Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 27 January 2008

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User:Talessman reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: Overtaken by events )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 18 January 2008

Also edit warring in a similar way on Western Roman Empire. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this report does document a breach of the 3RR and a block could have been justified last night when I first looked at this but decided to hang fire. The reported user does appear to have taken the warning to stop edit warring to heart although there appears to be ongoing concern about whether they are using wikipedia for self-promotion. Be that as it may, that problem is outside AN3 and I think that a block now would serve no purpose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kvanko reported by User:Master of Puppets (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:19, 24 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 04:47, 24 January 2008

User has repeatedly reverted to his version (at least 10 times) regardless of warnings by at least three editors. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added after report filing: User proceeded to be uncivil towards editors; see here and here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours due to continual addition of inappropriate content. Seeing as this is a new user who could be unaware of 3RR, I initially intended to only give a warning. However, there was already a clear warning on their talk, and the user showed no attempt to discuss, so newbie's unawareness of 3RR is no longer grounds for toleration. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mccready reported by User:Hughgr (Result:no violation yet)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:04, 23 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: User has been previously warned

Editing against a long standing consensus. User:Mccready has a history [1] of this type of editing behavior. Hughgr (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Blocked 24 hours. KrakatoaKatie 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
There's no violation yet – only three reverts, because the report improperly counts the version reverted to as the first revert – so I unblocked Mccready. I've warned him to be careful at that article for the next 24 hours. KrakatoaKatie 09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't know this user. This is his 'feature edit.' He comes to that page and makes the same edit repeatedly against well established consensus. Since he is aware of this, perhaps this repeat edit is actually vandalism. Perhaps that would be the appropriate venue to report this issue? As it stands, he is likely to take this decision as a justification to do it again. According to WP:REVERT

A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version. The former is convenient, for example, for a partial reversion of a recent addition, while the latter is convenient for a partial reversion of a deletion.

I think the first edit counts as a revert? Anthon01 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not permission to do it again. All I can do as the admin who deals with a 3RR report is look at the information and make the best decision I can. Perhaps an RFC/U is needed to discuss his behavior. - KrakatoaKatie 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CreazySuit reported by User:Jewish-wargamer (Result: page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:43, 21 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:32, 23 January 2008

This template, a map, seems to have been the site of a major edit war last year over the description of territorial extent of an empire. Edit war appears to have ended once the territory was included but was described as temporarily held or words to that effect. The user being reported appears to have created the account to start the edit war up again (note edit history) and is edit warring on the article that the template resides in as well. Continued to edit war after 3RR warning. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would request that another admin look at this. Protecting the page is rewarding edit warring. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enverite reported by User:Pairadox (Result: 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 24 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:28, 21 January 2008

While these may not appear to be strict reverts, I feel a close examination will show otherwise. Enverite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suspected of being a sock of PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The apparent goal of these editors is to give Davis Roberts equal credit for starting G&D's and/or deny George Stroup sole billing. Their only edits are in relation to this article. PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had previously reverted twice in the last 24 hours, here and here. Enverite then pick up the task. It's only when their combined reverts approach the fourth in 24 hours does Enverite switch to blanking the paragraph about the founders entirely. Either combined with the suspected sock or alone, it seems clear the intent to violate 3RR is there.

A SSP report has been filed but not acted upon at this time. 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

5th revert: 01:38, 25 January 2008
8 hour block. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rikara reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [2]

1st revert: [3]
2nd revert: [4]
3rd revert: [5]
4th revert: [6]
5th revert: [7]
6th revert: [8]
7th revert: [9]

Diff of 3RR warning: [10]

Edit war over unconfirmed characters at Super Smash Bros. (series) He refuses to provide cites for any of the characters he's adding in; has breached 3RR to keep them in. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added further violations, Abuser still seems to be at it. Will continue adding further violations. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. They were refusing to listen to me. Don't punish ME for this. And I'm a guy, genius. -Rikara (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've told you time and time again that what you're reverting is speculation most of which was completely un-supported, yet you refused to listen. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Rikara has been temporarily blocked from editing by User:Jéské Couriano for personal attacks. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been protected, and as listed above, user has been blocked for another reason, although to be quite fair, probably should not have been done by an admin who'd been in conflict with the user. Not to say it wasn't justified, since it clearly was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the implications; hence I asked for a review of my block at AN/I. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthon01 reported by User:RG2 (Result:protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:28, 24 January 2008
1st revert: 20:45, 24 January 2008
2nd revert: 21:25, 24 January 2008
3rd revert: 21:41, 24 January 2008
4th revert: 22:59, 24 January 2008
Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary. User has previously been warned about the 3RR rule. Additionally, the user was blocked for edit warring last month.

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) removed what he felt was questionable content from Thuja at 19:55, 24 January 2008. Anthon01 (talk · contribs) reintroduced the blanked content, albeit with a new reference, four times in a row. Partial reversions are still considered reverts, and four partial reverts still constitute a 3RR violation.

Looking through the page history, there seems to have been quite a bit of reverting over the past few days. However, it has usually been accompanied by talk page discussion from editors on all sides of the debate. It appears to me that nobody but Anthon01 has violated the 3RR, although some of the others have come very close. -- RG² 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look a little closer you'll see editors are working together to defeat the addition of RS material. My response has been to try to find increasing better sources, but it appears that no sources, even from the most prestigious journals, like Rheumatology, will do. Anthon01 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff was accompanied with the explanation that I had added a new source. I didn't consider it a revert in the sense of an edit war. On the other hand SA and his co-editors are not allowing any RS that mention homeopathy to be included on this or any other plant related articles. They are removing well-sourced text from the article. Anthon01 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a case to be made not to consider the first edit a revert. At any rate, other users, such as Science Apologist, have reverted almost as much, and the edit war is widespread, so I'm protecting the article. Please work on resolving this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note a similar history of edit warring at the related article Thuja occidentalis, although with a slightly different cast of characters. MrDarwin (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whisper1234 reported by User:Shoy (Result: protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:25, January 24, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:53, January 24, 2008

Looks like edit-warring to keep a promotional link in the article. shoy 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And extremely inane edit-warring at that. Page protected by User:Flyguy649. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Milsorgen reported by User:Aboutmovies (Result: 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:39, January 24, 2008.

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:06, January 24, 2008

Listed editor continues to revert three other editors to include a person in the notable residents section of this town. Has ignored warnings, and now seems to be taunting the editors. Oregon consensus has been don’t add them unless they are a blue link. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adraeus reported by User:Serendipodous (Result:31 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:17, 25 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:10, 25 January 2008

User:Adraeus has been conducting an edit war on Solar System. He has also been combative and aggressive and engaged in personal attacks on my talk page. Serendi^podous 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You 4th diff links to this AN3 page, but I looked at the hist and there is another revert he did recently, so 31 hour block. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed diff 4 anyway. Serendi^podous 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.158.4.69 reported by User:Arzel (Result:24 hours to IP )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [11]

1st revert: [12]
2nd revert: [13]
3rd revert: [14]
4th revert: [15]
5th revert: [16]

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident.

Not sure if I did this correctly, so sorry in advance. This user continues to insert material in violation of BLP policies. Arzel (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funeral reported by User:192.45.72.26 (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [17]

1st revert: [18]
2nd revert: [19]
3rd revert: [20]
4th revert: [21]

Diff of 3RR warning: N/A, this is an experienced user and knows what he is doing.

This user seems to not respect other editor's edits what-so-ever. Instead, he just reverts edits as if this page belongs to him, and him only. I've made changes to try and satisfy him, added citations, etc. He just brings up NOR, NPOV and talks about edit wars. It is this type of editor who believes others' edits are not as worthy, that instigates edit wars, and makes Wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Check out this uncivil discussion, with himself maybe? [22] Now him and this anon (himself?) gang up on other editors to keep the page exactly as he wants. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. John Reaves 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the 142.167 IP is not mine (see this diff in my userspace: [23]). I've also contacted the reporting user to try and reach a comprimise, which included asking him not to revert me [24]. When I "just bring up" WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:EW, I feel I'm perfectly right to do so; the user originally used no sources in his edits and he later proclaimed who the most famous line-up of Guns N' Roses are. Which is why I linked to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Funeral 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Is your memory not functioning? You were the one who brought up the words famous first [25], and I tried to please you by changing my edit. You don't discuss things, from your edit history you just go around reverting many edits which are not your own. You don't appear to have any sense of compromise. I clarified the statement, and started to add citations that show that in popular media they are referred to (wrongly or rightly so) as the original lineup. Still you reverted. So you were intersted in compromise?? I doubt it. Users like yourself should get a nice week ban for all your reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were the most famous line-up of the band, but that's still considered point of view. I didn't mean to say we should put that in the article. And I deserve a band for reverting a lot of/mostly vandalism? Sounds fair. Funeral 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Funeral, is I don't know if you have a good sense of what is really vandalism. Edits that "Funeral doesn't like" do not necessarily constitute vandalism. I was there trying to satisfy you, you were making good points. I added citations, and then all I get is these harsh comments that you make towards me and your anon friend. What is the need to act like that dude? I am on here trying to make some edits and I get accused of being a fanboy or of fancruft. Please be professional. It is common usage in the media to rever to those guys as the "original line-up". I didn't say these guys ARE THE ORIGINAL LINEUP, I merely clarified. Most people, fans or not, who know Guns N' Roses, do think of these five as the original members. The article is very precise in how the group was formed, but there is no disaster with adding the sentence I did. You should really be more open-minded to others' edits, or you just get this needless battling, with people who probably just want good articles like I assume you do! Assume good faith, and try being friendly to new people on here. Man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But your citations didn't actually support your claim: you just linked to a news article which referred to the 1986-1989 band as the original line-up - you weren't actually supporting your claim that they are "often referred to as the 'original lineup'". Funeral 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you could of simply asked me to look for more or better citations if you had issue with them. You don't have to just wipe out others' edits and make disparaging remarks like "fan boy".

