Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 13 October 2013

• 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:Sepsis II reported by User:Firkin Flying Fox (Result: Stale)

Page: Students for Justice in Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (page subject to 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AStudents_for_Justice_in_Palestine&diff=576210766&oldid=551987158
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASepsis_II&diff=523501541&oldid=523439274
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASepsis_II&diff=523516608&oldid=523505411 - this one is a finding by an administrator of a previous 1RR violation

Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls under WP:3RRNO - ]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filed this report. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing link to previous report, Sean. It appears Sepsis II was blocked twice already and aware of RR rules, thus escalating block appears appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agada will join any discussion going on, always in support of the pro-Israel extremists, even those who are banned sockmasters, six time indef blocked editors, etc. He should be ignored, perhaps his ban from joining in such discussions should be put back into force again. Sepsis II (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agada, I can see that might look appropriate if the objective is to unethically exploit a charity to wage a pointless and disruptive ethno-nationalist information war and to facilitate and reward sockpuppetry. To me, that approach looks more like throwing fuel on the fire rather than trying to put it out. Protecting the article seems like a better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, this sounds like WP:9STEPS. Editors should be reminded about WP:NPA. Sepsis II broke the rules and no doubt she/he was aware of it. Rules are rules and should be applied equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis II can simply self-revert, but curiously no one has asked him, so this is obviously not about the rules, it's about gaming to target a perceived enemy in a conflict that has nothing to do with this charity. It should be about minimizing the disruptive impact of manipulative and dishonest people on the project. It's profoundly dumb and counterproductive to reward those people for their lack of ethics and the enormous amount of disruption and conflict they cause. This has nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It's about using judgement, not allowing procedures to be contaminated and exploited by people fighting an information war and trying to stem the negative effects of sockpuppetry. I haven't even looked at what these guys are fighting about, I'm not interested. I've never even read the article. What is obvious is that almost every recent edit is by a sockpuppet, sockpuppets on both sides of the conflict. Sepsis II also has an outstanding issue regarding former accounts that is, no doubt, feeding the flames, that I described here at 19:38, 18 September 2013. Either way, block evading socks are not allowed to be here and they are not allowed to do anything at all. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet, astonishingly, time and time again, people facilitate and encourage block evasion despite the enormous cost to the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Sean. This is about rules and proper procedures. An editor can not revert edits he/she thinks were made by sock. If sock suspicion arises, WP:SPI is the proper venue and an investigation should be initiated. After the suspicion is confirmed, then, the known sock edits are to be reverted. Let's examine Sepisis II actions:

* Adds the identical content three times

* Does not take part in discussion of talk page

* Does not even consider to self revert

This noticeboard is about edit-warring I did not look into content dispute in hand. I am concerned about proper procedures to avoid yonder disruption. And after two blocks for identical reason '1RR violation' I don't see what is the alternative here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Stale Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Soylent Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Second version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. and calling my good-faith revert "vandalism". Δρ.Κ.  01:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Johnny hasn't violated 3RR, but his edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. The first set of edits related to a section which he regarded as trivia and wanted to label as such. The article was protected to facilitate discussion, which ended up being quite comprehensive. Some of us felt he had a point and that the section violated WP:DUE, and there was a suggestion to delete the section and simply add a link to the "See also" section. This proposal received consensus at Talk:Soylent Green#Straw poll on how to proceed including support from Johnny. However, once it was enacted he reneged on the agreement and started removing the link from "See also" (the second set of edits). If he genuninely objected to this proposal he should have spoken up, rather than supporting it so the discussion was closed under the impression that all parties were satisfied. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I don't have time to evaluate this now. As Betty said above, I locked the article at the end of September. That was based on a previous report here. For the benefit of other admins, I wanted to add (before I go to my real work) that I warned Johnny at the time. That warning, which Johnny removed (he pretty much removes everything from his talk page), is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would add that after Johnny pointed out in an unlikely-to-be-seen location that he felt the external link wasn't pertinent to the article even after discussion had run its course and a consensus had been reached, I pointed out that consensus had been reached on the options, that he could have added his idea as one of the options, and that he was welcome to open a new discussion if he wished to do so. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of the "minor edit" marking doesn't help. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours - edit warring against a multitude of users. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:92.145.77.139 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Temporary semi-protection/IPs blocked)

