Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:51, 10 September 2011

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: No action)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Capital letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (his first removal of the comet example)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Long standing version:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: already warned the last time he made these reverts, has been blocked 6 times already for 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#comet_and_galaxy_examples

Comments:

Dicklyon was blocked 1 week for 3RR in a guideline, removing some examples that didn't support his position in a content dispute 3RR/N thread. Now that his block has expired, he has reverted again, claiming that he is reverting back to the long-standing text. In reality, he is using all the long-standing text except the examples that he had tried to remove. In other words, he was just continuing the exact same removals under a different excuse.

In his second revert he changes his rationale, claiming, in a perversion of WP:BRD, that the long-standing examples have to be removed because they are "contested".

Discussion continues at the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note I took a quick look at this and am going to wait and review this later and/or let someone else review it later to see how it unfolds; seems a little early. In the meantime, any other admin is free to take action. slakr 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The upper/lower-case thing is something I haven't formed a definitive line on yet, at least in this difficult and subtle case. I reverted User:Enric Naval's edit, once, a few days ago, because it didn't make any sense grammatically: I just couldn't work out exactly what was intended; in addition, I wasn't sure whether the two examples were optimal (although I believe his claim that they were in the guideline before this instability started). I left an apology to him at the talk page for having to revert, which was met with an angry templated message on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring (I hardly think so). Enric Naval should cut fellow editors a bit more slack, I think.

The page appears to be stable in the long-term, so you might consider protection for three days or a week and a request that both users cool it ... take a break and return to calmly discuss it, or not at all. Tony (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for Dicklyon asking him to comment here. So far his only response to this issue was to delete the 3RR notice from his talk page. He was previously blocked one week for revert warring on the same MOS page, and this report complains he is continuing the war. It is not easy for an outsider to MOS debates to even know what is going on here. One talk thread suggests to me that the parties might be close to agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is just Enric being dramatic, as his first report was; I welcomed the week off, though I thought it was absurd to interpret what happened as edit warring; go back and look at the the comments from Trovatore, the guy I was supposedly edit warring with, and the discussions that were ongoing at the time. What happened in the meantime is that it became very clear that the approach I was promoting didn't have consensus in the astronomy community, where usage in sources and opinions among wikipedia editors are split 50-50. Given that, it seemed rather presumptuous for Enric to claim that it was settled in his favor and put back the contested examples as if they were agreed prototypes. So I reverted him once after he reverted Tony. I'm staying out of it now. The thing he calls "first revert" was also an undoing of a bit of his pushing for non-consensus policy. If that's what we mean by continuing to edit war, by all means please block me for a month or two, as I need to get some work done. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dick, if you believe that consensus on the talk page favors your position, can you state what the consensus is? And can you give the names of one or two people who agree with you? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Dick said there was no consensus pro or con - that the community was split 50-50. I was one of those supporting his proposal. Jojalozzo 23:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So if there was really no consensus, what should happen? Does anyone want to open an RfC? If there is no volunteer to create an RfC, how about reinstating the previous version of the guideline? EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably some broad RfC or two. First, to see if we can converge on general principles for deciding what is to be treated as a proper noun; depending on how that comes out, maybe more to see if we need specific exceptions for things like astronomy to follow the style of the IAU, and dog breeds to follow the style of the AKC, instead of following the WP style of not over-capitalizing. But I won't be able to take this on; too busy in RL. I thought it was going to be easy based on the discussion we were having at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#When_is_something_a_proper_noun?, but I pushed too far too fast and raised the immune system, so we should probably wait for the inflammation to go down. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that Dicklyon has agreed to a way of resolving this. I hope one of the parties will explain on the guideline talk page what has transpired. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The latest general discussion on the problem is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital letters#Capitalization more generally. Hopefully Enric will not get back to restoring contested examples until it's worked out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:98.88.176.242 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: User already blocked)

Page: WXIA-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.88.176.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (edit summary: he the man)
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (edit summary: stop deleting this man.)
• 4th revert: (edit summary: I WILL CONTINUE TO ADD THIS PERSON FOREVER SO YOU BETTER BLOCK ME OR LOCK THE PAGE!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Edit summary requesting the user take it to the talk page, however, I admit I didn't actually start a talk page discussion myself.)

Comments:
No additional comments at this time. - SudoGhost 05:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP has resumed their editing without discussion, continuing the inserting the exact same edit as soon as the block expired. - SudoGhost 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected This typically requires a new report, however I have protected the page, seeing as the IP clearly has no desire to follow any socially-acceptable activities (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:112.198.79.3 and other IPs reported by User:Lagrange613 (Result: semi-protected)

Page: Panitan, Capiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 112.198.79.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 112.198.79.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , , , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This IP user (jumping addresses but it's the same user) has persisted in adding encyclopedic content and ignored numerous warnings from other editors. No talk page participation at all. At its peak the article was >391KB, mostly a list of resolutions passed by the local government. It's presently >227KB. Semi-protection and/or a range block may be warranted, especially considering the range's long history of disruption. (See User talk:112.198.79.1, User talk:112.198.79.2, User talk:112.198.79.3, User talk:112.198.79.4, User talk:112.198.79.207....) Lagrange613 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: With this revert of Biker Biker, the article is now >402KB. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The content is clear copyright violation in addition to being utterly trivial. I have listed the page at WP:RPP for semi-protection, which would stop this editing pattern in its tracks. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a content dispute - I've semi-protected the page. Kuru (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:K.yusifov reported by User:Movses (Result: warned)

Page: Sari Gelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K.yusifov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

--Movses (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The warning you gave him is for removing content, not for edit warring. It is possible he's just not aware of the policy. I'll leave him a warning and will watch the page for a response. Kuru (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Redeightyone reported by User:Moneywagon (Result: Declined)

Page: Millhaven Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redeightyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user continually adds unreferenced material, and completely falsified information, when i attempt to correct his additions, he reverts back and replaces his information with other completely false information, getting really annoying to have him continuously changing the information for my place of work

You must notify Redeightyone of this report or it will not be considered. It appears you did not give him a 3RR warning either. You left a personal attack 'full of shit' in this edit summary, which doesn't get you off on a good start if you want to complain to admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The last edit by Redeightyone was over 6 days ago. GB fan please review my editing 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Per above. No warning was given, and the last edit by User:Redeightyone to the page in question was nearly a week ago. FASTILY 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hillcountries reported by User:Blackknight12 (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hillcountries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: as of 12:59, 23 August 2011

• 1st revert: 18:26, 23 August 2011 (tags and section)
• 2nd revert: 12:20, 24 August 2011
• 3rd revert: 01:42, 8 September 2011
• 4th revert: 11:51, 8 September 2011
• 5th revert: 13:40, 9 September 2011

• 1st revert: 23:09, 23 August 2011 (nation)
• 2nd revert: 12:35, 24 August 2011
• 3rd revert: 01:26, 8 September 2011
• 4th revert: 12:23, 8 September 2011
• 5th revert: 13:35, 9 September 2011

• 6th revert: 14:09, 9 September 2011 (both)
• 7th revert: 14:52, 9 September 2011
• 8th revert: 15:25, 9 September 2011

This user is involved in a dispute with other users, including myself, in which he is smearing the Sri Lanka article with civil war related POV and terrorist related propaganda. Until recently he was not willing to settle these disputes and even in a two week protection of the page, which I requested for, he did not appear to defend his edits but rather commented on the edits of other users, digressing from the whole dispute.

The Island nation/state dispute may seem stupid but it is this users way of questioning the sovereignty of Sri Lanka because the LTTE, the terrorist organisation involved in the civil war, lost. He is simply following the propaganda of that terrorist organisation, as seen here in a pro terrorist website. He also clearly states here and here that he is adding his point of view into the article even though editors, including me, have told him he can not do that.

He has also started other edit wars on the following articles: Anula of Sri Lanka, Mahasiva of Sri Lanka, Suratissa of Sri Lanka, Uttiya of Sri Lanka, Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka and Mutasiva of Sri Lanka

This user has been warned twice before me, for the month of May and June.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My warning to him. and warning by user Tbhotch

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Our attempt to resolve the dispute is on the Sri Lanka talk page Talk:Sri Lanka#Island nation

Comments:

• Page protected Upon review, there appear to be multiple editors involved in this edit war. -FASTILY 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I don't think a page protection will do much to stop this and other users, there had been one in place for two weeks before and none of the uses bothered to discuss, but only to argue.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:113.165.27.53 reported by User:Yoenit (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Game of Thrones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.165.27.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none yet

Comments:
Material is bordering on vandalism, but IP does not appear to be a vandal. Yoenit (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by 75.80.58.122 (Result: page protected)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lanix&oldid=449136512

I realize that he has not reverted over 3 times yet but he always does this same thing and I have kept it at his incorrect edit until the issue is resolved as to avoid disrupting the article

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In the talk page you can see all of the issues people have had with him. While he has contributed some postivie things such as weeding out innapropriate citations he has also done far more harm to the article.

Comments:

This editor seems to have a grudge with the company and has tried to have it deleted when he couldnt get his way. He has edit wared this page multiple times and always tries to delete information he dosent like even if it is cited. Inversly he inserts his own incorrect uncited gues works and imposes his incorrect information upon others and even admits that he inserts uncited information and then to defend it states that it is better written, this is a repeat pattern for him: This is an exchange between the two of us regarding him inserting incorrect uncited information.

My copy is better written. Let's change it back and then start adding citations at my copy, ok? The extra info. can be added later, but my copy is better written so that's what should show up when someone reads it. Fleetham (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think one version is more well written than the than the other but the other gives much more information and your edit breaks the article up into poorly selected sections which dont provide a very detailed view of the company.75.80.58.122 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to the page, however, and I will keep them in the article even if some are uncited. My copy is better written than the one I edited. My version removes all uncited numbers, too, which is crucial. Fleetham (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He also outrights lies and states that there is a concensous in his favor constatnly however if you examine the talk page it is obvious that half the time he says this it is not true.

He has been banned multiple times for editwarring the page with incorrect information and inserting conjecture.

Recently Fleetham has started another baseless edit war on the Lanix page. I added it to the catgory "mobile phone manufacturers" and he said that Lanix isn't a mobile phone manufacturer despite Lanix that they make all their own products. He's saying that Lanix's claims that they manufacture phones are not good enough, despite there being multiple links to Lanix's mobile phone division. He also brought in to question whether Lanix made the first domestically succesful computer so I added a citation to back this up and he then deleted it and then said there is no citation! He is being downright underhanded and dishonest!

He has displayed this same editing pattern for months now and there have been numerous attempts by both users and admins to get him to stop which only stop him for a limited amount of time

In addition he keeps saying "please don't revert, it is impolite" but hypocritically keeps doing it himself and outright ignore citations including ones from sources such as CNN, the official Lanix website and Telmex!

If you look through his his talk page you will see he has been blocked for doing this sort of stuff to the Lanix page multiple times in the past, and multiple editors and adminstrator shave condemed his actions and keep telling him he is wrong by providing cited arguments to back up their claims while he has added a lot of his own guess work. He only listens to ciations when they suit him and will not accept others viewpoints. Myself and other editors have gotten very tired of dealing with this behavior and am requesting some form of admin action be taken. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Both of you are at 3 reverts; I've protected the page for a short period to prevent further edit warring. There seems to be an active discussion on the talk page. Please resovle issues before reveting back and forth. I've glanced over the discussion, but the primary sources seem to be offline at the moment; I'll leave a note there. Kuru (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: No action)

Page: Planet of the Symbiotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Darkwarriorblake: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made an edit to clean up the Planet of the Symbiotes page. This was followed by Dwb's first revert. I made my first revert trying to explain what I was fixing. His second revert was the start of his aggressive/inappropriate language. I made a second revert with further explanation coincidentally with starting a discussion. His THIRD revert made accusations of me having a personal agenda despite his violation of the 3RR making it obvious he has a personal agenda here. Spidey104 20:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Um, you do know that you were also edit-warring, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped at two reverts and started a discussion. I realize my reverts were part of starting an edit war, which is why I started the discussion to hopefully end it. He didn't let the discussion temporarily end the edit war to seek a resolution and he violated the three reverts rule. As past history has shown, he still should be given a warning for violating the three revert rule. That's all I'm asking for, because his edit summaries obviously show he will not listen to a warning from me. (Mediation in the discussion would probably be helpful as well.) Spidey104 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR puts the baseline at reverting more than three times, not reverting just three times. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I sometimes forget that it should be called the Four revert rule instead (like how we call it a three strike rule for repeat criminals). Can we at least get some mediation? Spidey104 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal agenda was the referencing style, see "Moving the references where they are supposed to be", which implies they were in an incorrect place to start with. I started the article and as the major contributor at the time used the referencing style most suitable to me while still using an acceptable referencing style. As the major contributor I continued to use that style as it was most useful to me. You altered that style without any reason other than it is "supposed to be" which infringes my ability to continue working with the article while using an acceptable referencing style. Despite this, I took onboard part of your edit to alter the visual appearance of the references as they did not look right with so few. Continuing, you altered the referencing style again claiming that "all" other articles employ this method, later citing GAs to back this up, though where the references are doesn't have any bearing on this as one of my major contributions Scream (film) can attest. I sent another contribution List of Scream characters up for FL, one of their many complaints did not include the fact that the references are not in the main body. Thus I can only assume that it is a personal preference of yours, something you admitted on my Talk page. So I don't see why mediation is required, this is not a contentious issue, you wish to change the referencing style, you are unable to provide an adequate reason for why your style is preferable over the current style. Without providing a reason beyond 'because', there should be no cause for further edits or reverts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The editors are now discussing the matter at User talk:Darkwarriorblake. The placement of references needs consensus like anything else. A two-party revert war could lead to sanctions against *both* parties if it resumes. The submitter claimed that Darkwarrior used inappropriate language but I did not see any. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Geremia reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week)

Page: Abortion and mental health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geremia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: (restores AAPLOG material after it was removed)
• 2nd revert: (restores AAPLOG material after it was removed)

Abortion-related articles are under 1RR.

User's block for edit-warring on this very same article (subsequently extended for sockpuppetry on said article) expired about twelve hours ago, so he's obviously aware of the sanctions and of the policy against edit-warring.

Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing, but there's general agreement that undue weight is being given to one study representing a minority position.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See also here. MastCell  04:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 1 week. Repeated 1RR violation on the same article. The person chose to evade the previous block using IPs. If this editor truly has no intention of following Misplaced Pages policies, he should consider another pursuit. Some other links that are relevant to this complaint are:

• Coren's last chance offer to Geremia
• Previous 3RR report,
• Log of actions under the Abortion general sanctions.
• Details about the block evasion.
• User talk:Coren#Geremia: A dialog which led to this dispute being filed as a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

Page: List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

Previous version reverted to: 14:56, 8 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Kaley Cuoco's broken leg */ rmv unecessary section, covered at the article heading")

• 1st revert: 13:28, 9 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Kaley Cuoco's broken leg */ revert. It is pretty well covered in not only the header, but the episodes she was absent in. Unecessary")
• 2nd revert: 13:43, 9 September 2011 (edit summary: "justifies nothing. Unimportant event that only affected a few episodes does NOT entitle seperate section. Covered in header and episodes.")
• 3rd revert: 19:01, 9 September 2011 (edit summary: "rmv disputed content until a consensus is reached")
• 4th revert: 22:24, 9 September 2011 (edit summary: "content still omitted until consensus.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Rusted AutoParts chose to remove content from List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) because it was covered in the lede. Since the lede is only supposed to summarise the article, and not replace the article body, I reverted, explaining why in my edit summary. Rusted AutoParts then reverted, arguing that it was covered in the episode summaries. As this was the reason the content was originally added, I reverted and directed him to the talk page in my edit summary. After Rusted AutoParts reverted again I left a message on his talk page, asking him to discuss the edits, and then initiated a discussion on the article's talk page. Rusted AutoParts then made a single comment on the talk page, but, despite a reply by me and comments by other editors (all in support of retention of the content), has made no further attempt to discuss. When he reverted a third time, I left a personalised (i.e. non-template) 3RR warning on his talk page, noting that he had previously been warned about breaching 3RR. Despite this, Rusted AutoParts made his 4th revert nearly 2.5 hours later, breaching 3RR at that time..

--AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nightspore reported

User:Nightspore reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Brandeis University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nightspore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Two different editors have discussed this behavior on the editor's Talk page and on our own Talk pages to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring