Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/November

Exemption Question

Does the vandalism exception to the 3RR rule also apply to repeated removal of a troll post (in this case, at the Reference Desk)? That is, is posting of a post that is clearly intended to provoke considered vandalism? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Example Most admins would hopefully WP:IAR and do the sensible thing and not sanction an editor removing such posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And you did the sensible admin thing and blocked the troll. The Reference Desk has a lot of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Uncooperative users and possible sockpuppeting

I was looking to prevent malicious edits on an article with evidence of sockpuppeting. The topic was such that some have interest to misrepresent and there was an ongoing discussion whether some words are appropriate. Three accounts (some possibly sockpuppet) consecutively remove these words (with no discussion nor sensible edit summary). While this is happening, I'm reverting the changes and urging them in the summary and in user talk pages to discuss before editing, but I get no response. I also contacted administrators about the problem. At the end I make 4 reverts (didn't know the 3RR), one of these accounts reports me and I get warned by administrator (so I explain what actually happened). Another one of the accounts makes the change again (later he admits I was right). Several days later no action is taken from administrators and the content of the page remains changed. How to deal with that? Martinkunev (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)