Page

Espresso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

92.145.77.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sock

92.145.197.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576471024 by Yworo (talk) wow, this is fun. looking for another block then?" Through sock IP 92.145.197.216
2. 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "(1) discussed ad nauseum on Talk (I was one of those engaged in the discussion over a year ago); (2) reasoning explained countless times; (3) consult any dictionary"
3. 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "if you want to have a discussion, i'm all ears. otherwise, cease."
4. 19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576187287 by Yworo (talk) see Talk, you're in the minority. And please stop posting me personal messages. thanks."
5. 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "NOT a misspelling - appears in numerous dictionaries - see discussion page for enormous amount of sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)"
6. 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• IP got blocked recently due to edit-warring on the same article. Δρ.Κ.  19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please note: This is not a 3RR violation technically. Rather this is a continuation of the edit-war this IP was blocked for a few days ago. Right after their block expired, the IP started the same edit-war they got blocked for in the first place. The IP refuses to engage on talk and instead reverts insinuating in their edit summaries that other editors don't understand linguistics etc.. Another admin has already warned the IP for starting the edit-war again: I think that the IP should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am also concerned about the cavalier attitude of the IP. Here is their reply to a level-4 message on their talk: rough day at the office? don't worry, we've all been there. have a camomile tea (not an eXpresso!) and watch some of your favorite soaps. Please note how they capitalised "X" in "Expresso", the main object of their edit-warring. That kind of sarcastic, battleground mentality doesn't bode well for the future, imo. Δρ.Κ.  19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• As the IP is dynamic, I have semi-protected the article temporarily. Bishonen has blocked the IPs. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was also just going to report here. Both IPs blocked for 72 hours. Not sure what good it'll do, but the range is unfortunately too big to block. (The IPs are supposed to be static, per whatismyipaddress.com, but it don't look much like it, does it?) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

• By the end of this, the IP was just trolling and socking. Thank you very much DrKiernan, Bishonen. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:175.143.208.159 reported by User:Asukite (Result: 48 hours )

Page

K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

175.143.208.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) to 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Frequent attempts to add an unsourced section to this page, all consistently rejected by editors and reviewers. User has been warned. {_C  A S U K I T E  } 02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Warned)

Page: Six-star rank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pdfpdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, 7 October 2013 1st revert (reverts )
2. 10:49, 8 October 2013 2nd revert
3. 13:44, 8 October 2013 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism.
4. 10:30, 10 October 2013 1st revert
5. 10:36, 10 October 2013 2nd revert
6. 10:52, 10 October 2013‎ 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk, article talk, noticeboard

Comments:

This is nonsense. I have made repeated requests to this admin to collaborate - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin to discuss the issues - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin to communicate - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin for his opinions - he has not replied. I have made repeated requests to this admin to explain certain matters - he has not replied.
Occasionally he replies, "I have replied", but when I ask where he has replied, he does not respond.
This appears to be an example of an admin throwing his weight around and misusing his position. He is equally guilty of anything he's accusing me of.
Further, I continue to draw to his attention 3 years of discussion and consensus, which he continues to dismiss as irrelevant.
How can you communicate with someone who pays no attention to any POV than his own? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

By-the-way:

• Warn the user if you have not already done so. - He hasn't.
• You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? - No, he hasn't. He refuses to discuss the matter.
• "So put a link to the discussion here. - No discussion, so there can not be / is not any link.
• If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too - Yes, that's all he's done, but I don't want him blocked. I've made numerous attempts to get him to collaborate - clearly, he has skills and experience I don't have (And I have skills and experience he doesn't have). Collaboration would be a far superior outcome for Misplaced Pages.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The claims in the response are obviously untrue, as demonstrated by the links in the report. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This matter has already been discussed at WP:RSN#Six-star rank, where it seems that User:Pdfpdf has not found support for his views. His continued reverts at Six-star rank appear to be edit warring. He may be able to avoid sanctions if he will respond here and agree to wait for consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the page history, discussion history at the various pages, and the editor's block log, my suggestion is a block of at least 48 hours absent a material commitment to avoid edit warring (and ideally, to accept a form of dispute resolution such as DRN.) —Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just received some aggressive comments at my talk page after I dared to express my admiration of User:DrKiernan's conduct during the resolution of this issue. Apart from anything else, they demonstrate that User:Pdfpdf still doesn't understand either why his edit warring was wrong or how to behave in resolving a dispute. Shem (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Since the dispute has been running since September it qualifies as a case of long-term edit warring. Pdfpdf is warned that any further revert on the topic of the six-star rank may lead to an immediate block if he doesn't get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ausgoth reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result:24 hrs )

Page

Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ausgoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "inadequate reverts"
2. 09:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "who does not like grammar and commas - fix it, do not remove useful information"
3. 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "restored useful information after vandalism"
4. 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "unreasonable revert Undid revision 576452613 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (TW)"
2. 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Samsung Galaxy Note 3. (TW)"

Comments:

Constantly re-introduces a version which unnecessarily adds uncited model numbers, changes certain sentences to grammatically incorrect versions, adds a spammy looking ref, and edit wars his version back in by asserting that the reversions are vandalism and that we shouldn't care about the grammar if its "useful information" ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KrakatoaKatie 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ben0kto reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Acid Rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Acid Rap (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Ok... this is going to be a long story I hope to make short. Ultimately this is the same instance that was reported by another user here. The editor in question, Ben0kto, has been warned about edit warring over Acid Rap. He was blocked for a short period of time due to edit warring. After his block was up, he continued to edit war and he continued to try to move the album to another article so he could create an article on the music genre of acid rap. He has been warned several times and he claims that he has not been completely warned about everything that is happening, but the problem is that I don't know how much more explicit we can get over everything. I've also reported this to ANI, but I'm reporting this here as well. I have to say that at this point I don't see inexperience as an excuse since he's well aware that his edits are controversial and people have tried to explain things to him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems pretty clear cut. DrKiernan (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:ReadTheGuidelines / User:24.121.103.74 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:31 hours)

Page: Talk:Dick Dale (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• ReadTheGuidelines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / previously editing as:
• 24.121.103.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: See AN/I report at

Comments:
Note the AN/I report linked above, and this comment on the editor's talk page: " You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments.". Beyond My Ken (talk)

Blocked 31 hours by GB fan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Devanampriya reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Hyderabad State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) to 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "restored sourced information that was deleted without explanation. npov required for articles"
   2. 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored neutral language to paragraph. Important for readers to understand context of allegations."
2. 01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "RV - Neil N unexplained section blanking is vandalism. My edits are NPOV. Restoring version prior to AJillani's unexplained section blanking. Please discuss issues on Talk page."
3. 01:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "restored original title prior to sectional blanker's pov edit. This will head off inevitable "annexation" vs "liberation" edit war. more than 80% of native population wanted merger w/India."
4. 04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions."
5. 06:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Abecedare, please speak the truth. My edit was not a revert so no 3RR violation. I clearly reworded and proposed new text. Propose changes, don't dictate. Here is new proposed text. Pls respond with modification and explain issues on talk pg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Notice: Misidentifying edits as vandalism on Hyderabad State. using TW"
2. 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hyderabad State. using TW"
3. 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
4. 05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
2. 02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
3. 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ note"
4. 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
5. 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
6. 05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"

Comments:

Edit warring to add POV text. NeilN 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User, NeilN refused to discuss content in detail and merely reverted my sourced edits. What he calls a 3RR violation was actually my proposed reword of my own text in response to another user's concern on the talk page. His one line responses to my repeated requests for detailed discussion are seen here on talk. This request is an attempt to distract from an edit war that he (NeilN) himself started. Devanampriya (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I and another editor told you exactly what the problems were. Instead of using the talk page, you continue to add the same problematic text to the article. --NeilN 04:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you have to suggest changes. You can't just lay down a subjective standard of what's wrong without explaining the changes you would like to see. Have you even done any research on the topic? Do you even know anything about it? How can you critique my edits without properly understanding the content?

Also, what you said is completely false. I have clearly "reworded" my edited (which you wrongly call 3RR vio) responding to another users concerns. Second, it was I who created the talk section while you insisted on edit warring, and I have continued using talk as people can plainly see. Abecedare gave some explantion, you just gave a glib one liner speaking in vague terms and issuing threats. Responsible and scholarly editing means proposing a counter-version inclusive of new content. You knee jerked deleted new content from reliable sources. This is blanking.

Admin involvement is requested so as to encourage all involved editors to contribute content or at least propose an inclusive revision rather than holding text hostage. Devanampriya (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can see the identical text in the diffs I provided. The same text I first raised with you on your talk page (which you then copied to the article talk page). The same text I gave suggestions on how to change, multiple times. --NeilN 05:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope--speak the truth. You yourself just said this on the talk page: "You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement."

So you yourself admitted I modified my own text instead of knee jerk reverting--which you've been doing from the beginning. I have made good faith modification to my own researched contributions, but neither you nor Abecedare have provided anything. Do you even have any understanding of the Article topic? The BRD policy stipulates you have to make your own modification so as to WP: COLLABORATE not WP: DICTATE. If you are interested in improving the article, modify rather than make false 3RR violation complaints you yourself have contradicted. Devanampriya (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: After the 3RR had been formally breached by Devanampriya I had left a comment on the article talk page noting the breach and mentioning that I didn't intend to report it unless the edit-warring it continued. Given that Devanampriya has ignored that message and repeated requests to propose text on the article talk page to gain consensus; continued to edit-war; and used the article for his non-neutrally worded edits, I think a block and a 1RR restriction is required to prevent article-space disruption. Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no formal breach, you are mischaracterizing it. NeilN has plainly admitted that I made a modification to the text--which is not a revert. In contrast, both you and NeilN have been knee jerk reverting without making modifications to the text. Merely proposing vague "overhauling" is not collaborating--it is dictating. And insisting on talk page versions first contravenes wikipedia's own policy for BRD.

What have you contributed to the text? Article talk has clearly shown only I have been researching and making suggestions. You are attempting to hold the collaboration process hostage to your own vague whims. If you have anything to contribute, refine the text or add your own content--you have done neither and are trying to hide by a trumped up 3RR report and desired block so you keep out content you dislike. Devanampriya (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." - You added "The Muslim militia and Hyderabad state police brutally put down the armed revolts by Communists and the peasantry and committed horrendous atrocities on the Hindu population, and even eliminated patriotic Hyderabadi Muslims such as Shoebullah Khan who advocated merger with India." four times. Changing something else does not get you out of 3RR. And your continued haste to insert problematic material without waiting for discussion shows you are still edit warring. --NeilN 08:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you are purposefully miscounting, you yourself admitted here:"You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement." . I modified the specific text you guys had issues with, the word Abecedare specifically called out "countless". This is refinement, not reverting, keeping me within 3 rv, since I specifically addressed one of your concerns. Instead of being evasive, why don't you answer the question? What have you added?. Even now you failed to respond to my good faith entreaties and good faith modification on talk.

Also you clearly missed that I removed "brutally" in "brutally put down"--so no it wasn't four times, since the text in question was modified by me. You specifically requested that I change this--and I did--but now you try to lie and count that against 3RR. If you spent more time reading and understanding my posts instead of thinking of ways to defend your false 3RR complaint, you would have seen that I specifically brought it to your attention--but neither of you responded or acknowledged this on talk (because you want to hold the text hostage and prevent it from being posted in the first place). This is bad faith. Even now, you don't collaborate, merely drone on about "3RR" and "problematic material". You call the material "problematic" but don't explain why? I directly posted a quotation rather than add my own words in response to your specific request on talk. Have you given details on why this is problematic quotation? BRD puts the onus on you to contribute your own refined edits that react to mine (not to edit war) and to provide content where necessary--have you done this? Devanampriya (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

See, I specifically tell you here that I removed "countless" and "brutally" in line with your collective talk pg requests. Why haven't you guys contributed anything in response to my requests? This is a two way street. You have to contribute and collaborate not dictateDevanampriya (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Smauritius reported by User:Rose$keel (Result: Protected)

Page: Shraddha Kapoor
User being reported: Smauritius (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have only added legit links to prove my edit.But the other user seems to be a fanatic and doesn't want to agree with me. She is even making unfounded accusations that I have many user accounts to disprove my claim. I request a third party opinion to verify me edits and make them permanent or give full protection for the page to stop any more edit warring. - Rose$keel (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Smauritius has not been warned for edit warning. Another admin has fully protected the article in question for a week, so I don't see where any sanctions are necessary for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To amend my statement above, an edit summary in the edit war in question is not a sufficient warning of 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Smauritius did get a proper warning back on 26 September. Still, the article protection does mean there's no point in blocking now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The link I submitted confirming Shraddha kapoor's birthdate is the contentious issue here. Smauritius is not from India and hence doesn't know about the CINTAA. I request someone who is from India and has knowledge about the film and telly industry located in India to arbitrate and vet my link. I think it is unfair to castigate and write down my link as unreliable when none of you are from my country, India. Some things which are taken for granted here may be new to others abroad. The article has only been protected till 18th OCtober. After that, again the issue will resurface. This must be stopped. Please verify my link and permanently lock the personal details box so that no further changes are made to it. Further I want to bring to your notice here that the user is a fan of shradhha and no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of 's contributions. I request the admins to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if I am allowed even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no mroe edit wars happen when fanatics like take issue with the details linked. -Rose$keel (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm providing the following links to substantiate the reliability of the link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) I provided on the page os Shraddha Kapoor. Smauritius doesn't want the age of the actress to be revealed and hence is doing her best to make it seem as though my link is unreliable whereas it is the most legit link any actor can have. Please go through her talk page where other users have also corroborated my information but Smauritus has fought verbally with all of them.

Please take note of the following:

CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor.Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list). Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislations regarding the Cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary). Anil Kapoor the actor inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).

All that I've said above can be verified by a knowledgeable third party editor from India. Rose$keel (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article locked by Geniac. Minima© (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AOnline reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Locked)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff 1
Diff 2
Diff 3
Diff 4
Diff 5

Diff of warning (another user had warning before I even noticed the reverts)

This article is under 1 revert rule restriction, so just two reverts would have been enough. Sopher99 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

•You should first report yourself dear Sopher99.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Diff 4

Diff 5

Diff 6

Diff 7

Diff 8

I did the changings for save the map from your classical attemts of vandalism. AOnline (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those diffs show me adding material, not reverting. I don't see how it constitutes as vandalism either. Sopher99 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding material? Then could you please explain me where is the name of the villages(which you added to the map) on the source? You have been warned numbers of times, it's not your first attempt. Looking over here is enough to understend your real purpose. AOnline (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The source specifically is a bbc map of the conflict. The names of the villages are in the second source I give, which show where they are relative to the map of territory control. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats not the point anyway, the point is you made 5 reverts on a 1 revert rule page. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like you don't know the rules. You can't just simply show a map and make changings referring to that. You have to show a certain source for every single village/town. User:Lothar_von_Richthofen's statement was very clear and i think you are aware of that. As i said, my act was normal reflection for protection of the map. Nevertheless, i will respect the decision of decision-maker. AOnline (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I gave a map showing the area's control, then provided a source for the exact location and name of the town. So I did follow the standard process. But as I said that's not the point. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I locked the template for three days. Just to be clear, both users in this report breached WP:1RR. If they had been the only two, I would have blocked them both. However, there were others who also breached 1RR, and I didn't wish to impose more than two blocks. Those other editors, as well as AOnline, will be formally warned, even though warnings aren't required to impose sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As the last (warned) party of this apparently, I share similar opinion as AOnline above. I tried with a minimal number of edits to revert the map from deleted and un-referenced vandalism, instead of changing content. My preceding comments were always discussed prior to editing in the Talk page. I have made the administration aware since yesterday. Anyhow, I will respect the decision of administrator including me.Ariskar (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PrestonHornsby reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: Semi-protected; warned)

Page: John M. Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PrestonHornsby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IPs involved: 38.97.127.10, 98.82.34.81, 98.71.253.34, 166.147.120.169, 24.127.245.111, 166.147.120.155 and 98.82.0.6

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

and many more...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

4. (IP)
5. (IP)
6. (IP)

Comments:
About seven IPs (very likely all the same person) are involved in this edit war that has been going on for over a month. I've warned PrestonHornsby but he doesn't seem to talk much, nor the IPs. See recent warning to 166.147.120.155.

How to deal with PresentHornsby I don't know, as I actually feel his contribution was constructive. I do however recommend semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption from IP hoppers. — MusikAnimal 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected

• Warned. I have semi-protected the article for a week. I've warned Preston that if he continues to add material that is even in part a WP:BLP violation, he will be blocked. @MusikAnimal: I know you're acting in good faith, but please be very careful about restoring any material the IPs have removed (that Preston originally added). In looking at some of them, they are violations of WP:BLP and cannot remain in the article as crafted. For example, in one of them, the material itself was not supported by the source. The article discussed Phillips and a video, but it didn't say what Preston wrote. Anytime we add negative material to a BLP, we have to be extra careful that it complies with all aspects of BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Guess I didn't read the source carefully enough... being quite familiar with BLP policy I find that a bit embarrassing. Apologies, and thanks for your help! — MusikAnimal 20:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ed beerman reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Libido (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ed beerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576756387 by Jamesx12345 (talk)testosterone ,dopamine, oxytocin and prolactin leveles are responsible for sex drive as wikipedia also suggests"
2. 18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576755783 by Jamesx12345 (talk) hormonal changes during abstinence lead to increased libido."
3. 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576745151 by Jamesx12345 (talk) the content removed had valid reference"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned in edit summary about RS and 3RR. The same user added the content before creating an account, which makes 4 reverts. James12345 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

Page

Adam and Eve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "It is an element of Judaism."
3. 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC) "The arrticle on Original Sin which you refer to states: Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None, but edit summaries were used.

Comments:

Long history of warnings and blocks for edit warring. If I'd come across this editor doing this on an article where I hadn't been one of the ones reverting, I'd have blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not "warring" I am only pointing out that the article referred to points out that original sin is a controversial concept within both Judaism and Christianity. Jimjilin (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If Jimjilin is basing his reverts on the current content of the Original sin article, he seems to be misstating its conclusions regarding Judaism and the concept of inherited sin. In my opinion Jimjilin has been edit warring here, but he may be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to get consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Rstafursky reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Pending)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Editor has persistently reverted additions to the article. The only vaguely legitimate reason given is that the material is " focused on unreferenced material". however all material is fully referenced to reputable journal articles and texts. The editor refuses to ente rinto discussion on why precisely they think that the material is unreferenced. The only other reason given for the persistent reversions is that the user believes that my intentions are not suitable. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you are edit warring, even though neither of you technically violated 3RR. Mark Marathon (t c), you should know better especially since you have a block history for similar behavior. Because of your history and the constant reversions at Natural landscape, I have blocked you for 36 hours. Rstafursky (t c), since I do not see any previous history of edit warring, I'm willing to waive a similar block if you commit to avoiding future edit warring and bringing issues to discussion or dispute resolution sooner in the future. —Darkwind (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:71.71.5.101‎ reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Liberty University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.71.5.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edit warring is obvious if you look at the editor's history. He or she has been warned and asked to participate in discussion in the article's Talk page to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Herzlicheboy reported by User:My-2-bits (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. added by —Darkwind (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Herzlicheboy is being disruptive at the article Nuremberg_Laws (among other problems with other edits, but I am here for this article specifically). He's accusing me of not checking the sources (I did check them), he's rejecting perfectly clearly sources (which are accessible to all) and trying to delete a paragraph in the article. Besides that, he's accusing me of using a bot to revert his edits (which I didn't), to have spent some seconds to do that (which I didn't, it took two hours until his edit was reverted by me), and suggesting me to stick editing Pokemon articles (which I don't). My-2-bits (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Firstly, the user "2 bits" made no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page. The only attempt made to resolve this issue on the talk page was mine. See this please: Talk:Nuremberg_Laws#Persistent_POV_wanting_to_add_that_Blacks_were_included_in_the_Nuremberg_Laws, and the user "2 bits" has not made the slightest attempt on the talk page to justify why he thinks the sources support the statement he wants to keep in the article. My position is that the sources don't support the statement, ergo they are false sources, or not apposite sources for the assertion made. Furthermore, I did not revert the article any unreasonable number of times. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If I hadn't edited this article several times in the past I would block Herzlicheboy for personal attacks. This is not a matter of who is right about the sources, but Herzlicheboy's unacceptable approach to the problem. It is not OK to call another editor a "Huggle bot type", accusing him/her of "no thought or research at all", or claiming to prove another editor didn't look at a book because he (Herzlicheboy) couldn't see it on Google books. (These are all at Talk:Nuremberg Laws#Persistent POV wanting to add that Blacks were included in the Nuremberg Laws.) Zero 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Herzlicheboy (t c) is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR and for the incivility (bordering on personal attacks) shown on the article's talk page and on User talk:My-2-bits. Further, when considering this editor's prior history of unhelpful edits, as pointed out on his talk page, I am concerned that he may not be here primarily to improve the encyclopedia. My-2-bits (t c), your behavior could also easily be interpreted as edit warring, but given that you have certainly handled this issue with more civility than Herzlicheboy and have no prior history of edit warring, I don't see a need for a block regarding this incident. —Darkwind (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I realized if I say he broke 3RR, I ought to provide the 4th diff, which I have listed above. —Darkwind (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Reissgo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reissgo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fractional_reserve_banking&oldid=576532354

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Editor Riessgo has a history of edit-warring his personal theories into articles concerning Fractional reserve banking and Full reserve banking. He is joined from time to time by various single purpose accounts. Despite a recent warning, he continues to EW this article. Although he waited to do the most recent revert until the 24 hour period had expired, the pattern and intention of edit warring is clear and the longstanding disruption of this article needs to be stopped. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see three edits on October 11 and one edit on October 13, so this is not a brightline violation of 3RR. The case must be made that Reissgo is disruptive, that long-term edit warring is involved. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This may not be a 3RR violation, but it's definitely edit warring - the case is made by the page history. Considering that, plus the user has a prior block history for edit warring on an article in the same topic, it's an edit-warring DUCK to me. —Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lanlan lanwan reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)

Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lanlan lanwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• This edit at 2013-10-13T08:14:41 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-08T08:13:34.
• This edit at 2013-10-13T13:00:58 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-13T10:03:23.

The article is within scope of WP:ARBPIA and covered by 1RR. The 2 reverts above are a 1RR violation. I warned the editor at User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and gave them an opportunity to self-revert. Their edit was reverted by another user.

• They decided to revert again at 2013-10-13T14:37:22, self-reverted shortly afterwards and opened a talk page discussion although, like all of the edits, it's based on reasoning inconsistent with WP:CIRCULAR.
• They then made another revert at 2013-10-13T16:19:31.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and Talk:State_of_Palestine#.22Sovereign_State.22_of_Palestine

Comments:
The account appears to only be used intermittently and the editor doesn't seem to be familiar with policy. Nevertheless, could an admin please either give them a stern warning to stop edit warring and use the talk page or a short break from the article. They are going to start fires in the topic area if they carry on like this. I don't think they are ready to edit in the WP:ARBPIA personally but I'm happy to be proved wrong. They should probably also receive an official ARBPIA notification too. I'm opposed to those being issued by non-admins so I haven't done that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User received sufficient warnings from other editors; an "official" warning wasn't needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Urməvi reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, i did not do that, but i have already tried to do it in the history page, and told him that he couldn't do such edits without sources in his own talk page. He has been blocked before because of this.

Comments:

Warned Both editors have been issued formal warnings of enforcement under the Armenia-Azerbaijan case, and notified that further edit warring will lead to sanctions being imposed. Seraphimblade 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:IrishStephen reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: Protected)

Page

United States v. Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

IrishStephen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577007320 by Hot Stop (talk) An administrator's decision trumps your opinion."
2. 16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Correcting the article again. Several editors seem to be living in a fantasy land."
3. 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hot Stop (talk): I would ask that you read WP:COMMONNAME . (TW)"
4. 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576940777 by Hot Stop (talk) The discussion at Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request sets the new standard which should be upheld across Misplaced Pages."
5. 16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC) "Edited the opening sentence of the article to mirror the consensus reached over renaming the Chelsea Manning article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States v. Manning. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"
2. 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"

Comments:

The 3RR warning above was the second one added. I did so not realizing that user Hot Stop had posted one moments before. User IrishStephen did the last change after the warnings had been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I made my edits to mirror the decision undertaking by administrators to rename the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning here. I believe this decision requires us to reflect this change on other pages relating to Manning. I stand by my edits and await any further decision by administrators. Regards IrishStephen (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring