of confirming this with some of the movies, as many of them are fairly old. At some point this goes beyond being a discography and at some level becomes an issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if we condense this into pages by year, this means that we have at least 5-6 pages that just list films that he composed music for. I'm aware that we do have composer credit pages, but those are for people whose works are a smaller amount, usually under 100 credits. This guy has thousands and churns out a good 20+ soundtracks a year at the very least - he did about 40 in 2015 alone. At some point we have to ask if having a complete listing of every film credit is really worth it, given that the pages for this guy will run the risk of being mammoth chunks of information with little to no true encyclopedic value other than being complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone have an idea on what we should do as far as the idea of G5 goes? I have no problem with doing all of the G5s myself, if it comes to that, as long as the pages have been checked over to ensure that we're not getting rid of a valid page. If no one has any truly major objections, here's my proposal: once we complete a section, I'll go through and check to see which pages were tagged as not meeting notability guidelines. I'll check the page and the sourcing, then if it fails, I'll delete it via G5 so that it's not a huge mass of PRODs or AfDs waiting to be handled. Both arenas are usually swamped with entries with relatively few admins monitoring them (relatively speaking) so putting them through those avenues only delays a problem that could be dealt with right away. I'm aware that this process will likely take months to complete, but I'm willing to do this. I just want to make sure that this is relatively acceptable so that I don't get in trouble for doing this. I'm not endorsing an outright deletion of each page (although I can see the merit in doing this), just saying that I don't think that the pages should have to sit in PROD-land for a full week when we could cut through the red tape and deal with them faster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This would be fine with me, though I think in practice we are looking at the articles rather slowly and do not really flood PROD and AFD--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  User:B.Bhargava Teja seem to be a sock of the blocked user; they recreated Apne Apne which I spediied several days ago, adding there the same copyright violation. Whoever is familiar with the style of the blocked user may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  They were tagged as a sock of User:Bhargava Krishna but there was no SPI as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person

I am requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Misplaced Pages article unless required. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernva (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer not to matter honestly. Is there any chance for a living person to request a speedy deletion and and courtesy blank upon completion out of a right to personal privacy? Or is there a Misplaced Pages version of the right to be forgotten? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at WP:COIN (permalink). – Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. Northernva (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Over at WP:COIN, it's been established that someone created a modest sock farm and created three articles about computer science researchers, all of which are rather favorable to the article subjects. That looks like COI editing. David A. Bray passes the usual tests for notability; he's a high-level Federal official with long articles about him in Forbes and the Huffington Post. He has 114K followers on Twitter.. There's nothing particularly unfavorable in the article; it's rather positive. This seems inconsistent with a request for deletion from Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Misplaced Pages:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not the only one wondering about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's course of action makes sense to me. BMK (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed through OTRS. Have requested it be deleted to remove personal information and recreated as a stub if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. From Bray's comments on the article talk page, the problem seems to be not the current state of the article, but the history. Previous versions of the article had much more personal information.. The reason there's so much personal information is that the article subject self-published a book-length autobiography in 2002. He apparently regrets that now. He's not yet notable enough that he has to have an article. He's chief information officer of the FCC. That's two levels below the FCC commissioners. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and arguments are moving towards deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. We can wait and see how that goes. John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This could be a textbook example of how much better an article subject serves his goals by asking calmly and giving reasons, instead of the usual legal bluster we get from subjects unhappy with their coverage. EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Similarly, it's a good example of how we (who know the rules) could better steer an article subject (who doesn't), away from the path of confrontation, rather than being reactive and confrontational ourselves. Offering to work with, or help people who are confused or upset seems like a productive thing to do. Begoon  16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk page harassment and general incivility

I'm involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow wikipedia guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

initial warning

removal by me

restored comment

request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

initial warning from the above editor.

restored comment 1st time

2nd time

3rd time

He has been editing wikipedia for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

also of blatant incivility

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of wikipedia rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Misplaced Pages's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Misplaced Pages noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Misplaced Pages, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Misplaced Pages could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ..

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Misplaced Pages long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey sometimes sockpuppet investigations turn out not to have actionable results and I'm okay with that. I take your word for it AGF that you're not socking now that I know you better. So take this as an apology for the misfire. At the same time may I make one small retort and note that Draft:Dodge Tomahawk does not contain the word "extraordinary". I really think starting with it is the best path forward but we don't need to keep discussing it here; maybe on the draft talkpage instead. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"All blocked editors are evil, otherwise they wouldn't have been blocked" is an obvious fallacy. However the usual wikiexplanation of this is based on the many editors who are blocked, then react badly to it (and may even sock) and that later bad reaction is then seen as an excuse for their blocking, rather than a reaction to it. This supports the clique of "good people" and excludes the newcomers. As such we have to be very careful against it.

I think at least one of these editors was wrongly blocked. I think Dennis' responses to many editors, particularly newer editors breaking the minor rules, isn't as generous as we might like (although few editors, and not myself, manage much better). We're supposed to welcoming of new editors, we certainly need them, and that means putting up with early and minor infractions. Then it means putting up with the same, all over again, if needs be. The alternative is merely reinforcing what's already seen as a clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you changed my words "inability to abide by community standards" to "evil" which is a straw man, also an obvious fallacy. I carefully chose those words to describe Bridge Boy's situation precisely. And laying what you consider to be a wrongly enacted block solely at Dennis's feet is also an error; he is not an administrator and only gets to present his evidence and arguments like anyone else. I hear what you're saying about not forming a clique and actively try to welcome, recruit and enable new editors to all parts of WP, especially the motorcycling article base. Dennis does too, and in fact he created the invite template {{Motorcycling invite}}, among the other "good deeds" I alluded to above, so please give him some credit. I think a GF understanding of the situation here is that there's an established editor (not a cabal) trying to extend the best of the community standards, including high standards of authorship and research, to new editors. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not your words, they're all mine. There's a problem here, it's pervasive, it's a bad one, and several editors are involved it. This is just one example of it (Dennis' involvement summarises here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge Boy will not drop the stick), but nor is it the only one. There is a tendency on WP to turn on new editors and block them permanently (when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of "indef", then this becomes unwarrantedly permanent by default). We need to be careful to avoid doing that, and part of this includes dealing with the same nonsense over and over again if needs be, with a vast amount of patience. There are plenty of outright trolls around, there's no need for us to find ways to lump others in with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Boy was not a "new" editor. He was just a recent incarnation of a long-term abuser, whose earliest account (that I know of) User:LevenBoy began editing all the way back in 2008 up through 2011. His User:Triton Rocker sock was active in 2010. His most recent sock was User:Salty Batter. Before we saw his dark side, Bridge Boy was treated with a warm welcome and kid gloves, all through January, February, March, April, and May of 2012. It wasn't until June, his fifth month of editing with his latest sock account, that I and several others began to lose patience with him. Your accusations that I bite newbies are demonstrably false; anyone can read the record of the gentle help I offered him for during his early months editing on many article talk pages. I created a new barnstar, just for him, to thank him for his edits. You're inventing a narrative about me, a caricature, that doesn't fit the facts.

I guess the only sense I can say I agree with you is that it does seem very much like Spacecowboy420 is Bridge Boy all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Spacecowboy420 and Pete here. In my limited experience of Dennis Bratland, he is liable to adopt eccentric interpretations of sources and then get very personal very quickly when others don't agree with him. It's hard for any of us, let's face it, when we find we are in a minority but Dennis regularly doesn't seem to get the thing about how consensus works. There's a bit of work to be done here; whether it is necessary to enact any formal sanctions at this stage I am not sure. Spacecowboy420, what admin intervention were you looking for here? --John (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For my part, it's clear that Dennis Bratland has a history of personal attacks against other editors, including gross incivility and abuse of any number of behaviour conventions. Don't bite newbies, have a regard for the talk pages of other's etc. etc.

Intimidating and attacking other editors is not how we improve the Misplaced Pages. DB does not admit any misbehaviour in his comments above. In fact he defends his actions.

I think he should be given a chance to admit that his behaviour is improper, and if no acceptable admission is forthcoming, he should be blocked for 24 hours, and warned that similar activities in future will result in longer blocks. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with pete. there should be a short block, as dennis doesnt understand or accept his actions were wrong and have been for some time. once he gets a block he will understand that he wont get away with it in the future and i hope he will change his style. Zachlita (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside (but not uninvolved) Comments

These two, User:Dennis Bratland and User:Spacecowboy420, are at it again. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129. My recent experience is that, while Dennis Bratland is a good-faith editor and is probably a productive editor, he is also a stubborn editor who does not seem to understand the concept of collaboration. As to whether he has a history of personal attacks, his comments here consist largely of personal attacks. The two editors in question came to the dispute resolution noticeboard recently with regard to Dodge Tomahawk and to the exact language to be used about its manufacturer's claim that it had a top speed of 420 mph. Although Dennis Bratland kept suggesting that WikiProject Physics be asked whether this claim was physically possible, the question had never been whether anyone was supporting that claim, only exactly how to characterize it in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Dennis Bratland says that Spacecowboy420 is a troll and a serial sockpuppeteer. Has a sockpuppet report been filed? (If not, this is just a case, all too common, of yelling “Sockpuppetry” in order to “win” a conduct dispute.) I won’t say that Spacecowboy420 isn’t a troll, but I will say that I haven’t seen them being a troll, and I have seen a number of trolls in action at DRN. I concur with other editors that Dennis Bratland’s behavior in this section (aside from elsewhere) rises to the level of blockable personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The end result being that a few highly-skilled Wikipedians show up out of the blue with "newbie" accounts, and produce, via wholesale deletions, an article about a product which contains only information which originated with the product's marketing team and press releases. Rejecting entirely even one word of criticism from a comprehensive version (written by 3 experienced editors, not just me) of the article that gives space to a dozen other high-quality sources which are actually independent of the subject. Nope, no trolling here. Anybody who would object to deleting every word of criticism and dissent must not "understand the concept of collaboration". Better block a guy like that, because we want the kind of guys who write this and reject this; they're definitely here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do see that a sockpuppet investigation was filed. It didn't attempt to link User:Spacecowboy420 with User:Bridge Boy, but with two other editors. (In other words, in claiming that Spacebowboy420 is Bridge Boy, Dennis is yelling "Sockpuppet" to "win" the conduct dispute.) I see that the sockpuppet report was closed as unrelated. I will also note that the issue at DRN never had to do with whether the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of 420 mph, but with what to say in the voice of Misplaced Pages about that claim. Maybe Dennis Bratland is right and there is a vast murky motorcycle cabal, or maybe Dennis Bratland needs to reread no personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not claim Spacecowboy420 was Bridge Boy. Andy Dingley brought Bridge Boy into this, accusing me of hounding an 'innocent noob', and I merely pointed out that yes, this is often how it goes when I'm confronted with a disruptive, socking troll. Referring to the actual SPI case, Zacklita has not edited from the same IP as Spacecowboy420, we've proven that, but the close connection between them is glaringly obvious. Both Flyer22 Reborn and User:STSC could smell "sock" all over Spacecowboy420 too. Read his deleted talk page history. It's not just me.

