Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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)
1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Swetoniusz reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2] (personal attack in the edit summary)
[3]
[4]
[5] (after being reminded on the ongoing debate on the Talk page)
[6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] (He/she deleted it: [8])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1) By Surtsicna [9] and the debate remained unclosed [10]. (2) By myself [11], [12].

Comments: I know that technically he/she did not violate WP:3RR, but I think his/her attitude suggests that he/she does not understand the basic principles of cooperation and tend to treat other editors' edit as a personal attack. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user shows no intention to cooperate with others and has quite literally ignored (on several talk pages) all of my pleas to read WP:BRD. His/her idea of editing is to bully others into accepting his/her edits through endless reverting and bizarre comments that leave other editors dumbfounded. In this case, I reverted an edit of his/hers with an explanation, only to be told to "stop demaged this article". I then directed the user to WP:BRD and the talk page discussion I had started, but got the same kind of incoherent nonsense as before. He/she has already indicated that he/she sees any interference with his editing (by anyone) as destroying his work. That persistent kind of attitude and incomprehensibility of his comments leaves me wondering how to interact with him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And saying "shame on you", while entirely unhelpful, is still not a personal attack. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Musashi miyamoto reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [13] - undone by Arianewiki1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[14], undone by Arianewiki1 with request to go to talk page
[15], undone by me
[16], undone by me
[17], after many warnings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] on user talk, and later after multiple warnings and explanations [19] on article talk.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and the entire thread there. Four editors disagree with addition of content: Arianewiki1, ~~Paradoctor~~, PaleoNeonate, Jordgette, and me.

This is incorrect, because at the time of adding this report there was already a consensus between me and Paradoctor and no-one objected to this consensus, apart from DVDm, but he did it by mistake and later apologised for it, hence the reasons to make this report and blockage, as well as his revert has not existed. So since that time there have been 2 people for the edits and 0 against them.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I did not disagree with the additions. More to the point, I think this issue was mishandled, and ended up as a fight over the WP:WRONGVERSION. Musashi miyamoto was responsive, and given a more issue-focused approach this would have ended with consensus, rather than a block. :/ Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, made a mistake there. Corrected now. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi miyamoto did indeed break 3RR on the article. See the discussion at the article talk page, which I don't interpret as a consensus in his favor. The reference for the change he proposes is a single primary source available as a preprint on Arxiv.org, which usually would not be viewed here as a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you said above is incorrect - for explanations why see my talk page (in particular my 2 replies to Hoan and a reply to DVDm in respect to your comment).Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adrin10 reported by User:Weatherextremes (Result: Warned user(s))

Comments:Please check this article since Adrin10 has been reverting and edit warring even though I asked him many times to resolve the content dispute. I have remained calm and tried to make constructive edits to no avail. I am also suspecting sock puppetry but I can not be certain Weatherextremes (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user often add promotional and misleading content, sometimes even hoaxes.--Adrin10 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has again reverted refusing to collaborate on the exact content of the resolution Weatherextremes (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the latest revert by Adrin10 [21] [[User:Weatherextremes|Weatherextremes] (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warned — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert [22], which I reverted before seeing this report. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edits of this IP [23] seem like Adrin10's sock puppets Weatherextremes (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another revert [24] Acroterion Weatherextremes (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again [25] Weatherextremes (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am barred from taking administrative action since I reverted. I suggest some level of protection on the article, since it has an influx of new accounts with possible COIs, in addition to any individual editor sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:LFdoR reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[27] edit summary: "Added reliable source containing the background, a detailed description, an in-depth analysis, related audiovisuals and images, and the credits of the film's title sequence, of which it also attest to its relevance"
[28] edit summary: "Are you serious? A same reference can be used to support different information. Why did you delete a valid and properly sourced edit? Why is it unnecessary? The NIN song "Closer" is credited in the film's end credit crawl"
[29] edit summary: "Are you a marriage of vandals? My edits are solid. I don't have reason to chat with you or with your... Which of you is the alpha? Missing preposition "on" added to a specific date"
[30] edit summary: "Stay cool? When YOU, and your alter egos, have been systematically deleting EACH AND EVERY of my edits without giving any valid reason? WP:DONTREVERT. You are hovering on the edge of vandalism. The job title is merely descriptive"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] (no response)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on ~~article~~ user's talk page: [32] (no respose)

Diff of 3RRNB notification: [33]

Comments:
Please note that this user was reverted by 3 different editors, as such this is a one-way edit-war. The user did not create a discussion on the article talk, nor did he respond to posts to his user talk page. His history shows that has virtually never posted a talk page comment. He has posted quotes, made minor changes to other edits, but no discussion to be found at all. Instead, as is plain to see, he prefers to hash out issues via edit-warring edit-summaries, sometimes descending into vitriol and personal attacks. This user is not only uncooperative, but angry and is taking it out on fellow editors and the article, with persistent disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 04:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours for edit-warring, refusal to communicate and assumptions of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi Love edit-warring against consensus at Targeted Killing (Result: Warned user)

Mitsubishi love has a negligible contribution to wikipedia, registering on Dec 10 2017 at Targeted killing to add his voice to at that time basically a revert war conducted by one editor and an I/P. Since then they have shown themselves to be basically a SPA, with 41 edits over 40 days, 30 of them reverting of argufying without much knowledge of the rules, and basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government.

I set up a RfC on 14 December at Targeted killing re the inclusion or exclusion of material on the Philippines. The page was placed under protection shortly afterwards by an admin, User:Coffee. The result was:-

Exclude.

Include.

Additional facts.

(a) During the RfC User:Dr.K.. replying to Mitsubishi’s desire to change the definitions governing the page (which allow inclusion) suggested that editors seek consensus first, before making alterations. Secondly he reverted Mitsubishi for adding sources that were patently in violation of a wikipedia protocol.

(b) One of the editors desiring the material to be excised from the article as the RfC got underway, namely, User:STSC, made a protected edit request, desiring to excise the material while the page was locked in.

This was turned down by User:MSGJ who stated: ‘please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit protected template.’

The page was then placed under another protection template by another admin, User:Only as a result of the edit-warring this removalism engendered during the RfC.

STSC had been turned down, so he waited 2 weeks, and just went ahead, as the page was protected, ignored the advice, and reverted the material out twice. It was restored. He was warned that he must note remove the material while the RfC was in process.

After a month had elapsed the protection template lapsed, and Mitsubishi, notwithstanding the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus, 3 times within 24 hours, within the 3R technical limit but patently asserting a right to game it.

I would suggest this evidence is more than abundantly sufficient to have them banned from that page.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask this, not as an attempt to prove a point, but because I don't know the answer - is an RFC a vote? I assumed it was an attempt to gain consensus, and if none was gained, then it went to other forms of dispute resolution.

Also, it seems a little strange for an account that has reverted the article twice within 24 hours, to suggest that an account that reverted the article three times within 24 hours, is as guilty of edit warring and gaming. Especially, when you look at the timing. To revert an article, then report someone for reverting, then revert the article again and then go back to the report, shows a total lack of respect for the spirit of the rules. Excuse me if I lack the terminology to explain that, I'm sure there is some relevant Wikipedia jargon for that sort of behavior, but it just looks like someone who is complaining about reverts, in between doing the same themself.

Also the claim of "basically advocating on behalf of the integrity of the present Philippines government." is highly offensive and more importantly wrong. this edit and this edit show that I agree with this content being on Wikipedia - how can it be suggested that I'm taking part in some attempt to hide these killings, when I have made the following comments

"The deaths of drug users in the Philippines belongs on Wikipedia. That is not disputed. It belongs on the Rodrigo Duterte article, the Philippine Drug War article, the Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines article and the Extrajudicial killing article."

"Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", "with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject."?

That is just an attempt to attack my character as an editor, by accusing me of some government alliance, when it's just a few people arguing over if content fits the definition of a particular article or not.

Also, one minor point - can the editor who filed this report, please link to "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" because while that is present on the other reports on this page, I can't see it on this report. Mitsubishi love (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress.--NSH001 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the material excised after making this report, because its place there does not depend on the outcome of this complaint, since it (a) was stable, there since September until December (b) there when the RfC began (c) external editors commented that consensus was required for its removal (d) the vote was 4 to 3 for retention. Throughout this, attempts were made by the minority to remove the material, and persist despite the outcome of the RfC. Now let us have impartial input. Mitsubishi's 3 reverts are an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC, and rather than be sucked into that game, I restored the status quo, and reported him. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001 you state that: "The simple fact remains that it is wrong for Mitsubishi to re-start the edit war while an RfC is still in progress" - but this complaint is based on claims that "the RfC vote of 4 to 3 in favour of exclusion, has once more gone ahead and excised the material against that consensus" - so which is it? Was the RfC finished and there was clear consensus? was it finished and there was no clear consensus? or was the RFC still in progress? This edit warring report, was based on the assumption that there was clear consensus to retain the disputed content, if your opinion is that there wasn't clear consensus, as the RFC hadn't finished, then thank you, I agree with you, there was no clear consensus.

Also, you reverted immediately after me. You didn't add anything to the talk page, you didn't message me, you just reverted. The difference between you and your tag team, meat puppet buddy Nishidani reverting and me reverting is what? Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi, I reverted you because you were wrong to re-start the edit war while the RfC was still in progress; in addition there was no justification nor consensus for you to do so on the talk page. For clarification, the RfC is definitely still in progress, but if it were closed now, it would be closed as no consensus for the change you wish to make. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani was the RFC completed with clear consensus? Excuse my naivety but 4/3 doesn't seem like clear consensus in the slightest. If my three reverts were "an invitation to restart the chaos that preceded the RfC" then what where the three reverts made by yourself and your tag team meat puppet NSH001? It seems as if your claims about my reverts are based purely on very weak claims of consensus and the fact that you don't like my content. This belongs in some form of dispute resolution, as the majority of your claims are closely related to content not conduct. Mitsubishi love (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from turning this into a re cycled version of the talk page. I have outlined my evidence, you have replied. Walls of text disincentivate input from third parties, as chatter, perhaps not inadvertently, tend to bury the issue. So let us wait for third parties to weigh in, please.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if a report is made regarding my conduct, and you continue to make points on that report, then of course I will respond as and when I deem necessary. Would you prefer it if I didn't respond to the claims you made in your previous comments? I'm sure you would, but obviously that wouldn't be in my best interests. Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi love, please explain this edit summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well apologies to you both. I tried to reformat my complaint, but (a) I'm notoriously stupid with doing anything technical outside of page construction, including making complaints, which is why I do that so rarely and (b) completely stuffed up 2 attempts to reformulate this since (c) the template doesn't cover the bases. I guess I'll just have to put up with this mess.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: The decline is purely technical; we are still reviewing the users edits to see if any administrative action is needed at this time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that, hence my apology for wasting your time. It is one of my failings to be unable to get this tired brain interested in the technical side of editing, and I've only myself to blame. However since Mitsubishi love, below, has declared he will leave that page I guess this complaint can be dropped or archived. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi love, I still would like an answer to my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Mitsubishi love: do not by any means think my declining of a malformed report means in any way that you aren't required to reply to my colleague, NeilN. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a second, it's getting lost in edit conflicts... Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. As per the talk page in the box above the comments: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles"

The first line of the disputed content states: "The practice has been adopted by the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte" in regards to targeted killings.

That seems to be clearly talking about a living person and basically accusing them of mass-murder. (An accusation, that I would agree with, but still enough to make it highly controversial in regards to BLP rules) Mitsubishi love (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duterte was cited for promising to, or inciting his police to, assassinate people, with multiple sourcing from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that several thousand people have been shot dead after he took power. To state that is not a BLP violation. Were it so, nothing in notable Human Rights NGO Reports on contemporary massacres or killings could be reported in Wikipedia as long as the presidents or dictators of the country where they are executed are stil living. This has been amply explained elsewhere, and editors should not use WP:BLP to protect . Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi love, BLP is not magic fairy dust, allowing you to remove content you don't like. Although you've been active on the talk page for over a month, this is the first time that I can see you mentioning BLP issues. I'm pointing you towards WP:GAME and warning you that any further reverts along the same lines could result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are notorious for bias. (actually there are entire wikipedia articles devoted to their bias). The only reliable source I've seen is Time - and they don't refer to the killings as targeted killings. So yeah, it's a BLP issues. Even if it's debatable, then erring on the side of caution, when you're using someone's name seems sensible. However, is this an issue for discussion here, or best suited to the article talk page? Mitsubishi love (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - understood. That article is starting to seem like a waste of time anyway. Lots of stubborn editors (including myself) so I'm losing motivation to edit that particular article. But point taken regarding BLP and how it should be used. Mitsubishi love (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.198.138.49 reported by User:Besieged (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Turkish coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.198.138.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Turkish coffee. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly by myself and others yet continues to insist on blanking content as "absurd [...], missing proof" even though it is properly sourced and referenced, and the user has not even tried to engage on the article talk page, simply keeps reverting the blanking.

The user has several more reverts not listed here - I'm not sure why Twinkle is only giving me the option to tag just the last two from today and yesterday, but a review of the user's contributions shows a total of 7 edits since Jan 7, all of which are blanking the same content over and over. besieged^talk 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this after the fact and manually added the other user reverts. Given that I am mainly involved in anti-vandalism and do not have a direct involvement with the article, so I myself have not tried to engage the editor on the article talk page. As well, the editor has not responded in any way to warnings/notices placed on their talk page, and so from my standpoint doesn't seem too interested in discussion or improving the article, merely removing content that would apparently not agree with their perspective or point of view. The final straw for me, however, was that they reverted again today roughly 9 hours or so after having been given a final warning, using the same tired edit summary. besieged^talk 14:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure why in the Page Links summary above is showing the article talk page as being red linked as if it doesn't exist, but it definitely does. besieged^talk 14:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind thanks for the assist! Also, a small grin of amusement, given your user name and the subject of the article in dispute. besieged^talk 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Montanabw reported by User:AnotherDayAnotherWay (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=813527260

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Montanabw&diff=next&oldid=821549906 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_Spanish_Horse&diff=prev&oldid=821267099 A very disruptive user. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

No violation Not only has there been no attempt to resolve this at the article's talk page, but the reporting account is newly created. It looks like there's a content dispute at the page, but this report straddles the line of abuse of process. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not abuse of process. I think that you and Montanabw are meatpuppets TheDogHound (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - TheDogHound is now also Blocked for casting aspersions... they are also likely a sockpuppet of the user who made this report. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Information: A formal sockpuppet case has been raised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForSPI (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:ChocolateRabbit (Result: Declined)

Page: List of Minnesota Vikings seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1 1
2 2
3 3

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3rr

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has received previous blocks in the last 11 years for previous behavior. Block log -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 15:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user clearly has nothing better to do than to harass other editors. As soon as the situation regarding that article was explained to me, I ceased editing it. My last edit to that page was the best part of a week ago. Please go bother someone else, ChocolateRabbit. – Pee Jay 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I suggest that ChocolateRabbit think a bit more carefully about accusing others of edit warring, considering his history only yesterday of disruptive editing on Michael Ballack (see here). WP:BOOMERANG probably applies. – Pee Jay 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined A report for three reverts that happened days ago? ChocolateRabbit, please stop wasting admins' time. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NeilN, I've warned ChocolateRabbit about edit warring over piping today, and also about using admin boards to further content disputes against other people today. If I had seen this, I would have considered blocking for disruptive editing, but I think this should be a warning to them that further disruption on Wikipedia and wasting of admin and other users time is likely to result in a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: Noted and agreed. They're pretty quick with the archive button too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @NeilN: Warning heeded. Thanks for the information. Cheers -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:STKS91 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Diff of 3RRNB notice: [41]

Comments:

The Individual reporting me has not joined the talk page or contributed to the discussion. His previous reverts even included mention of "fan boys". The user is likely to be a (Personal attack removed). STKS91 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Tried to engage with this user but he insists on removing sourced content for original research. He was made clear of all relevant policies, and warned of the possible outcome of cont'd edit-warring, but he cont'd anyway. - ^theWOLFchild 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A published interview accessible on a respected industry website, with the head engineer of the specific project, is not classified as original research. Unfortunately this conversation should have been had on the talk page of the article - something the individual has not yet joined, preferring undo's and reporting. I am yet to read a counter-argument. STKS91 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it seems that the user reporting me is making these undo's to defend his own edits on the 12th January - which he made without seeking consensus. I would encourage the user to join the talk page to avoid these issues in future. STKS91 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

First off, you have more "undo's" than I did. Second, I was busy adding comments, than notices to your talk page, as I am required to do, then I was filling out this report. I have now commented at the discussion on the article talk page, a discussion you should have started after the first time you were reverted. But you didn't start a discussion, you instead reverted, again, again and again.

A very important point you are missing here, is the content you changed was supported by a reliable source. It's not "unreliable" just because you say so. You need to take that up at RSN. And even if you have found a source with different information, doesn't mean you can automatically change the current sourced content, and it certainly does not justify you edit-warring. I would encourage you to self-revert and await the outcome of the talk page discussion, just the rules state you are supposed to do. - ^theWOLFchild 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(post edit conflict) - "Furthermore, it seems that the user reporting me is making these undo's to defend his own edits on the 12th January - which he made without seeking consensus" - I don't need to "seek consensus" to add updated, sourced information. That's how this project is built. (Personal attack removed) - ^theWOLFchild 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"personal attack removed"...? Pointing out that you have relatively few edits here and encouraging you to not make assumptions, but instead to take the time to read and learn the rules is not a "person attack". WP:NPA is another one of the rules here that you need to learn (then you wouldn't go around calling other editors "trolls" and inappropriately redacting user comments). - ^theWOLFchild 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just checked the "source" being relied on by STKS91. It turns out it doesn't even support his edit, so he has been edit-warring to add original research. See the article talk for more info. - ^theWOLFchild 23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:STKS91 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Consider WP:RSN if there is dispute about sources. Editors on the talk page appear to support the lower figure (65,000 tons) that was removed by STKS91. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: - Yeah... he was already "officially" warned (@16:04) by another admin after his third revert, but he went ahead and reverted again (@16:07) for a fourth time anyway. So, what's the point of all this? Why have a policy if it's not enforced? - ^theWOLFchild 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild has already already opened a discussion on my talk page. I suggest they continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: And yet, you haven't responded there in hours. But you respond here in minutes. Funny how that works. There really is no need for "discussion". Just put up the block you're supposed to and we can all move on. - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.173.15.133 reported by User:Kees08 (Result: Blocked 48 hours )

Page: Charles Moses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.173.15.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life */ :Global Media Journal"? reputable publishing or vanity house? Give me a break. Find others that say this anything but puffery?"
21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 821659847 by Hawkeye7 (talk) Is this what you consider a good source:"A Biography of Sir Charles Moses" by someone who no one knows?"
Consecutive edits made from 20:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC) to 20:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 20:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life */ inane statement"
2. 20:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "whoever wrote this please get a life..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Charles Moses. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing to edit disruptively despite warning. Warning recommended to the IP to bring discussion to the talk page. Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Kees08, ordinarily new editors/IPs need to be warned of WP:3RR and then reported here if they break it. However this and subsequent edits suggest they have some animus towards Hawkeye7 leading them to disrupt the article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NeilN Thanks, I have not issued a warning before or reported to this board. When I issued the warning, they were not at 3RR yet, just disprutive. Should I have issued a second warning once they hit 3 reverts, then waited to see if a fourth happened? Kees08 (Talk) 22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kees08: Generally, you can issue an edit warring warning (I assume you know what templates to use) any time an editor starts edit warring but typically warnings are issued after the third revert. A fourth revert should be reported to this board. Basically, we can't exactly sanction an editor for breaking a rule if they don't know that rule exists. I realize this IP is probably not a new editor and knows about 3RR but it's better to make sure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swazzo reported by User:Iñaki LL (Result: Warned user(s) and now blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here above

Comments:

I tried my best to explain and work out a consensus with the editor, he is unresponsive and keeps adding something in the sentence the source does not state. He did not engage in dispute resolution in DRN, just kept reverting. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The filing editor, User:Iñaki LL, has requested to engage in moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but User:Swazzo has not responded. I will be closing the thread at DRN because the issue is also being dealt with here. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Warned Swazzo is directed to continue to use dispute resolution mechanisms rather than just reverting. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN - Swazzo is still reverting to their own edits rather than discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Tersarius (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

Sockpuppet of User:Bosnipedian, indefinitely blocked but resurrecting again and again since early 2010. I would appreciate a permanent solution to this recurring problem because it is impossible to keep track of the hoaxes and accounts he creates. The User:Tersarius account has only been active on 28 March 2012, when he created this hoax, and 22 January 2018 (today). Normally I would say that this is disturbing, but the fact that this man invests so much energy into portraying himself as the King of Bosnia dispossessed by Vatican and Free Masons is much, much more chilling. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, as everything else coming from your lot of Freemasonry/papist lunatics who imagine are saving the world by enslaving it (all while turning Wikipedia into The Fake Encyclopedia): the coat of arms you are trying to hide (while insisting on a king's coat of arms instead of the House's!) is the only known coat of arms contemporary to House of Kotromanić, and the source is cited under the image. It's also stated under in the article Talk. Stop acting like you own Wikipedia. Tersarius (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel bad for ridiculing you. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding your WP:PA violation. Tersarius (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks A dormant account suddenly wakes up, makes enough edits to get auto confirmed, and then continues the edit war started by an IP. Quack, quack. Surtsicna, if you can post a couple diffs to my talk page showing a link to Bosnipedian, I'll make this block an indef. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed by MelanieN. The Freemasonry/papist lunatics are done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beshogur reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Blocked 1 week for this being their second time to violate 1RR)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[64] (a revert of this)
[65] (a revert of this)
[66] (a revert of this)
[67] (a revert of this)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [68]

Comments: These are the more obvious reverts. This is the second day in a row that this user violated 1RR on the Syrian Civil War related article. Not only that, this user has violated 3RR. The user knows that this article is a 1RR. I told them nicely that they should refrain from reverting so much and let him go the first time around. But the user keeps on reverting to a point of not only violating 1RR, but 3RR as well. And this isn't the first time this user has been blocked for 1RR, as recorded in their block log.

Reply: "garbage propaganda source"? Look, if you have a problem with the source, you can take it to the talk page of the article or to WP:RSN, but this should by no means allow you to keep pressing that revert button. Your response here is nothing but a presentation of a content dispute which is something that should, could, and would have been presented on the TP, but instead you kept reverting, reverting, and reverting. Which is why we're here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you keep adding irrelevant contents. What has Ottoman army band concert to do with this operation, while the article is coming from a garbage propaganda source as well.

About Erdogan's son and son in law. It's not true that they were in military operations room. Erdogan's son in law Selçuk Bayraktar (link) is Technic Director of "Baykar Makina" that produces UAVs for the Turkish military. And both of these guys were in UAV control room. Another piece of irrelevant propagan.da

Also the operation did started in 20 January 2018 according Turkish army statement. link I'm stating the text: “Zeytin Dalı Harekâtı” 20 Ocak 2018 saat 17:00'de başlatılmıştır.

I'm not edit warring, I'm trying to add recent and reliable sources. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week for this being their second time to violate 1RR — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pakmanuk786 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Rani Padmini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pakmanuk786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "For the umpteenth time changing from Muslims to the invaders name..."
22:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "Removing the religion of the invader whixh didn't seem pertinent, and instead naming the invader. I have asked the question many a time as to why his religion is more important than his name but seems users would much rather imply his religion was the..."
17:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "I have stated previously that this was a mistake or change. Maybe I should have been more clear, even though the change.i made wasn't in anyway derogatory. My first change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly expl..."
17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "I have stated previously that this was a mistake or change. Maybe I should have been more clear, even though the change.i made wasn't in anyway derogatory. My first change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly expl..."
17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
16:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
11:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
06:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
06:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC) ""
23:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
17:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rani Padmini. (TW)"
17:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Why is the religion of invader more important than the name? */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This new WP:SPA has repeatedly made only one edit, to remove the word "Muslim" from the sentence: Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a Hindu Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a Muslim invader. Initially it's as a rewording, but then several times simply removes the word. Polite talk page warnings from User:Dan Koehl [69], then me [70][71], then firmer warnings from User:David in DC [72], from me [73] and from User:Bellezzasolo [74], and finally a polite response from me to their first attempt at discussing the matter on their user talk page [75][76], all to no avail. Editor finally posts at the article talk page as advised [77], but it's mostly a complaint about how unreasonable other editors are being about these edits, then three minutes later performs the same revert [78]. I give up. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poeticbent reported by User:83.29.46.96 (Result: Semi)

[79]
[80]
[81] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.46.96 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain disruptive dynamic IP hopper without the working knowledge of English, trying to take advantage of the fact that I actually engage in conversation with him instead of filing WP:Vandalism in progress in order to get it over with quickly and painlessly. Poeticbent talk 05:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:BUNGEE here, and the sooner the better. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 05:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding this correctly, the IP is claiming that some governmental or statistical areas have changed? Anmccaff (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. The IP claims that Sosnowiec is not (!) a part of Silesian Metropolis ... and that is what his reverts of sourced data are all about. Except that he has issues with comprehension of text written in his mother tongue (not all that surprising considering the way things are going these days). See my post at Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian Metropolis where I copied verbatim the Polish government bill clearly stating that Sosnowiec is a part of Silesian Metropolis. The problem is not as much about his ignorance, but rather about his inability to normally communicate with other human beings. Poeticbent talk 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not correct, silesian association described in Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia has been dismantled and new association has been created with parliamentary bill: [82] and law issued by government: [83] which state this CLEARLY, and that is NOT 'silesian' metropolis as it's not called silesian at any point in law, and that is actually point of new regulation. Look at articles on pl.wiki [84] and [85] that state this actually.--83.29.46.96 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was "dismantled"! The original name was "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" (Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia). The new name (1 Jul 2017) is związek metropolitalny "Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolia" (Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia and Dąbrowa Basin). The element added was "Zagłębiowska" (Dąbrowa Basin). See the full text of the bill in Polish, at Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian Metropolis.

'Silesian' association has been removed as stated here: [86], you know polish language so stop your manipulations and lies because new association has new name and is based on different parliamentary and government regulations.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping revert warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blockade has been set without reference to obvious 'sourced data' which is present on pl.wiki and suprisingly (or rather not) isn't present on en.wiki.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.229.62.200 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [87] Jan 12 edit by same IP and [88] Jan 22 nearly-identical version, also by this IP

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3RR today using "ex convict"

And the earlier set of edits which used "convict" rather than "ex convict":

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] warning from the earlier set of edits

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tommy Sheridan#First_line of lede

Comments:

IP was blocked by user:Hut 8.5 for 48 hours on Jan 16 for disruptive edits (presumably for the first 9 edits to this article), Has now returned and broken 3RR anew. The only difference between this set of edits and the first set is that instead of labelling Sheridan a convict in the first line of the lede the IP is calling him an ex-convict. The talk page consensus is clear that it is not appropriate to put "convict" in the first line of the lede, and changing "convict" to "ex-convict" is not a significant change. I don't see any need to restart the warnings again before dealing with this. Meters (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JahlilMA reported by User:Loaka1 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:
User keeps removing the gallery on the basis that it is "ugly" while citing policies that they misunderstand. Loaka1 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thefinalchapter reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thefinalchapter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Two more from January 21 Twinkle didn't grab:

[109]
[110]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring with zero communication. Continuation of disruption dating back to the new year from multiple IP addresses from the same subnet:

2604:2000:2AD7:F700:7C9F:93AD:8A33:7860 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:7507:8075:5AC0:BD2B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:10A4:A06:467:7363 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:38F0:31D4:85AE:218F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:7961:D91F:D736:137A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:2472:9B67:3B23:4916 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:35BA:B65B:3FFE:8A54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:2000:2AD7:F700:DD5D:6BEB:A185:9678 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP dates back to 3 December 2017. See range contribs at [111]. Too lazy to link all from phone. Note that there are other accounts mashing disruptive changes on the page in question as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, CambridgeBayWeather has semi protected the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.146.207.74 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page: Choudenshi Bioman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.146.207.74 (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

13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
13:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on The Yogi Bear Show. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 month Block evasion, repeated vandalism... NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bah Black Sheep reported by User:Galatz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Comments:
The language the user is using in addition to edit warring is unacceptable. - Galatz ^Talk 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way y’all reporting people on this page is hilarious (my language is unacceptable 😂) go ahead on ban me it’s never this serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bah Black Sheep (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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