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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR 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. 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

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page

Greendale High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892739926 by John from Idegon (talk)"
2. 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Greendale High School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Three different editors have reverted this poorly sourced content. Reported user keeps re-adding. It goes on back well into last month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Left the user a note about starting to use the article talk page and ceasing from edit warring. El_C 03:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Roguelike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.72.113.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] article talk and [8] IP talk page.

Comments:
IP keeps trying to add in the fact that the term "roguelike" has been "co-opted" (previously trying to include "misused" by modern games). Without going into the long history of the genre, there are a small minority of game players that do not like the fact that games that are so far removed from the likes of Rouge, Angband, or Nethack get called "roguelike". But, there are no sources that we can use to show this resentment. I have asked the IP to include sources, but they instead point to the wikitext, so effectively arguing original research. As well as the fact that the term was "co-opted" is a very fringe view. Keeping the contentious POV in without sources is a problem. Masem (t) 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 16:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Richard III of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bjcjj61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "King Richard III was Roman Catholic"
2. 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
3. 16:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Added content, Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."
4. 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "welcome etc"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No acceptance or seeming understanding of the issues. Repeating the mantra does not instil any faith that they will stop inserting the trivia (and breaking the page formatting as they do it). ——SerialNumber54129 19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. Earliest edit is not a revert but the original edit. El_C 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Caning of Charles Sumner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947734 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
2. 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947289 by Ad Orientem (talk) you really think that readers around the world know the abbreviations of US political parties and of US states? They do not. If you think the parties and states are important, write them properly"
3. 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 892947076 by Ad Orientem (talk) it is US-specific jargon, not comprehensible to the majority of English speakers"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Caning of Charles Sumner. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• none by the user filing the report, despite their three reverts: [9][10][11]

Comments:

• Disruptive editing and edit warring. IP was urged to take the discussion to the talk page repeatedly and reminded of WP:BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's broken the 3RR. No attempt has been made by the user to explain why they think MOS:FIRSTOCC does not apply, nor to justify using US-specific jargon. This is not an encyclopaedia for Americans. The user did not attempt to use the talk page before filing this report. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting that reviewing admin restore the article to last stable version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that the reviewing admin does not need MOS:FIRSTOCC pointing out to them, and does not follow your request to make the article pointlessly obscure and US-specific. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. 3RR was not violated, but I cautioned the user about edit warring. Discussion seem to be happening on the talk page, so hopefully, consensus can be arrived at there and that will be the end of that edit war. Sorry, in this case, as reviewing admin I don't feel comfortable to get involved with this on the mainspace. El_C 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you not warn User:Ad Orientem? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not perceive him of being at risk of breaching 3RR. El_C 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notice their three reverts in eight minutes, then? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop it. Obviously, they were not going to violate 3RR having filed this report. El_C 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet obviously they were edit warring, and they appealed for someone else to revert a fourth time on their behalf. If you had warned them not to edit war, perhaps they would be less likely to do it in future. Instead, you've endorsed their conduct. Note that they have not said a single thing on the article's talk page. This suggests that the article content was not in fact of any great interest to them. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already know them to be familar with WP:EW. Warnings are not badges of dishonour, if it's symmetry you're after. An absence of a warning is hardly an endorsement of anyone's conduct. And they have not been around to say anything, anywhere. It's only been a day. El_C 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they are familiar with it, then why did they revert three times in eight minutes? They were obviously around to say things when they were edit warring and filing reports, but they preferred to revert without discussing. But despite the edit warring policy, and the text that appears when you file a report -- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -- you've bent over backwards to excuse their poor conduct. I will not be at all surprised if I see similar conduct from the user in the future. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, why did you revert at all? Not to mention three times. You seem to be aware of policy, so what is your excuse? El_C 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to answer the question I asked you is noted. Why didn't I follow "an optional method of reaching consensus"? Because it's optional. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is warning (or suggestion, if you will). El_C 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP as yet another incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated courtesy @Ad Orientem and El C:. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a long list. I confess to not being familiar enough with the LTA to comment further. El_C 10:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first edit 09:51, 31 March 2019‎
2. first revert 15:05, 1 April 2019‎
3. second revert 18:51, 1 April 2019‎
4. third revert 17:14, 3 April 2019‎
5. fourth revert 06:23, 17 April 2019‎
6. fifth revert 19:05, 17 April 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13][14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

Edit warring with passion to enforce his blatant POV edits (rejected on talk page) and edit warring against 3 different editors. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation This appears to be a content dispute being discussed on the article Talk page with sporadic reverts by editors on the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Notyfy on users TP

Also, Tonybins created and wrote on my users page (not TP), so obviously, he badly imagines the mechanism of Wikipedia, including understanding of reliable sources. He wants to add to the article a list of legislative proposals of Olexiy Poroshenko. I've never seen such a thing in another articles. In addition, he is trying to remove Poroshenko’s quotation about deputies ’income from the "Earnings" section, and replace it with a completely extraneous quotation that's not related to the topic of the section.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Version before edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19] - He even recovers an obvious mistake in the title of the source.
5. [20]

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

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

Comments:

User:Zorro naranjo deletes information from authoritative sources. This is deliberate vandalism. Most likely associated with the election campaign in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zorro naranjo I ask you not to delete the information, especially before the presidential elections in Ukraine. The laws of Olexiy Poroshenko are interesting for Wikipedia users, as they relate to the budget of Ukraine, the military, the reform of the customs service and the like. Wikipedia users should know what laws are initiated by the son of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Jayda Fransen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Max England (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Opinion is not fact. Corrected the radical left bias in this article."
2. 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Radical Marxist pushing their ideology & ignoring fact when it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Wikipedia has long since been a reliable source of information since it was taken over by SJW's."
3. 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 11:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Political bias / incorrect labelling / not objective."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jayda Fransen. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Political POV pushing; the edit-summaries explain better than I can. But basically, removing well-sourced material per their WP:POV. ——SerialNumber54129 16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Jayda Fransen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Nominating editor blocked as said above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Film Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893066021 by Spshu (talk" "you started it, you have been direct to the talk page"
2. 19:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893065941 by Spshu (talk)" ←That is King Crimson the Third's edit not mine
3. 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893055911 by Spshu (talk)" "againt not all prod.co. not lo be listed, discussion has been started on talk page"
   

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• The dispute may have been going since mid-March. If you check the edit history, you will probably see more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  EdJohnston, Per your message, I've had a look and there's been a dispute for over a year with Spshu posting on the talk page a while back. The article has been fully protected on multiple occasions since that post. Please also see User Talk:Spshu for discussion regarding how to handle disputes very recently including advising not continuing revrting without getting another editor's opinion, going to a talk page or contacting an admin noticeboard RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [21] Both for Template:Film Studio and for Major film studio

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Not all production companies 16:34, 6 February 2018 on Template talk:Film Studio
• RFPP] 19:41, 27 March 2019 - to get the other editor to come to the talk page at Template:Film Studio
• Talk:Major film studio#Other units 19:01, 18 April 2019

And you can see multiple edit summaries directing KC the 3 to the talk page. Spshu (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, this could be closed with no action unless User:King Crimson the Third makes a further appearance and explains what this is all about. Both parties could have been making better use of the talk page, but the supplied diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If there is actually a long-term edit war, somebody needs to explain what it is. Spshu's post above isn't very clear. It seems this template has been protected many times in the past; can anyone say why? The protecting admins have included User:Dlohcierekim and User:Abecedare. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the slow edit-warring, dating back to Feb 21, is over the inclusion standard for studios in the template (see my note at RFPP accompanying the most-recent full protection). I agree that 3RR has not been technically breached, so a block may not be justified at the moment. I propose that both the editors be warned that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks even if the 3RR redline is not crossed. In the meantime, I'll drop a note at WT:FILM asking for some extra voices to weigh in on the ontent dispute itself. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the pointer. The phrase from Spshu in the last RFPP was "repeated mass dumping of production companies and random status changes, while the other editor ignores talk page discussion." I wouldn't say the talk page discussion was very clear, but at least Spshu was attempting it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Result: Both editors are warned for slow edit warring on the Template:Film Studio. Though User:Spshu at least made an attempt to discuss, the next person who reverts the template is risking a block, unless they have first obtained consensus at the talk page or at WT:FILM. Thanks to User:Abecedare for opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Edit-warring at Template:Film Studio. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Previous version reverted to: [26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:BarrelProof has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:BarrelProof has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:BarrelProof seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:BarrelProof on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For some background on this dispute, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388#User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: one week). The Talk page of the related article also contains related information. The diffs shown above seem to be edits by a different user, although I will freely admit that I have been involved with a content dispute with the reporting editor and that this has involved reverts. I will refrain from further comment at this time. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments on this issue are set out in the thread below. I endorse the comments made by BarrelProof. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Stale. El_C 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Previous version reverted to: [31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:Ghmyrtle has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:Ghmyrtle has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:Ghmyrtle seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Further, there is some indication that the user is sock-puppeting, using different IPs to make it seem his views represent a consensus on the subject when they flatly do not. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:Ghmyrtle on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also see the above section of this page that reports a similar complaint against me by the same user. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As other discussions make clear, Mnpie1789 is on a longstanding campaign to present the article subject, a convicted murderer, in the most favourable possible light, contrary to the balance of reliable sources, and contrary to the views of all other editors of the article. I have no "malicious agenda" or "prejudicially biased point of view" regarding the subject; I resent being called "trollish"; I do not consider that any of my edits are "in violation of WP policies and guidelines"; and any investigation will show that allegations of "sock-puppeting" are false. Can I suggest that a reading of WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate, and a longer block of Mnpie should be considered? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Stale, again. Mnpie1789, as seemingly a single-purpose account you are walking a fine line here — you should be aware of that by now

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 22:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2019 Israeli legislative election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:51, 17 April 2019
2. 15:33, 18 April 2019
3. 15:40, 18 April 2019
4. 21:49, 18 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The attempt to resolve the dispute was on my user talk page

Comments:
We had a discussion on my talk page, which user:Number 57 basically made the arguments that the description that I proposed adding is "not necessary" because it does not exist on other articles about Israeli elections. In spite of the warning, user performed another revert. GoLatvia (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as is clear from the dates/times on the above diffs, I haven't broken 3RR. Secondly, as can be seen in the edit summaries of the last three diffs and my comment on their userpage, I have repeatedly requested that GoLatvia respects WP:BRD and stop adding this text to the results table (which they've done six times now, five of which have been reverting it back in: [38][39][40][41][42][43]) until they gain consensus for the change. Number 57 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. I am this close to blocking both of you for how lame this edit war is. Seriously, you know better. 3RR was not technically breached, but it's close. Anyway, you've both been productive editors with respect to this article — find a way to get along again. I am not going to protect this article, but I expect you both to work toward finding consensus on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bluevale Collegiate Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
Reporter appears to be adding fake information to the article: [49], [50], [51], etc. Should be a swift boomerang. SWL36 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Semi protection is also warranted as there are IP and other new editors involved also. This would best be characterized as a three day vandalism spree. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User attempted to add a student president to the school infobox 4 times in less than 24 hours. I undid one of those edits and warned them for 3RR and vandalism. User responded by opening this report and making the claim again [52], this time with different students listed, apparently confirming that the first 4 attempts were indeed bogus. I've reported them to AIV. Meters (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And indeffed by User:Ponyo Meters (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Jersey Beat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NorthPark1417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine, discuss on the talk page"
2. 07:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
3. 07:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following BRD, linking in navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
4. 07:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Following WP:BRD, discuss on talk page"
5. 07:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Navigational boxes are for links. Discuss at talk page before changing"
6. 06:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Ownership of articles on Jersey Beat. (TW)"
2. 07:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */ R"
3. 07:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jersey Beat. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resolution sought on the WP:OWNer's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 08:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear neither WP:BRD nor WP:OVERLINK are valid exemptions from WP:3RR. El_C 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Walter Görlitz again? Seriously, he has been waging these small edit-wars for years and years with a hell of a lot of other users. When ever anyone complains at his talk page, he just deletes what people wrote on it and goes to war with them. Three days ban isn't long enough, sorry I think a much harsher punishment is warranted for the accumulation of transgressions. Govvy (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]