I think the net effect of what choices we make here matters, not merely whether we check off compliance with a list of rigid rules. One course of action leads to a certain kind of encyclopedia, promotional and devoid of independent criticism, and another path leads to what I think Misplaced Pages is actually supposed to be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting it, Dennis. Blaming your poor behaviour on the (possible) shortcomings of another editor just inspires poor behaviour all round. No personal attacks is a core policy, and you are doing it over and over again, whether the other guy is a sock, a newbie, or another editor with years of experience. The only common thread is that they disagree with you. You've been given a chance to accept this and declare an intention to act better in future, but all I see here is more of "I have the right to attack the other guy". Well, no you don't. --Pete (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Restatement

I think that Dennis does “get it” in his own way. First, it appears that he is saying that Misplaced Pages has constructive editors and non-constructive editors, and that the development of the encyclopedia requires that the constructive editors be allowed to create and improve content and that non-constructive editors are a problem. So far, so good. I think that we all agree. The differences of opinion have to do with who is and is not a constructive editor and with what privileges the constructive editors earn as a result of their contributions. I think that we all agree. Dennis appears to be saying (by his conduct) that he has the privilege of identifying non-constructive editors and engaging in personal attacks on them. That is where some of us disagree. Dennis also appears to think that constructive editors do not need to compromise on matters of wording in Misplaced Pages. (After all, the Dodge Tomahawk issue was never whether it could go 420 mph. We all agreed that that claim was balderdash. The question was whether it was encyclopedic to say that was balderdash.) That is my observation of what Dennis is saying. Maybe he can restate it. Maybe he didn’t mean his attitude to be as high-handed as it came across. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate Conclusion

Dennis is an editor who contributes substantially to article content, but is uncivil in the process and is stubborn. Such editors polarize and divide the community. Unfortunately, “the community” at WP:ANI cannot deal with such editors, because they polarize and divide the community. Such editors can be blocked by one admin, but are likely to be unblocked by another admin. The ArbCom can deal with such editors, but Dennis’s conduct does not rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom case. Therefore, in my opinion, there is very little that can be done here other than empty discussion. I would support a block, but I don’t expect consensus for one. This thread will sputter along until the community gets tired of it or some administrator is bold and closes it as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist96

I've tried my best and continued to engage User:Terrorist96 in what I hoped would become a meaningful discussion at Talk:Liberland, but they've instead told me that I have a 'personal problem', that I'm 'undermining' an article, that I'm not being constructive and threatened me to leave. diff

We've been here before over a month ago - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation.

Surely this apparently routine level of casting aspersions and acting as if one owns an article is below the acceptable standard of behavior?

--Joy (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tried your best? Just like how you tried your best to find the flag of Liberland used in a news article before you unilaterally decided that it should be removed? evidence. You start a 'meaningful discussion' by removing something so innate to an article as the flag of a country? And if you don't see what's wrong with that, then it IS a personal problem. I'm not gonna waste my time and explain to you that the flag of a micronation is in fact relevant information to be included in the country infobox template. Yes, your edits have been disruptive and undermining, consisting of solely removing relevant information rather than adding information. Asking you to contribute constructively or leave is not a threat. Please look up the definition of threat. Using such words to try to paint a picture in your favor doesn't help your case when any neutral party can see that there was no threat to you. And yes, we were here a month ago, because you were adamant at removing the infobox from the article. We had an RfC and the consensus was to keep the infobox. Since you lost that argument, you're now back to undermine the infobox as best as you can without removing it. In order for me to cast aspersions, it would require a lack of evidence. I've laid out the evidence. And to accuse me of attempting to 'own' the article is laughable. How about you provide proof of that, lest you be accused of casting aspersions? Terrorist96 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant discussion is at Talk:Liberland#removal_of_trivia which frankly is a terrible section title and is going to cause friction when worded as it was removed "for obvious reasons." I also don't see anyone actually linking to the MOS style section, just people stating it past each other. Terrorist96 (I'm not particularly with the username either) is not being civil either but it would be better if people actually slowed down and explained their thoughts rather than simply stating that "it's obvious" and "per policy" to remove stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the phrase "for obvious reasons" because we've been having a discussion for several months about these various items, and after two RfCs there's still no consensus that the three specific elements I had removed were worthy of inclusion (I have specifically looked at the discussions and haven't found a very coherent argument in favor of keeping them, most of the time people were talking about other issues). Surely at some point we need to apply WP:NOCON. Granted, it's hard to pinpoint the time some of these things became contentious, but because the article was created relatively recently, and has been the topic of AfD and protection because of disruptive edits literally within the first week of its existence, we can't assume that any of it is really settled matter. In any case, the thing that needs to be observed is that TDL has been arguing a similar position (opposed to mine), and they haven't been grossly insulting. That's the kind of behavior that should be promoted, unlike that of Terrorist96. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The two RFCs seem to relate to the infobox and to "promotional elements". If you want to be vague and claim that it's been discussed thoroughly, fine but I can't figure out the prior discussions since it's long arguments in all directions all around. When I ask for a specific citation to the MOSFLAGS section that's at issue, I get "it's the only section that's relevant" with no further explanation and people now stating that they agree (with what I don't know). It's no wonder the discussion hasn't gone anywhere for months, no one wants to be specific. As I stated there, a number of other micronations have flags and the like so I don't get the objection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason the discussion is so vague and opaque is that this is completely uncharted territory for the encyclopedia. There are apparently no definitive reliable sources on micronations that we can rely on and just simply reference and be done with it. We're literally constructing what we think should be encyclopedic coverage of a new concept as we go along. How do you think this issue should be approached? --Joy (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it uncharted territory? A brief glance of Template:Micronations shows a number of articles that have been around for years, most of which I believe have their flag. Now, that's not a particular great reason to have the flag there but at least people should be consistent and either remove them all (per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG or whatever because they aren't really considered countries or other various reasons). Besides, of all the issues with that topic, the flag and coat of arms are the least of my concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my appeals to the spirit of WP:V/WP:RS have been consistently argued against or sidestepped. Do you really think I'd have had more luck convincing people if I had appealed to MoS, which has less weight?

I'm saying it's uncharted because despite the existence of all these policies and guidelines, many of these micronation articles are covered in this dubious manner, and yet more tend to appear whenever someone starts a new project. Liberland is actually great as far as WP:GNG is concerned, but we also had Principality of Ongal and Kingdom of Enclava this year, and who knows how many others. It's hard to argue for consistency in the face of so much inconsistency. --Joy (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want Ricky, you asked a specific question, you got a specific answer. KoshVorlon stated the part of MOSFLAGs he thinks applies, I stated that would be the relevant section but disagreed that it did apply (as did TDL) you still seem to be at a loss. If you look at the history of the talkpage, it has a common theme which is of Joy wanting to remove perfectly valid and sourced information under some sort of misapprehension that having a micronation article on Liberland is somehow promoting it. Now above she thinks its 'uncharted territory'. No its not, there are plenty of micronation articles which has been explained and referenced repeatedly to Joy on the talkpage. Its neither vague nor opaque. Terrorist96 may be getting a bit short, but he is not the only one getting fed up of going in circles over and over again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a flat which section do you think applies? Not you saying "KoshVorlon believes that the only relevant section applies", just a flat "this section says X." There's seven sections to MOSFLAGS along with at a half dozen subsections. I'm just wandering in and I have no zero idea what people want and that's after having read multiple pages with two RFCs (which no weren't all about the flag) and just various disputes. There's disputes in that section alone about a lack of references, about whether it was the "novelty phase" or whatever that was (refer to both the historical considerations, non-sovereign states sections of MOSFLAGS) and then there's the whole flags as icons issue. Is the problem that it's a micronation? Is it the lack of sources? Is it the actual one? It seems like it's now "a flag is an icon" so no matter the sources, no matter the nation's status, it wouldn't be included. Ok, but it's included on pretty much every major country article so if you think MOSFLAGS doesn't support including it here, fine. People keep arguing but when pressed, it's all "the only section that's relevant" and "per MOSFLAGS" and you finally respond that you hate the entire infobox so do you want the flag separate like how Tomás Cloma does it? As I said, I don't actually get what people want and I understand fully why people are disagreeing there when people keep moving the goalposts in response. I get some people think this whole thing is a joke and don't want it treated like a real country (I lean that way) but that doesn't exactly resolve any issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking this. I don't care. If you think rounds of "it's the relevant section" and "the whole thing should be removed" is helpful, that's on you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There's plenty of precedent for dubious coverage in micronation articles already. So people logically assume that Newton's First Law applies and that there is organic consensus to keep things as they are. And then when an even less conventional new country project is started, they just keep applying the same kind of window dressing on its Misplaced Pages article. And then when I challenge that, I'm the bad guy. --Joy (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to demand a change based on one article and I think it's fair for them to disagree based on the inernsia already here. A proper discussion would be at MOSFLAGS about micronations since it's a broader topic (assuming we haven't already had it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you if it was one article out of a consistent set of N articles. But it's actually one out of a fairly inconsistent set. For example, the flag of Sealand has actually flown at that platform presumably since the '70s. I can imagine numerous boat travellers in the region have come across it, so it merits explanation. The flag of Liberland was just invented this year, and its physical appearances have mostly not been seen by any appreciable number of people. Surely that's a meaningful differentiation? --Joy (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], , , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence , , resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See ], ], ], ] and, unfortunately, ].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Misplaced Pages has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like , and
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup all edits by this vandal created just to attack me and this vandal also created just to attack me with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored.
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. even with threats of ANi .
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Misplaced Pages and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Misplaced Pages or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. . Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close and preceded by . He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK's analysis is spot-on. I'm with Viriditas, please shut this thread down with no action and here's to less dramah in 2016. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be entirely fair to Kudpung, who has indicated he is on a wikibreak, but might like to return to expand on his remarks in a day or two. Perhaps we should wait until then? Begoon  16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not doing anything is going to result in this issue festering, unless you see a clear consensus to merge the articles then this needs to be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Style changes after final warning: 188.222.58.239

In this edit User:188.222.58.239 changed the spelling of an article from American to English after a final warning about unilateral changes to spelling had been added to the IP editor's talk page. Editor edited Determination of the day of the week, a calendar related subject, before the warning, and the edit of concern for this thread, to Equinox, is also related to calendars, so I conclude the same person is using the IP address before and after the warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous incident with this IP was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#User:188.222.58.239. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling again from Hengistmate

Hengistmate (talk · contribs)

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as ] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Intimidating remark

Please take a look at User talk:Legacypac where an IP editor just made a threat of disruption. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional eyes on the Miss Earth series of articles would be appreciated given these comments to my talkpage:

IF YOU WILL NEVER PUT BACK ALL THE INFORMATION YOU DELETED IN WIKIPEDIA especially in MISS EARTH, EXPECT DANGER TO YOUR ACCOUNT!Miss Earth and... Legacypac recently defaced all the biggest information about article of "Miss Earth". Most of the information was shortened and all the important details turned into summarization. Legacypac is now considered by fans of Miss Earth as a big threat in providing correct and precise information.

The topic has a long history of commercial promotion, sock and meat puppets, SEO link building campaigns and editors who appear allergic to anything we call a RS. Forth vandal acct targeting me in about a week - my work must be annoying some people with a non-wiki agenda :) Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines

There is person who goes by the username "Shhhhwwww!!", which ironically, doesn't exist, at least the text is red when you click on his username. He's been making random edits on the Filipinos article, and reverting my edits based on "personal preference" of images, not historical significance. He has a history of making random edits, that are inaccurate.

First quote on his revert, "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era and aesthetics, don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable", next quote on revert", on the talk page for the Filipinos article, there was no established rule, ruling out "images of statues" for famous people. Secondly, I did put an edit note. Next quote from his edit, "avoid statues since they are interpretations of appearance not the actual one. photos that obscure the face should also be avoided".

Overall, his username just sounds suspicious. I'm reporting this here, before an edit war ensues, because if I revert his edits, even with explanation, it's going to result in an edit war.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

his edits look like good faith edits. but they are generally wrong. ive reverted a few Zachlita (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PacificWarrior101: Please provide links to the revisions in question.

Note to outside observers that this conflict relates to an article's ethnic group image array. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering , and . Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me , and .
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing

There's a persistent hoaxer hitting Sausage Party pretty hard. If you look at it, the last two weeks worth of edits have been nothing but people reverting vandalism. The IP is repeatedly hitting several BLPs with the same hoax, including Michael J. Fox, Tommy Chong, Ray Romano, and Adam Sandler filmography. If you take a look at 101.186.148.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 180.216.24.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you can see some of the scope. I filed a request at RFPP for Sausage Party, but it looks like this requires too much research to act on. Example diff: . If you click on this, you'll see that Adam Sandler, a high profile American actor, is being added to the article and sourced to two existing citations. Neither mention Sandler (or any of the other actors added in this edit): , . Further Google searches reveal no coverage of this casting, either. Several people been reverting this vandal off-and-on, and Materialscientist has blocked a few of his IPs. However, he just comes back under a different IP address and reinserts the hoax. I think we're going to need to semi-protect at least the film itself, if not a few of the actors' articles, too. The most recent, and currently unblocked, IP address used is 180.216.27.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I will alert this one on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for 3 months. Btw WP:RFPP is backlogged now, we could use some help in cleaning it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also blocked the last IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also semi-protected Eddie Izzard, Michael J. Fox, and Tommy Chong for 2 weeks/1 month--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested range blocks (again) for serial vandals

Copy/paste of previous request that was archived before anyone addressed it; issue still continues

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

I'm honestly getting quite tired of having to make sure I double check my watchlist (>5,000 articles) every day for these serial vandals. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Range 50.153.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): This is a very busy range, with over 2600 edits from the start of October, of which only 332 were to articles with "Hurricane" or "Typhoon" in the title. So there's too much collateral damage to consider a range block.
• Range 187.151.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since November 8.
• Range 187.198.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since October 25.
• How to do it: For regular IPs, I start with the template {{blockcalc}}. Go to a sandbox, and place the list of IPs inside the template, and it will calculate the range for you (see an example of output here). Then, go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? (alternate: https://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/) and plug in your range to look for collateral damage. For super busy ranges, change the start date for the output so it doesn't take so long for the results to come up. I don't know how to calculate ranges for IPv6, I always ask the worthy admin @NeilN: for help -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Shame...guess I'll have to keep plugging along with this guy then. Hopefully the IPv6 one will have less collateral as it seems to be the one they're using more frequently these days. Many thanks for the response and insight on how to do this myself! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And thanks Diannaa for linking that, I'd misplaced the rangecalc tool. Cyclonebiskit - if it keeps up page protection might at least help stem the bleeding? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. This has been occurring over the past year and a half (here, here, and here) where an editor adds an inline citation and Noel darlow simply removes it. Has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least five different editors attempts and proposals to improve the page. Additionally, the editor has not once made any mention of what they are specifically against, nor has the user ever attempted to work collaboratively by building on other's edits, but instead seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as responding to other user's attempts at adding verifiable information to the article with only "I'll edit the article as appropriate". The user has removed verifiable information and their supporting citations by inserting non-verifiable and contradictory information on six different occasions to date.

This continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is in contradiction with WP:DDE. The user has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Misplaced Pages policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Misplaced Pages policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fourth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, and your attempts at portraying it as so is a red herring, since on six different occasions and with four or five different editors you have always simply reverted their constructive edits and attempts at adding references, instead of collaboratively and constructively building on their edits to improve the article. In its place, you have simply continued to tell other users off, revert, reinsert unverifiable information, and remove all added reliable sources. Your behaviour is the only issue at play here, not the article's content. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal

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

I am proposing that the community definitively ban Starship9000 for cross-wiki abuse, endless socking, and persistent harassment.

For previous ANI complaints, see here: .

Some of the many, many instances of socking can be found here -- there are far more than just these listed ones: .

I have prepared what I believe to be a comprehensive list of socks (named accounts) here: . It totals 42 socks.

See here for cross-wiki abuse resulting in indefs on wikiquote and commons for socking, as well as global locks: .

And finally, for long-term harassment of users (including me and Andrewman327, although there are likely others), see the user talk page histories here (the sock names are very distinctive so you can probably tell which they are):

Overall, the user has wasted the valuable time of countless admins, checkusers, and stewards who have worked diligently to stop his abuse. Furthermore, harassment of other users by means of socks (the ones in the SPI are just the tip of the iceberg) is unacceptable, period. The user was previously described (in the links above) as immature, and having serious WP:IDHT problems; the flagrant socking and cross-wiki abuse compounds things further.

Since I will not bother to recount the whole case, I will quote the lock request by Andrewman327, which sums it up nicely:

"When I first encountered Starship9000, he appeared to be innocently ignorant of Misplaced Pages rules and I believed that he had the potential to grow into a productive editor. Several of us offered support and Go Phightins! adopted him. He promptly blew off his adoption exams and I was one of several editors who supported a voluntary one year Wikibreak. He refused to take a voluntary break and continued making improper edits. Since the block took effect, he has started vandalizing a number of other Wikimedia projects and engaging in good hand-bad hand sockpuppetry. His sock IP is currently blocked globally and his account is blocked on every project where he is active. I have two concerns that justify a block: 1. Wasting admins' time on each respective project; and 2. I am concerned that he will keep skipping from one project to the next doing exactly the same thing, and I'd rather not have to follow him to WikiBooks et al like I've tracked his vandalism spree across English Misplaced Pages, Simple Misplaced Pages, WikiQuote, Commons, WikiSource, and WikiNews. He is indef'd on WikiQuote and his editing history is sufficient to justify indefs in all of his other projects as well. Andrewman327 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)"

I have grown frustrated with the seemingly-endless stream of socks on my page, and my patience is certainly exhausted here. This is getting old.

Thanks,

GAB 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like his account is locked globally. Have they semi protected you page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for now. GAB 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that can be done is if you have evidence that the sock is his or that they are a sock then they can be blocked. He's jumping ip's. That's very easy to do. Can't do anything about that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: User:Calicutspecialist

User:Calicutspecialist has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references to the article, Parvathy Nair. The editor has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with other editors and has continued to make disruptive edits to the page for close to a year now. The editor's main aim is to keep the page as they wish - with no regard to any of Misplaced Pages's precedence on actors, while they also continue to ignore rules suggested on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

• The editor's edits only comprise of articles close to the actress (her article, her films, her awards etc)
• Under the ridiculous excuse of "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph", the editor has used his own self-believed precedence to remove several films from her filmography - reverting (or re-editing) the page to reflect his wishes over 50 times.
• The editor refuses to co-operate with editors who seek to talk about the issue, as seen here and delivers threats when he feels they can't revert any longer. They also remove warning template and fail to make necessary changes .

This persistent reverting has gone on for too long. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion opened on the talk page, it's generally a lot easier to discuss content disputes on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries or here at ANI.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question blindly reverts either way. Regardless of any previous discussions. His excuse for removing sourced films is merely "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph". It's been like talking to a wall for months. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Help Required with User:heyilickbigtits. Rquesting a Nuke and Talk Page Access Revoked. Thanks, TF 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:HighInBC. TF 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done HighInBC 19:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC. Just after the talk page access was revoked for "h" this previously blocked editor Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) returned making the same kind of attacks on Titusfox. IMO talk page access for "S" should be revoked whether they are socks or not. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry SwisterTwister. I had to reopen this to report the new attack. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

More edits by Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) show that they are WP:NOTHERE if nothing else. HighInBC seems to be offline so of any other admin could remove talkpage access it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CIreland MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As he said, this may be a long night. Wait until tomorrow to close this thread. TF 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Here Little Irish Fellow (talk · contribs) is the latest one. Courcelles has blocked them but the talk page access needs revoking and the attacks deleted. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also done. CIreland (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for the removal of vandal account intended to slander me

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

I noticed earlier today that someone has made an account using my real name and is using it to vandalize certain pages on Misplaced Pages. As the account is made using my real name, I will not be revealing which account it is here, although if there is any way in which I could contact an admin in private to have the account removed, I would be very appreciative. Again, the person who made this account is using my real name in an attempt to slander me, and I could face serious consequences if someone mistakes this account for me. The user account hasn't been active for several weeks, but nevertheless it is still a threat to me.

Any help is appreciated,

Asm20

@Asm20: The best way to handle this is to contact the oversight team via email using the link at the top of the page Misplaced Pages:Oversight. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much for your help. I will be contacting the oversight team shortly and will hopefully have this matter resolved as fast as possible. -- Asm20

Usually they are very fast (within minutes). -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrator User:Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

A number of editors, including Mattbuck, ChamithN, Elizium23, Callmemirela, Only in death and myself have complained about Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, noting that his threat to block editors if they reverted him on a matter that is not even a WP:BLP violation was inappropriate, and that he has since created a chilling effect of sorts at the talk page, as though his opinion holds more weight than others.

Minutes ago, he also engaged in WP:Personal attacks against me at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence and at at my talk page. I correctly named his proposals at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. He then came along and acted like I was misrepresenting him; he edited my post. As seen here, here and here, I again noted which proposals were his. He then responded with the "obnoxious" WP:Personal attack. After that, he removed my comment and essentially called me a WP:Troll. After that, he claimed I was making personal attacks on him and that I was immature. After that, he called the setup "a bogus vote" because I noted which proposals were his. After that, another administrator, The Rambling Man, came along and supported the removal of my note. After that, Jehochman removed his "a bogus vote" complaint. After that, he removed the second option, which was indeed his proposal. I don't find this appropriate WP:Talk protocol in the least. Jehochman made that first proposal, and I or someone else should be able to note it in the heading or via text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment it seems pretty clear to me that Flyer22 has gone full tilt here, I suggest some time out from the subject matter. A reappraisal of what constitutes WP:UNDUE in article space would be a good idea too. This is boomerang territory I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• The whole episode is a fake "scandal", and deserves at most one sentence in her article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you feel it's necessary to label proposals? RFC proposal for wordings in articles should generally be based on discussion rather than just whatever some random person comes up with. I'm not sure how well this happened in this case, but concentrating too much on the person who first came up with the wording (if there is a clear authorship) seems weird. It's not like this is (or at least it shouldn't be) an arbcom like discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RfC yet. As for naming the proposals, it's common to do so, whether it's a WP:RfC or not; I also think it's clearer, and so I don't see an issue with it. The discussion took place first, and the voting for specific wording came afterward. Jehochman made it seem like I was attacking him, trolling, etc. when I simply noted who made the proposal; I did that first with a heading for all involved, including myself. I then pointed to the matter with a note regarding Jehochman; yes, my note had an annoyed element to it, but this is because he made it seem like I had committed some grave offense. Instead of replying to that full-on, I replied the way I did. To act like I was putting words in his mouth by simply noting with a heading who made the proposal, and to then escalate the matter by changing my posts and with name-calling, was completely uncalled for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of what was completely uncalled for was for you to speak on his behalf. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting who made the proposal is putting words in his mouth and "completely uncalled for," even considering that such a setup is common on article talk pages? I beg to differ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And after he told you to stop? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what right he had to tell me to stop, as though he owned the talk page. I can't comment in the first proposal section to note that Jehochman made that proposal, not even if I were to make the comment without an annoyed tone? That's not how Misplaced Pages works. And whatever the case, I ended up stopping anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I didn't re-add his name as a heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Either you stopped or you didn't. Clearly you felt empowered to continue to do what you wanted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't re-add the heading; I re-added notes once, citing WP:OWN. There's a difference. I stopped after that. Enough said. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, after being asked to stop, you re-added the notes. You were asked to stop. You didn't. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, per my "22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)" post above about rights and all, I re-added the notes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tempest in a tea pot. Jehochman is totally correct to remove their own name from headings they didn't create. I don't see anything in the diffs or in page history I would characterize as a personal attack, disruptive, or actionable on this board. It doesn't appear Jehochman has used admin tools to affect the pagespace (a page in which the admin seems to have no editing history) or the talkpage. I might not have threatened blocks myself, but shielding articles about living humans from disruption and undue BLP material would rank high on my list of wikipedian tasks and always within an admin's discretion. User:Flyer22 Reborn's attempt to personalize this dispute is regrettable and reflects badly on them, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way was he completely correct, given what WP:Talk states and the WP:Personal attacks he clearly issued against me? I don't see anything he's done at that talk page as befitting an administrator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about a genuine abuse of an admin position, or a petty stamping competition between editors over content? (in other words, reverse your latest "claim", do you honestly think that "he's done something at that talk page which isn't befitting an administrator"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything inappropriate in any of the diffs linked, or any of the other comments from Jehochman that I've seen. Saying that you were being obnoxious is not a personal attack, and is probably a fair description of your repeated attempts to attach his name to proposals he may have added, but may not support. Jehochman could have been more clear what "will be enforced with blocks" in his initial comment, but he left what I consider a quite satisfactory explaination on the talk page, and so far as I can tell he has made no such blocks. Prodego 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I suggest you drop the stick with all dispatch and take a couple of weeks off that article. You seem to have become deeply emotionally invested in content that several others say is giving undue prominence to a minor event. That's not great, but then to come here howling WP:ROUGE shows that you are in danger of losing the plot. Chill. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

By linking WP:ROUGE are you implying that Flyer is seeing red? EEng (talk)

Prodego, you and I have different definitions of what personal attacks are. But that's not surprising, given that what is or isn't a personal attack is commonly debated at that policy's talk page. JzG, you know that I greatly respect you; so I will heed your advice. But I will also note that various editors have disagreed with Jehochman that what he removed at that article was undue weight; the hack incident also was not a minor incident, and it received mainstream coverage from respectable publications. I also assure you and others that I did not become "deeply emotionally invested in content"; I became deeply annoyed by Jehochman's actions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And he became deeply annoyed by yours. So at least one of you needs to walk away. Now's your opportunity to show some class... Guy (Help!) 22:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks to me like the material was appropriate to include in the article, though phrasing and tone are legitimate grounds for discussion. However, that didn't happen, and Flyer22 Reborn is being bullied, both there and here: Words like "bogus" and "obnoxious" ( and ) shut down rational debate, they don't solve the problem. Things have escalated and gotten personal. As usual, Flyer22 Reborn is standing up for respectful and appropriate treatment of topics involving women; then she gets attacked, and then when she defends herself she gets threats of blocks and suggestions that someone "take a wikibreak". That's all simply ways to shut down constructive discussion. That said, Flyer appears to have (understandably) gotten kind of rattled by all the WP:BAITing that's going on here and was casting a bit wide of a net. I suggest everyone back off here and ratchet down the drama. Montanabw 00:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Like I said before, this behavior from Flyer is unacceptable. The editor in question clearly has not changed their tune from their previous 'retiring', and should get a swift boomerang here. --Tarage (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, my naming Jehochman as the editor who made two proposals, which are two proposals he in fact made, and then reverting him once is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Jehochman threatening to block editors who disagree with his skewed view of WP:BLP and calling me obnoxious, disruptive and essentially a troll and immature is perfectly acceptable. The last time you commented on me, you were wrong, and you're wrong now. I never retired, by the way. If you are going to keep tabs on what a terrible editor I am, learn to keep better tabs. I also suggest that you read up on WP:BOOMERANG; that goes for any others not understanding that essay as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Could someone provide a diff of the alleged threat to block editors? NE Ent 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary at is "WP:BLP enforcement. Will be enforced with blocks if necessary. Discuss at talk page." I'm guessing that is what's referred to. It seems to precede the talk page argument, as The OP in this thread suggests. Begoon  02:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(well, not really; it's just that Begoon beat me to commenting): Since no one else has linked to it, here is the diff-link, with the following commentary: "WP:BLP enforcement. Will be enforced with blocks if necessary. Discuss at talk page." I took that comment as a threat, one that created a chilling effect, which is why no one reverted Jehochman despite the talk page discussion showing that a number editors disagreed with him. I know that threat is why I didn't revert him; I don't need another administrator blocking me, even if the block is later overturned. Certain editors already don't know how to comprehend my block log appropriately, which is why I also note my block log at the top of my user page/talk page. After having been at Misplaced Pages for so long, I've seen enough chilling effects at this site to recognize one. And that was one. That discussion was soured for me right from the start because of that comment. Only in death felt so strongly about the comment that he stated, "Jehochman if you continue to issue threats I will take you to straight to Arbcom for misuse of tools while involved in a content dispute. Gain consensus to remove it and desist from threatening other editors." Others can obviously disagree that the comment was a threat and argue that it did not create a chilling effect, but I know otherwise. Certain editors have also told me via email that they didn't revert Jehochman due to fear of being blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SICDAMNOME

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

I was hoping this warning would convince SICDAMNOME (talk · contribs) from making personal attacks. But so far there are at least four personal attacks by SICDAMNOME: , , , . He/she has a very confrontational and non-collaborative response if someone challenges his/her unsourced edits. Sundayclose (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards