Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:12, 25 October 2014

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

User:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&oldid=628831988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aight_2009&diff=628856863&oldid=628853670

Attempt to resolve dispute on the User's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22

Aight 2009 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I paste ther my arguments on the user page Blue-Haired Lawyer. He didn't respond on it: if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

3RR slightly outside the 24h period (perhaps due to night), however Aight 2009 has been pointed out by three different editors (Tsuroerusu, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself) that the naming issue should be discussed at Talk:Danish Social Liberal Party, where it actually seems resolved; in spite of these three opinions, Aight 2009 keeps reverting correct edits. I will be grateful for an authoritative opinion on this edit war. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. The reverts you're listing are from October 8-9. The last revert was on October 12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because the edit warrior's preferred version was left in place. There's already been one further revert today, and I suspect another one shortly. Btw Aight 2009's edit summary was "Result of your edit warring: stale". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two further reverts by Aight 2009 on 20 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630359599&oldid=630299153

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630405826&oldid=630388609

kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert by Aight 2009 on 22 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630706844&oldid=630698594.

This user insists on violating WP:NCPP and disregards all advice offered to him/her by more experienced editors. Appalling. kashmiri ^TALK 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eurocentral reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (first sentence of the lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] (his first return to his version after an RfC was initiated and a consensus was reached)
[8] (deletion of an inline template message)
[9]
[10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (Eurocentral is warned in the edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[12] (RfC - which ended with a consensual lead: [13])
[14] (he opened a separate debate on the same issue during the RfC, with my warning to stop edit warring)

Comments:
Just for information, he has just initiated a SPI against me (without informing me). Dear administrators, please inform me if Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community. In this case, I also have to change my attitude to adopt this new standard.

Result: No action, but User:Eurocentral is notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. All parties should notice the RfC at Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence? I suggest that people make specific proposals for the wording of the lead, because the RfC has now been going for almost a month. After 30 days it will expire off the RfC lists and it may be harder to get an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serten reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Blocked)

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I think is under 1RR
User being reported: Serten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User notified of this filing here
Past History

This user has a really impressive block log at the German wiki; other editors commented about this at Serten's user page. Serten deleted that discussion/warning (as is his right) on Aug 30 2014
This user received an edit war warning from this board on a different article earlier this month

DIFFS (verified that these are not in series)

02:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Added {{too few opinions}} tag to article
03:06, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Its rather important to include what the IPCC and the IAC see as important limitations of its own activities, the consensus includes known unknowns as well, Version without {{too few opinions}}
07:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Try to increase competence by reading valid and important sources. See talk page.
07:36, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Calling Oppenheimers essay an individual viewopoint is sort of stark
09:09, October 22, 2014‎ Serten If the article doesnt deal with the IPCC, move redundant content where it belongs.
09:19, October 22, 2014‎ Serten see talk page

USER TALK PAGE RESPONSE

10:19, October 22, 2014 At his user talk, Serten explicitly refuses to self-revert and rejects another ed's assertion that Serten has broken 3RR.

COMMENT I realize this isn't AE, but just to emphasize the behavior here, this article is under DS(climate). Serten was warned about DS on climate in June, and I reminded him of that in an ill-conceived ANI he filed just a few days ago.
ACTION SOUGHT Whatever you think will prevent future edit/template warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked 24 hours. I see four reverts starting at 7:29. Serten's talk comment where he says his edits were about 'different content in two different cases' is not significant when counting up towards four reverts. Per WP:EW *all* reverts are counted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If reverts were accumulative in one article, there would be various people blocked forever. Actually two cases, ongoing discussion on talk page and proper adjustment of the tags in question. Factually the climate team tries to impose an informal topic bockade, they revert even content based on IPCC internal sources. WP coud do better on the topic. Serten (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeh reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Nothing to do here)

For this users always use airy words to describe what I post on Wikipedia.org, such as "little", "wrong"... and denote "done" on the section what I post without my decision on it, and guided me what I should do. This behavior could potentially be counted as personal attack and violate the Freedom of Wikipedia.org.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[15]

Comments:

There were no "reverts" at all (unless one counts Janagewen's deletion of my "Done" tag), let alone three.

Janagewen added a paragraph of supposed "explanation" to a months-old thread.
As that "explanation" was in fact "not even wrong," I replied, with corrections. I then decided the talk page was long overdue for archiving, so I added an archive bot template.
Janagewen thanked me for my reply.
I [pointed out that I'd given the same explanation months ago during the thread's previous life.
Since the thread in question would have been archived months ago had archiving been set up, I switched to an archive bot that supports requested archiving and added a {{Done}} tag to the thread, in an attempt to avoid further similar "contributions". The latter was an overreach, and I apologize.
Janagewen objected to this and removed the Done tag.
There was one more exchange. (I'm leaving the talk page alone until this EW report is settled.)
About 20 minutes later, Janagewen created this report.
Janagewen has now wasted roughly fifteen minutes of my time (the time it took to create this reply and find all the links to the diffs), all because he doesn't know what a "revert" or an "edit war" is. (Is there something like AN/WP:CIR?)

It is clear that Janagewen feels wronged that I should correct his erroneous statements, or that I should request archiving of "his" thread, but that has nothing to do with edit-warring. I think he really wanted some other forum. Jeh (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad that Jeh made some replies here. But there is another serious sentence from him, "I think he really wanted some other forum."

I thought Jeh were a respectful professor about 5 years ago, when my first stupid revision about PAE were reverted by him. That was the very reason I started that topic, and stated my ideas about it. Yeah, this is not a edit war, and nothing serious about edit war, removing or even reverting. The most serious thing is that people would love to join and express his/her reasonable ideas about it, because that is a talk page. Jeh is great, and I do like to read what he wrote, and learned a lot from him. I know I might post so many improper topics on Wikipedia.org, but I have done, and that might be the very reason to "some other fourm.". But I have to say Wikipedia.org is the greatest, and too many great people that delight my lonely way, including respectful Jeh. But I've already left a report here, ok, just let it stay without reasoning whether proper or not... Janagewen (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "some other forum" I meant perhaps WP:AN/I, rather than here at EW. That was not a suggestion that you find someplace other than WP, not at all. Jeh (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Nothing to do here. This doesn't seem to be a report of edit warring. I hope that the above exchange of views has led to better understanding. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Twenty:20 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bangbang43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630650095 by Wiki-senetor (talk)heyy Mr. mind your words"
13:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630648167 by Wiki-senetor (talk)vandal"
12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630625079 by Wiki-senetor (talk)proper vandalism"
04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630554942 by Wiki-senetor (talk)removing the official poster and promotional."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

His account is in favour for a particular actor, high vandalism and bad language. Promoting a particular actor and degrading an other. Wiki-senator 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Wiki-senetor is blocked 24 hours. Bangbang43 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. In the future, please consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Les7007 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[17] (abusive summary: vandalism)
[18] (same abusive summary)
[19] (same)
[20] (same)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22], [23]

Comments:

Single purpose account Les7007 (talk · contribs) (total of 287 edits) Google-translated Project Riese from the Polish Wikipedia in 2009 and ever since, takes total ownership of it, unable to communicate with other Wikipedians, i.e. deleting invitations to collaborative work from his talkpage, reverting improvements to article with false summaries,[24], deleting cleanup templates repeatedly, and abusing me verbally on the article talk page; for example, after his wp:personal attack was removed, User:Les7007 now edit-wars to restore the same WP:PA back:

[25] (same abusive summary: "vandalism")
[26] (same)
[27] (same)
[28] (same)
[29] (same)

Poeticbent talk 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I have no problem to communicate with anybody except User:Poeticbent. After reverting some of his chaotic edits [30] he attacked me on the article talk page [31] using abusive summary: "talking to the hand" and words: "this is a lie" and again [32] with words: "stop lying", "talking to a blank wall", "stop making up things" and "quite a departure from your lies"[33]. Then he started campaign of editing my posts:

and attacking Project Riese with "Fanpov" with summary: "tagged as fan page requiring oversight" without any evidence or source:

Please notice his condescending tone in calling me everywhere "single purpose account" because I have only 287 edits.

Les7007 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your total ownership of the article you translated from the Polish Wikipedia does not make you immune to WP:3RR policy, including the use of abusive edit summaries or absurdly repetitious reinsertions of your WP:personal attacks. Wikipedia does not give you the right to behave like a jerk without some kind of repercussions. Read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at least once before contributing anything in the future.
Note to the administrator: — Appartently User:Les7007 cannot stop himself from lying even on this page while attempting to (quote-unquote) defend himself. He calls reverts of his wp:personal attacks on article talk page (get this): "campaign of editing my posts". Poeticbent talk 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article fully protected one month. This seems like a two-person dispute with a lot of bad feelings. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution could be followed while the article is protected. Consider WP:3O or WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EdJohnston. Would you please at least remove verbal abuse directed at me at article talk page (coupled with a lie about attitude), and equally abusive edit summary.[43] I don't see why his edit needs to be protected. I stopped reverting in order to seek your help, he did not. Therefore his abuse stays in, but why. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk comments add to the reputation of the person who made them. If User:Les7007 wants them to be part of his record on Wikipedia, fine, let them stand. The comments will still be on view the next time an admin has reason to study his behavior. I see some heavy irony and silliness but no removable attacks. His vandalism charges are not correct. Both of you have now accused the other person of lying and that ought to be sufficient. If you want to remove the 'lying' charges from your own comments then maybe we should approach Les7007 for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D reported by User:Aichik (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

I was going to wait for 4th revert but this person's IP is anonymous so I feel like there might be some bad faith editing there. --Aichik (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with repeated POV blanking from this anon IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630818352&oldid=630784890 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630607183&oldid=630599580 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630571240&oldid=630540282 I am requesting an investigation for Wiki:sockCarpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced in how things work at this noticeboard, but I would like to mention that Aichik has not provided a link to where he warned this IP, nor to where he tried to resolve this dispute. The link provided for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is the same as the one provided for "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". And what does that link lead to? A section on the IP's talk page, consisting only of "Here is what I mean about OVERCITE," plus a signature. That is obviously not a warning for edit warring, and I don't think it can be counted as an attempt at dispute resolution either. I would suggest that Aichik provide what this noticeboard asks for.
In addition, the person reported here has made many edits since registering just a few days ago, and all look constructive from the quick glance I gave them. While they can edit war as well as anyone else, they don't look like a bad-faith vandal.
I'm not making any claims besides what I've explicitly stated, and I apologize if I shouldn't be sticking my nose here. But I just want to make sure an administrator takes this stuff into consideration. NealCruco (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't concur. This is an anonymous IP. It is unknown if there is also registered account. What my quick review of the edit history of the IP noticed, was a large number of reverts without corresponding discussion or the addition of constructive content. It is very easy to find fault with the work of others, but I believe that editing should strive to be more affirmative than simply negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpo- Rusyn (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. The three reverts listed (which are links instead of the requested diffs) are days apart. Considering the changes going back and forth, this is barely an edit war, and one of the stupider ones I've seen - and I've seen some pretty stupid battles - in a while. Why doesn't everyone do something more constructive than arguing over ncluding or not including a cite? And, Carpo- Rusyn, the accusations of socking are unsupported by anything, so put a lid on it. It doesn't help that you yourself are a very newly registered account and come out of nowhere charging socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cevdet24 reported by User:Noyster (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

Repeated insertion of promotional material copied from school website after 3 warnings.

Please refer to page history. I & ClueBot have 3x reverted promotional & copyvio insertions. The article needed attention but Cevdet24 was warned twice that they were going about this the wrong way (initial warning, second warning). They made no effort to respond in any way and are at their 4th turn of adding the same material, with slight variations: Noyster (talk), 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turkeyphant reported by User:FF-UK (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

User Turkeyphant persists in inserting a claim that the Europlug is physically compatible with the BS 1363 socket, despite the BS 1363 standard requiring that it not be possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket. It is possible on some, but not all, BS 1363 sockets to tamper with the safety mechanism to open the shutters, and then force a Europlug into the BS 1363 socket (this is clearly stated in the article), Turkeyphant has not disputed that this can only be done by tampering, and then forcing (The pins of the Europlug have to be forced apart to enter the socket), but claims despite this they are still physically compatible. He also refuses to acknowledge that socket contacts designed to mate with flat pins are not compatible with round pins (there is a danger of arcing caused by poor contact). Further, he insists on distorting a published warning from the UK Electrical Safety Council warning of the widespread occurrence of fires due to the practice which he wishes to promote. FF-UK (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. Use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. If the dispute continues after protection expires, it would be logical to block anyone who reverts again without being justified by a consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lgaddjjg reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haken arizona reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&diff=630898469&oldid=630898047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:
Haken arizona has repeatedly edited the "attendance" figures into this article, despite the use of questionable sources. His first, from ABC.net.au referred to attendance figures from the Saturday of the event, but was being used to support attendance figures from the Sunday of the event. His second source referred to a "near capacity crowd", but gives no indication to how near to capacity "near capacity" is. The issues with these sources have been repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, but he has made no effort to address the issues with his sources, instead declaring that they are acceptable despite one of his key arguments being that the journalist is unable to count everyone in attendance, thus demonstrating that it fails WP:VERIFIABLE. He has since taken to sitting on the page, reverting edits on sight and refusing to address the questions that gave been asked of him. Given that he was made aware of the issues several times and willingly ignored them, I considered the edits to be vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is totally out of line. Journalist will not go and count every seat to give specific down to one digit number. It is reported that the event was sold out to capacity, which means 55,000. Prisonermonkeys is out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the journalist cannot count every person in attendance—which makes the source unverifiable—why haven't you provided any evidence of the venue's capacity? You only have the journalist's word that the venue hosts 55,000, but as you just said, the journalist could not have counted all of them. And as far as I am aware, the venue only has 55,000 fixed seats, but there is a general access area that can host up to 10,000 people. So if that is accurate, then claiming the venue is at capacity with 55,000 spectators is off by nearly 20% of its total.

Again, this comes down to the fact that you have not reconciled the issues with your sources. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the attendance figures; I simply ask that you demonstrate reliability, verifiability and specificity in any source you post. You have ignored this, despite being made well aware of the issues on multiple occasions, and gave instead taken to trying to force the edits through by brute force—all of which could have been avoided if you had addressed the issues that were raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected You're both lucky not to be blocked, both of you violated WP:3RR. If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both. Dreadstar ☥ 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: may I ask for clarification here? I reverted Haken arizona's edits because I felt they were vandalism. I pointed out the issues with his sources on the talk page before the edit warring began, and did so several more times once it started. Given his knowledge of the issues while editing that content in, and his refusal to address it, doesn't that qualify as vandalism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism; and if you thought it was vandalism, then instead of uselessly edit warring, you should have reported it to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. But I can tell from the source and by the language used by your fellow-edit-warrior, that the intent was not to harm WP. Haken Arizona's edits were not vandalism, and neither were yours - it was a simple content and WP:RS dispute that got out of hand. You two should have taken it to WP:RS/N or get a WP:3O, not bang heads, disrupting the article with edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. A disagreement over the capacity of the venue is not vandalism, which is a quite different phenomenon, often involving the word "poop." Labeling a disagreement as vandalism will not help you to win an argument, and diminishes your credibility. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, what Acroterion said. Simpler than mine... :) Dreadstar ☥ 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you administration prisonermonkeys is totally out of line. comment added by Haken Arizona 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs)

He's certainly no more out of line than you are. It would be a mistake to see this as a validation of your editing, or your preferred version of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was deleting my work and I was not touching his. It is clear he is a villain here. He has habit of doing this. Attendance data is accurate enough, and it should be there. prisonermonkeys should not be deleting well sourced data just because he wants to play editor warrior. I would like my attendance data added because that is what Wikipedia is all about, improving the quality of each article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop. You were edit warring and could have easily been blocked, but I tried what I thought would be a fair outcome and give you two a chance to correct your behavior. You're in a content dispute, which does not make either one a villain, it's what you do that counts. Follow WP:DR, if you two continue edit warring, I'll block both of you. Dreadstar ☥ 14:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Scottperry (Result: Locked)

Previous version reverted to: Diff showing the last pre-edit war policy version: 6 July 2014

Note regarding the diff above: The first diff shown above was Francis' first attempt to alter Wikipedia policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy's talk page. Fortunately User:Flyer22 typically "guards" that page against such changes without any consensus discussion, as she did on that day (July 9) within 5 minutes of Francis' first attempt to foist his preferred NPOV policy onto Wikipedia without any consensus with anyone else.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revised Diff showing edit war warning (first link was incorrect)Scott P. (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion specifically about this user's July 30 revert, by the bottom of the discussion, it appears that this user no longer has any support at all for his reverts, yet he continues to revert

Comments:

Francis is a seasoned 9 year veteran of Wikipedia, with lots of knowledge of the intricacies of administrative actions. He has a lengthy history of edit-war related blocks. We have been trying to discuss his desired policy change with him now for three days, and ultimately, his last ditch effort to try to save his desired policy change is merely to enter into another edit-war and somehow hope nobody notices? What is he thinking?? He has now wasted my time, and that of many others, with an apparent absolute disregard for consensus. I have not the slightest desire to be up at 4 AM local time having to write this, then go into work when I'm done. I would like to request a one month ban for Francis, banning him from any WP policy pages, so perhaps he might begin to remember exactly what consensus is the next time it occurs to him to behave so disruptively. (This is my first reporting of a 3RR violation. I hope I did it right. Any suggestions as to how I might have done better would be most appreciated. Thanks.) Scott P. (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wouldn't call Francis Schonken's block log lengthy; I've seen far longer block logs than that. But I understand that your point is that he's been blocked a few times for WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is my first time doing this, and any blocks at all are a surprise to me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See (also):

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, no admin actions on any of those. All were resolved privately and on good terms between myself and the other party. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last link above is actually a bit funny. It's a link to a "rather abortive attempt" by Francis to have me blocked from Wikipedia. As usual, rather than addressing the questions I have posed to him, begging him to show where he got consensus from in any of his reverts, he attempts to derail the conversation by trying to distract everyone away from the topic at hand, namely did he violate 3RR, and did he fail to get consensus before all of his reverts? Francis, if you could simply answer that single question, you would save all of us here from having to waste any more of our time on your antics (or valid concerns). Did you violate 3RR, and did you fail to prove consensus, or not? The longer you refuse to honestly answer that single simple question, the more it becomesobvious what you are really trying to do here, namely to foist your own personal policy agendas onto the rest of Wikipedia, and to use whatever administrative maneuver you can think of, whether transparent or convoluted, to do the foisting. Proposed solution Francis: revert back your own last reversion yourself, and I would be quite happy to let all of this incident report simply go away. Assuming that would be OK with others (though it may not.) Scott P. (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think I also provided an amicable solution to Scottperry's actual problem (which is not with the WP:BALASPS section he keeps reverting to a version before a new consensus was established in July 2014):
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630900903&oldid=627488408#Content_of_A_Course_in_Miracles
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AA_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630902051&oldid=630197811#Synopsis_requested
...and tried to clear misunderstandings resulting from the {{primary}} template:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3APrimary_sources&diff=630909608&oldid=591067565#WP:ABOUTSELF.2FWP:BLPSELFPUB_caveat
I oppose policies being updated without consensus to solve "ad hoc" issues, as Scotperry did, especially when the perceived problem with the policy is not by far a solution to the "ad hoc" issue, as is the case here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of your "alternative suggestions" still don't produce the necessary consensus that you are supposed to wait for before altering WP policy. I suspect that you may be so intent on altering Wikipedia policy like this in order to increase your current domination of some certain fringe articles. Why you think that abandoning consensus as you have here might gain you friends or influence I can't understand. Consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia editing. If you don't understand that after 9 years, you baffle me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, this particular issue is my first "foray" into Wikipedia policy. You know those first edits were done by me in good faith, not yet knowing Wikipedia policy on editing policy itself. Those were not "reversions" either, they were each a different proposal, trying to find common ground. You've been working at Wikipedia policy for years and know full well what the consensus requirements are, yet you still treat the 3RR rule, and consensus requirements with complete disregard. Do you think you are somehow 'above' the rest of us? Scott P. (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get back to a discussion on content...

at WT:NPOV about the most effective content of the WP:BALASPS section;
at A Course in Miracles and its talk page about the content of the synopsis that is really missing from the article currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and, if you wish to contribute, at Template talk:Primary sources about the content of the {{primary}} template.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, we are here to discuss one thing primarily, did you, or did you not just violate 3RR? And the related question, did you, or did you not get consensus before trying to foist your own personal policy rules on the rest of us, your highness. We are not here on this page to set up a WP policy debate, that is for the talk pages of policy. As I offered yesterday when you waited until I told you I had just gone to work then you went to the admin noticeboard and whined about how you weren't getting your way, if you could provide a single real proof of consensus in your attempted "unilaterally forced policy change", I would be quite happy to have allowed your edit, but how foolish do you take everyone else to be? You still haven't provided a single evidence of consensus, you try to misdirect and befuddle the conversation here, and yet you still feel you are the "offended party". I would advise you, if you really wanted a block, please just continue with your one-person-policy-debate here, continue to refuse to show evidence of consensus, and continue to hope to befuddle the rest of us with your great policy wisdom. (comment first edited at 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)) Last revision to comment: Scott P. (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected (full) for one week. I've also restored the policy back to September 11, 2014, prior to its "current" edit war. It's possible that it should be restored to an even earlier version, but for the moment, I didn't want to go there. Substantive changes to core policy without a clear consensus, generally via the Pump or by a community-wide RfC, are unacceptable. Protracted edit warring over them is blockable, but for the present I'm not meting out blocks. Nonetheless, all editors are warned that if they resume reverting after the lock expires, they may be blocked without notice. Scottperry, you are one of the more culpable editors in this battle, and to address your point ("did you, or did you not just violate 3RR"), the answer is no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely floored and astounded, and have no reason to continue any further editing of Wikipedia articles at all if this is how policy is now decided here, allowing one single person to dictate to the rest of us, via such tactics, what Wikipedia policy will be. It's probably for the best for me personally, what a waste of my time editing at all in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bubybyb reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: No action)

Page: Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bubybyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

10:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lyme disease. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

10:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time */ new section"

Comments:

Cluebot welcome and warning 15:12, 23 October 2014

Unconstructive editing warning 15:16, 23 October 2014

Looks like a SPA vandal. MrBill3 (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. This is straightforward vandalism and should be treated as such. Once the user has sufficiently vandalized and been appropriately warned, they should be reported to WP:AIV. That hasn't happened yet, and the user has reverted the article twice (serious blanking), which doesn't justify a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:S4Wikky reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)

Page: Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: S4Wikky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Online sources:

www.indianexpress.com www.scroll.in www.indiatimes.com"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Report is poorly done but filing one was right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purpl9 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

See User talk:Purpl9 - this is a new account, but clearly not a new contributor. Despite repeatedly being told that sources regarding medical claims need to comply with WP:MEDRS, Purpl9 insists on citing a website promoting a conspiracy theory that the Red Cross is engaged in a coverup as a source for medical claims concerning 'Miracle Mineral Supplement' - a toxic (and on at least one occasion fatal) substance promoted as a 'cure' for HIV, malaria, and more or less every disease know to man. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - none - I asked Purpl9 to use the talk page, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit-warring continues: [88] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Maincorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock- (or possibly meat-) puppet. The Maincorel account was created 8 minutes after Purpl was blocked, and 3 minutes after that made his first and only edit: a revert back to Purpl's version of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now another sock has turned up pushing the same crap at Chlorine dioxide [89] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteiniated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades Skeptrubador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am afraid the user has engaged themselves into more suckpoppuetry by creating another user under the same edits summary about the Red Cross and whatnot. (Btw, I didn't know where to put this, so this was my only option). Callmemirela (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[91] (second revert from Not Your Kind of People page linked above)
[92] (first Control page revert)
[93] (second ^)
[94] (first Big Bright World page revert)
[95] (second ^)
[96] (first Blood For Poppies revert)
[97] (second ^)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99] Control page: [100] (the exact same is stated in Big Bright World and Blood For Poppies talk pages).

Comments:
User has been reverting my recent edits on multiple pages of this band. He is not assuming good faith as evidenced in second diff provided here, and in the process is airing his personal reasons for dismissing such edit (the brief expansion of 2 quotes, for accuracy and balance, which are currently cherry-picked.) Apart from engaging in edit warring (in multiple pages, as linked above), he is engaging in and/or violating WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK. For context, user has a history of bias particularly against me, and shows no sign of wanting to consider views he disagrees with in the editing/discussion process, implicitly WP:OWN.

I'd like to note that user made the second reverts after responding to the sections I made on the talks pages of the songs (not the Not Your Kind of People album talk page), exemplifying he has no intention of considering it or engaging in anything but what he's already engaged in.
Adding: Reading over an older section on the album’s talk page, I realize Homeostasis07 has a personal bias against this album. It is strongly suggested in this section he dislikes the album and endorses the negative criticism of it. So, in my recent copy edit of the two quotes from two sources (diffs linked above), again to improve accuracy and balance, which he clearly does not want, the parts of the quotes he reverts/removes, particularly of the second quote, would suggest a less negative response (in how it's contextually stated) from the source than originally as presented. It puts his disagreement here (for this page), ergo his edit warring, in greater context. He even quoted in this section the negative part of the quote he supports. It is clear he does not want to expand the quote for context and accuracy because he has a personal bias here. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first thing's first, there's no third edit mentioned anywhere here. And I've explained the multiple issues I have with the source he's trying to use on the three separate song articles, in both the edit summaries and on the articles talk page's. This isn't disruptive editing or edit warring on my part, so should this user really have thrown an inappropriate 3RR warning on my talk page. For the record, this is the second time in as many months @Andrzejbanas: that Lapadite77's thrown an inappropriate warning at a user while in the middle of a discussion.

This entire thing in a nutshell: Lapadite77's been involved in two lengthy discussions about which genres to include on Garbage articles (here and here). He's a lone voice among at least a dozen editors who support the inclusion of genres he doesn't agree with. And now he wants to use this source ([101]) to cite three different articles as electronic rock, alternative rock and industrial rock, while even admitting that this source doesn't include what he's trying to attribute to it and accusing me of cherrypicking. And regarding his accusations of me having BADFAITH against him, that all stems from this discussion about Curve. I made two edits to that topic, and even though I was agreeing with his position, he still ended up making a soapbox reply where he effectively called me a biased Curve fan (in his post dated 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) - I couldn't find the matching diff in the history). Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages. While I understand that genres are particularly ambiguous and the source of much frustration, there is no rush. Kuru (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelHolmes36 reported by User:Omnedon (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[108]
[109]

Comments:

Originally this user's efforts to add a non-notable person to an article were countered by another editor (DualFreq) with explanations in the edit summaries. This evening this user made edits which seem to amount to vandalism, removing referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material, and which were reverted by both DualFreq and by myself. When warned on the user's talk page to stop edit warring, the user ignored this warning and continued reverting. Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the original issue: but MichaelHolmes36 deleting this thread [110] doesn't look good... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a one-time editor and viewer I see no reason in this editor's editing. They added unnecessary spaces for a template. In addition they removed references in the history then adds the unreferenced section template which totally out of this world. I've seen the history and this user engages themselves in true edit warring by reverting whatever an editor reverted from their edit. I reverted their edit once from my part, but they have reverted me too. I want to revert again, but I believe I've reached my limit. This person needs to be stopped. This is vandalism from my perspective. Callmemirela (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.198.187.238 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Blocked)

Page: Steung Treng Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.198.187.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Oddar Meanchey Province. (TW)"
04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steung Treng Province. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Other Cambodia-related articles are involved as well (for example Oddar Meanchey Province. User will not communicate or even use the edit summary. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[112]
[113]
[114]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
I changd the order of the page after adding a section because a comment left by someone in a rfc above pointed out that the order wasnt correct, but the order of the sections was not part of the rfc. I made a comment in the edit that it was to changed it how the order of the lede. Doc James reverted without any reasoning in the comments to the edit to the old order. I copied in the section in order to change it back it back and didnt even finish because its a big edit and I needed to do it in stages because of the size of my screen. I warned him he had made 2 reverts in 24 hours and the 3rr rule. I then was able to revert once. He then reverted it for a third time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinoFerret (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)changes His actions may not violate the 3 revert rule. But they are clearly edit warring, even making changes before the final editing was done in the second instance, so that was no way to know what the end product would have been, he just wanted his version. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC) The ac[reply]

User:Adroit09 reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:

Note that there were similar problems involving this user on this article back in February 2014, as can be seen on the contributor's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been making significant reverts without discussion [[124]]. A stand-alone article was redirected with clumsy explanations. On being confronted, the user has resorted to posting policy guidelines without looking into the matter. The basic Wiki belief of assuming good-faith has been violated. Also, before reverting, the user made no attempt to discuss on Talk:List of Khandelwal Gotras. The user Sitush has chosen to go for deletion of all the painstakingly put information in one go. Adroit09 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been past discussions, as I indicated above. There was also some related discussion at Talk:Khandelwal_Vaishya, where you were very misguided. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You started with deleting all the content. [125] You then redirected it without discussing on Talk page. [126] I reverted the redirect [127]. You reverted it again citing references are not reliable. You didn't choose to use refimprove but decided to do a blank clean and redirect. Even after adding citations, you continue to revert first blindly and then citing clumsy reasons. The references are supposed to be judged on context WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You could go through the edit history and summary here. [128]

Revision as of 19:54, 25 October 2014 edit Sitush (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 260,182 edits →‎User:Adroit09 reported by User:Sitush (Result: ): r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:12, 25 October 2014 edit undo Adroit09 (talk \| contribs) 448 edits →‎User:Adroit09 reported by User:Sitush (Result: ): Replied Next edit →
Line 715:		Line 715:

	::There have been past discussions, as I indicated above. There was also some related discussion at [[Talk:Khandelwal_Vaishya]], where you were very misguided. - [[User:Sitush\|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush\|talk]]) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)		::There have been past discussions, as I indicated above. There was also some related discussion at [[Talk:Khandelwal_Vaishya]], where you were very misguided. - [[User:Sitush\|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush\|talk]]) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

			::: You started with deleting all the content. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Khandelwal_Gotras&diff=597268752&oldid=595110940] You then redirected it without discussing on Talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Khandelwal_Gotras&diff=next&oldid=597268752] I reverted the redirect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Khandelwal_Gotras&diff=next&oldid=597268818]. You reverted it again citing references are not reliable. You didn't choose to use refimprove but decided to do a blank clean and redirect. Even after adding citations, you continue to revert first blindly and then citing clumsy reasons. The references are supposed to be judged on context [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]]. You could go through the edit history and summary here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Khandelwal_Gotras&action=history]

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