Hey folks. This page isn't really for disputes. Could you move this to your talk pages or the article talk page or something? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeathMark reported by User:penubag (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin by DeathMark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

This is inverted, 11th was first revert:

1st revert: [26] (ip sock)
2nd revert: [27]
3rd revert: [28]
4th revert: [29]
5th revert: [30]
6th revert: [31]
7th revert: [32]
8th revert: [33]
9th revert: [34]
10th revert: [35]
11th revert: [36]
there may be some more I missed
Diff of 3RR warning: [37] and [38]

A short explanation of the incident. Deathmark is continuously reverting edits mad by 3 other editors. After 2 warnings, still continues even after consensus was reached by the 3 editors. penubag 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, a mess. Give me some time to process this one. Will get it ASAP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - penubag 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty extensive edit war, with DeathMark reverting against several other users. As such, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Some of his opponents in the edit war have also reverted quite a bit, especially Comandante42‎. I've warned him not to do so in the future, and left a less stern reminder for Geoff B. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teleomatic reported by User:Octavian history (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

A short explanation of the incident. Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) User Teleomatic has reverted the same section on Hajj Amin Elahi page 4 times within 24 hours. I have warned him many times in the past about the 3RR rule, but he simply deleted my warning. He keeps removing valid citations and will not stop. I need help stoping this guy. Thanks--Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this qualifies as 3RR, though I would say that there is an edit war in progress. Teleomatic reports that he has checked these citations, and that the given page numbers do not corroborate the assertions made in the article. He tagged the article with {{citecheck}}, and a few days later, removed the citations and replaced them with {{fact}}. Octavian_history has since replaced the {{fact}} tags with the original citations, but this time without the page numbers ([40]). The last such undo of Teleomatic's edits was made by a brand new account, User:Kurdestan ([41]). The article's talk page will quickly reveal that there is an edit war in progress (Octavian_history also received a 3RR warning, from me ([42]); yesterday the article itself was re-posted to AfD. If anyone else would care to weigh in on that article's talk page, it would be appreciated. Also note that one of the warnings Octavian_history gave to Teleomatic was an actual block notification ([43], reposted: [44]; as of this writing, Teleomatic has not received a block). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Please do not listen to gyrofrog, it absolutely is 3RR. Gyrofrog has a long history of stocking me and attacks against my every move. It is 100% obvious that this does qualify as 3RR. --Octavian history (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example


<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

@@ Line 364: / Line 364: @@
 : I am not sure this qualifies as 3RR, though I would say that there is an edit war in progress. Teleomatic reports that he has checked these citations, and that the given page numbers do not corroborate the assertions made in the article.  He tagged the article with <nowiki>{{citecheck}}</nowiki>, and a few days later, removed the citations and replaced them with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>.  Octavian_history has since replaced the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags with the original citations, but this time without the page numbers ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj_Amin_Elahi&diff=186984925&oldid=186984868]).  The last such undo of Teleomatic's edits was made by a brand new account, [[User:Kurdestan]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj_Amin_Elahi&diff=187118247&oldid=187118212]).  The article's talk page will quickly reveal that there is an edit war in progress (Octavian_history also received a 3RR warning, from me ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Octavian_history&diff=185874573&oldid=185864382]); yesterday the article itself was re-posted to AfD. If anyone else would care to weigh in on that article's talk page, it would be appreciated.  Also note that one of the warnings Octavian_history gave to Teleomatic was an actual block notification ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teleomatic&diff=187164712&oldid=185870569], reposted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teleomatic&diff=187182511&oldid=187167001]; as of this writing, Teleomatic has not received a block). -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
+::*'''NOTE''' Please do not listen to gyrofrog, it absolutely is 3RR. Gyrofrog has a long history of stocking me and attacks against my every move. It is 100% obvious that this does qualify as 3RR. --[[User:Octavian history|Octavian history]] ([[User talk:Octavian history|talk]]) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards