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)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Ronnnaldo7 reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: User final-warned)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [1] (22:47, 28 April 2024)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2] (18:50, 29 April 2024)
[3] (18:09, 1 May 2024)
[4] (23:34, 5 May 2024)
[5]] (22:59, 6 May 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (19:03, 1 May 2024) [7] (14:46, 2 May 2024)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] (20:16, 29 April 2024) [9] (14:51, 2 May 2024) [10] (15:26, 2 May 2024)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:
User keeps adding disputed content "Piruz Nahavandi" despite clear opposition on talk, in last (5 May) diff against rough consensus (especially re inclusion in the lead) on talk. User has consistently refused to follow WP:ONUS and has let other users do all the consensus-building. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add another revert by Ronnnaldo7 that was made after the above report was submitted: 22:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC) -- Toddy1 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll also note there's a retaliatory report below, with further demonstration they don't understand WP:ONUS (believing RS must automatically be included) and some aspersions (there has been talk about abuse of power re you focus on Arabic work, your lack of acceptance with the addition of the Persian language name is an example of WP:POV before). With rough consensus I was referring to [12][13] and re inclusion in the lead to [14], where despite [15] still [16]. Thanks for your time, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my final revert was in an attempt to bring it to a neutral state until the resolution is reached, which is Iskandar323's version. I have since been reverted and don't plan on making changes anymore as a result. Further discussions will be continued on the article's talk page on my end. Also, my edits were independent WP:GoodFaith edits per WP:Bold that were based on the discussions we had on the talk page in including the WP:RS. Apaugasma has been the one to persistently revert edits, whereas mine have not been reverts (With the exception of the last one, which was in WP:GoodFaith to bring it to Iskandar323's version per above).--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Iskandar323 has explicitly stated I don't have a version [17][18], so this is clear misrepresentation. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Toddy1's suggestion below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was referring to the article version (which was Iskandar323's latest edit as a neutral third party), and not Iskandar323's version/view of it all; therefore, I believe your claims of misrepresentation are baseless. Furthermore, your personal attacks of calling me incompetent are unwarranted, but I digress. Anyways, I'm glad you agree with Toddy1's suggestion below, as do I.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is getting too long and I'm sorry, but this is just too rich to omit here: if it's not Iskandar323' version, since he just made a cosmetic edit while opposing at least part of your edit on talk, it must be your version. So you reverted to basically your own version though calling it "Iskandar323's neutral version", against consensus on talk, "in an attempt to bring it to a neutral state"? I find the denial and misrepresentation here more concerning than the edit warring itself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnnaldo7 has said that he/she was going to just drop this. I recommend that this (and the retaliatory report by Ronnnaldo7) should be closed with no action. If he/she resumes edit-warring, then the report can be resurrected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User warned that continuing to insert disputed content will lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A02:C7C:8512:5300:7107:681:51A1:B6E reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments: Now up to 9 reverts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Smalljim (rangeblocked). - Aoidh (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:209899Geovanni reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )[edit]

Previous version reverted to: 14:25, April 27, 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:21, May 5, 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars#Is or are (Diff along with Diff of talkback notice on user's talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 20:25, May 6, 2024

Comments:
Not a 3RR report but an edit warring report, editor is changing "is" to "are" despite explanation by numerous editors why this article would use "is", and has made no attempt to discuss this outside of some of their edit summaries. - Aoidh (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apaugasma reported by User:Ronnnaldo7 (Result: Closed - see v/v filing above)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [27] (08:36, 29 April 2024)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[28] (08:36, 29 April 2024)
[29] (20:18, 29 April 2024)
[30] (09:17, 4 May 2024)
[31] (08:35, 6 May 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] (19:03, 1 May 2024) [33] (22:59, 6 May 2024)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] (20:16, 29 April 2024) [35] (21:22, 29 April 2024) [36] (15:26, 2 May 2024)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:
User keeps deleting the discussed WP:RS for "Piruz Nahavandi" and is in violation of WP:3RR. They have reverted other users as well while going against the WP:Consensus, and are acting as if they own the page. User claims the WP:RS is an example of circularity, but they have yet to show any concrete evidence of the circularity and are the only one to claim it is. Furthermore, user has stated that the Hiro source is an RS, but is now going against the discussions & consensus. Attempts to discuss on the talk page have led to the user continuing to make changes on the article page while reverting multiple editors. Apaugasma falsely claimed that there is rough consensus when they are the only one arguing against the source, and persistently reverted edits/removed the WP:RS: 1 2.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed As far as I can see it is the filer here who is continuing to attempt to insert disputed content and it is also the filer who appears to have consensus against them at Talk:Abu_Lu'lu'a_Firuz#Sources_for_the_name_Piruz_Nahavandi. Discussion to continue at the reverse filing above. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mzexpert reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Correct first line"
18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "I added correct information about comic con arabia not saudi comic con"
18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Added good version of original comic con arabia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
18:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "rm as now moot - by all means update the article but please don't paste that stuff back - please take a look at different articles and word things to how articles are worded here if that makes sense"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is adding promotional content to the article and is edit warring over it, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 different IPs had added this crap yesterday here, here and here which I suspect are all the warrer, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Reported user got g-locked for Lock evasion. Nobody (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay fantastic, Obviously withdraw this now that the account's meta-locked. Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 09:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as global lock evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rsparkles reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: 13:45, 29 April 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:10, 7 May 2024 (Template used: Softer edit warring notice for new editors)
17:30, 7 May 2024 (Template used: Violation/potential violation of the three revert rule)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Original discussions occurred on the editor's talk page instead of the article's talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

I'm not a checkuser so I don't know if Rsparkles is also the IP editor or if this is multiple editors doing the same thing. Rsparkles & the IP editor have been removing part of the controversy section (specifically, that Stewart was dropped from comics projects which is cited by industry outlets) & minor rephrasing of parts. Two different editors tried discussing this on Rsparkles' talk while Rsparkles kept restoring their preferred version; during this, I suggested bringing it to the article's talk in an edit summary and gave Rsparkles an edit war notice & then a 3RR notice. Even without the IP's contributions, Rsparkles has gone past 3RR. To restore to the stable version of the article (29 April 2024) would take me past 3RR, so I'm bringing this here instead. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved, as I reverted and warned IP user 2600:1700:B92:900:D6B:599:4ADE:99EC (talk · contribs), but I'd just like to say that this seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV as the section is well-sourced and it appears to be an attempt to sanitise the individual's entry on Wikipedia. Rsparkles (talk · contribs) behaviour (continuing to revert after being warned about WP:3RR) is clearly problematic so may warrant sanctions, but I think perhaps applying pending changes protection might also be justified as this also occurred in January which was left unchecked until March. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 03:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adam Black hit the nail on the head here; this isn't the first time this has occurred where a mix of IPs and just registered editors try to sanitize this subsection. I did go to RPP before the edit war escalated but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I want to flag is that after I put the notice here, a new editor (WlKlCZECH11 (talk · contribs)) started to engage in the exact behavior as Rsparkles (from article changes to the language used in the edit summary). When I put a notice on edit warring on their talk, they did not respond but oddly Rsparkles did (included a link to the discussion above). Rsparkles later denied that they are also WlKlCZECH11; not sure if the best practice is to also put a notice at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or to wait until this discussion resolves. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected by User:Dennis Brown for 1 month. Aoidh (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.31.103.194 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[39] 11:32, 6 May 2024
[40] 13:27, 6 May 2024
[41] 15:15, 6 May 2024
[42] 15:21, 7 May 2024
[43] 04:52, 8 May 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments: We've been seeing similar edits [47][48] and blanking [49] on this article from IPs in recent weeks. Page protection may be warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, one more revert from the IP:

6. [50] 06:03, 8 May 2024

Generalrelative (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:94.200.83.10 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (IP Address 1: 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported (IP Address 2: 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported (IP Address 3: 2001:8F8:1DB8:D0CC:17CD:28BA:D210:BE90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

Three IPs provided as editor is IP hoping around addresses in the United Arab Emerites. TarnishedPath^talk 06:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Special:Diff/1222837817 for an admission by the editor that the different IP addresses are them. TarnishedPath^talk 06:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement, not an admission - I've not tried to hide that there are different IPs. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your further admission I guess. It will make it easier for an admin to determine that you violated 3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite probably. Obviously ignoring 3rr is far worse than making egregious BLP violations and wildly ignoring established consensus like you. 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no BLP violation. Stating there was indicates that you have no understanding of BLP. There's no excuse for you violating 3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is a BLP violation, and the RfC responses demonstrate that. Starting that there wasn't inductees that you have no understanding of BLP 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The fact that you still haven't self-reverted after 4 reverts speaks against you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BLPCRIME violation which trumps BLPPUBLIC. The is not a criminal conviction. We cannot call him a war criminal in wikivoice. The other responses to the RfC all understand this. I'm not going to revert to a version that violates such a fundamental policy. There are also not multiple RS that explicitly call him a war criminal, despite your repeated claims. 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, Not longer ago I looked over talk archives in order to see which editors were involved in previous discussions in order to alert them to current discussions. While doing so, I found your claim of established consensus lacking. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IPv4 for 3 months and 2001:8F8:1D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 for 72h, both for block evasion (User:Orchomen).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deusestlux reported by User:MrThe1And0nly (Result: )[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] But also on user talk page: [68]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

Comments:
We haven't edited since the warning, but since we may have both engaged in edit warring beforehand, and since he has been totally unresponsive in attempting to discuss the issue, my only way forward is to seek admin help via reporting, for the alternatives are a) keep reverting, surely risking a block, or b) give up the issue entirely. My goal here is to simply get them to engage in a discussion of the matter.

User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:91.217.105.54 (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User deleted my post on their talk page when I made claim of edit warring.

The edits were commented properly, user reverted with disregard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.105.54 (talk • contribs)

They're well within their rights to remove your comments; meanwhile you seem to be removing sourced information without justification. Perhaps you should discuss it on the article's talk page. — Czello ^(music) 11:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporter blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:91.217.105.54 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

User being reported: 91.217.105.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222868951 by Czello (talk) That's not what it says at all. Here is the English version of the source "kaszanka must have made its way to Poland from either Denmark or from Germany, through Silesia. Wherever it first came from, it is eaten to this day." It seems you are edit warring in behalf of the previous user, Revirvlkodlaku."
12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222861710 by Czello (talk) The source material states it is not a historical fact. What is stated on this page is just wrong interpretation."
10:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222702719 by Revirvlkodlaku (talk)"
08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "The place of origin is still unknown and the source referenced is in a foreign language"

Comments:

Deletion of sourced material, refusal to discuss on talk despite request to. Oddly their last edit summary quotes something that supports the text they are deleting. — Czello ^(music) 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not receive any request on the talk page and the previous editor deleted my request on talk page.

The text "it originates from Germany" and "kaszanka must have made its way to Poland from either Denmark or from Germany, through Silesia. Wherever it first came from, it is eaten to this day" from the reference are 2 totally different statements.

The reference is also from a pop-culture editorial website. They have no sources of their own cited. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cali Farah reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222938168 by Apaugasma (talk)"
21:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222933437 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) to 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
1. 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222849023 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
2. 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) ""
05:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Clan structure */ Restoring vandalised content"
16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Clan structure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Demographics of Somalia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Genealogical tree */ new section"

Comments:

Also edit warring at Somali people. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Samaale. Knows how to edit talk page [74] but does not respond to messages like [75]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

User being reported: Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Not a siingle porpose account. And if I were, that´s not a reason to remove well referenced information from the articles. I started the discussion, I gave 7 neutral and serious sources (2 from FIFA), and the other user reverts and reverts."
05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "The one who removes referenced content from the article is YOU. And FIFA´s official sources you are removing..."
04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222797415 by Svartner (talk) 7 serious sources (2 from FIFA, one of them with the list of matches) are enough. Please, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina%E2%80%93Brazil_football_rivalry#Count_of_matches"
23:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222795920 by Svartner (talk) Officiasl FIFA sources are enough. Go to the discussion."
22:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Taking out all the vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ You are both edit warring. Look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have no interest in this topic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2024 (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