Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Hedgielamar reported by User:NekoKatsun (Result: 24 hours)

Page: James Barry (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hedgielamar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Barry: [1]; Levy: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts at James Barry (surgeon):

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts at E. J. Levy:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12].

Comments:

This user has not engaged with anyone who's attempted to contact them, including back on Feb 24 (as seen on their talkpage). I've asked in edit summaries and on their talkpage for them to discuss with other users, but they continually insert their preferred phrasing with the summary "corrected inaccuracies" and have lately been adding a low-quality (and misspelled) source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have posted to User talk:Hedgielamar and will follow up with this shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks for attempting to get things under control; however since Hedgielamar ignored your message and carried on edit-warring, a block was inevitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm glad I tried — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your attention and assistance. I hope they start working with us! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• MSGJ and Ritchie333, it appears the edit warring is now continuing under a newly created account, JMB2019, whose only edits have been to repeat the same edit warring on E. J. Levy [13] [14] and James Barry (surgeon) [15] [16], including reinserting the same broken link with "wwww" instead of "www". Can this be dealt with here or should I file this as a sockpuppet investigation? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The user has also now referred to those who revert the disruptive edits as "perps" [17], the same as the blocked editor [18]. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and extended the block of Hedgielamar — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• We've got another one, MSGJ; Patrice Starr has made almost identical changes to E. J. Levy as of this morning [19], including the exact same misspelling of a source URL that both Hedgielamar and JMB2019 were inserting. Not sure if this is a sock, since I thought Hedgie and I were having a somewhat-productive conversation on Hedgie's talkpage. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Trapios reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: blocked)

Page: Metropolitan areas in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and three other: [20][21][22]
User being reported: Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 20 February 2019
2. 20:18, 20 February 2019
3. 20:33, 20 February 2019
4. 21:00, 20 February 2019

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles.

User:Endowe reported by User:Nihlus (Result: blocked)

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
2. 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */You have to get consensus to remove it. This is someone’s work that you’re going to remove without a reason so stop it or i’m gonna report you. Also it matches with all the other presentations on wikipedia about rupaul’s drag race."
3. 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
4. 12:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */Rude. Don’t waste my work"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress table */ remove"

Comments:

Continued edit warring after recent block. Also levied a personal attack at me recently. Nihlus 04:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked, page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "No proper reason given for the removal of this sourced information and adding of other unsourced information!"
2. 14:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "It is only a violation if everything was copied directly from its source, which it doesn't seem to be! And if the text is directly copied, rewrite it instead of removing it! If you continue removing all this informaton you may get blocked for vandalism!"
3. 14:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf (TW)"
4. 11:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 886689074 by Espanasiempre2019 (talk) (TW)"
5. 23:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 886522264 by Dijalbinha2019 (talk) (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They know about edit-warring, having recently been warned by both C.Fred and Ritchie333: In this particular case, I beieve that restoring copyvios is *not* an exemption... ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just stopped reverting the edits on this recent article and have instead re-instated some minor info that may have been wrongly removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Too late for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protected Full-protected by MSGJ for 4 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And blocked user for persistent edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both; continuing to revert while at ANI was the breaking point, as it were. ——SerialNumber54129 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Having seen this edit, both apparently restoring a copyright violation and falsely accusing an editor of vandalism, I would have blocked too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Enciclopiedicomutante reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: indef.)

Page

Canary Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886845973 by David Biddulph (talk)"
2. 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886837539 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
3. 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886816321 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
4. 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886799696 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
5. 16:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886791553 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
6. 14:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Protect page!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canary Islands. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring as soon as protection on article expired this morning. Status quo (prior to this editors changes) agreed with source cited. David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Enciclopiedicomutante (also per WP:NOTHERE); 87.223.130.234 blocked for 48 hours. --Leyo 01:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mk8mlby reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Warned)

Page: Tom Brady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mk8mlyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been extensive discussion of the content the user is disputing at Talk:Tom_Brady#Greatest_QB_in_NFL_history

Comments:

After I warned the user about edit warring, they left a defiant message on my talk page that they were only doing what [they] think is best.[29]—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll comment that outside of the merits of this particular edit warring case, I think the article itself needs some kind of administrator attention. 1RR? Locking? I don't know. The subject of the discussion (is Brady the Greatest of All Time? Can we report that he's widely regarded as such without a cite stating specifically how widely regarded and by whom?) is one which which arouses tremendous passions, and many editors (at least a dozen, including myself) on both sides are engaging in a protracted edit war - this iteration going back a month. I suspect Bagumba being WP:INVOLVED in the edits would prevent him from being seen as a neutral party shutting this down. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly involved in this article, but that's because I hate Tom Brady and can't be neutral about him. This edit summary by Mk8mlyb, "I just don't like that". is an argument to avoid on discussion pages. I recommend an impartial admin lock it further as they choose. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and it's clear you bent over backwards to hide that. But this is the odd case where discussion is unlikely to solve the problem and someone new needs to come in as the heavy and shut it down, one way or the other. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What I should've said is that Brady is a polarizing subject and something long term is called for. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Another post at my talk page After this case was opened, Mk8mlyb posted again at my talk page: Hey, why'd you do that? Okay, I'm not innocent here, I won't deny that, but I'm just one of the guys who's getting drawn up in this, and I'm the one who's taking the brunt of all this? I'll meet you at the other talk page.[30]—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  Bagumba, should the other editor be reported? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mk8mlyb is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have previously received a consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SpaceMusk reported by User:Vacuasword (Result: blocked indef)

Page: Gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Western lowland gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Eastern lowland gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sea lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: California sea lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Komodo dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Meerkat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpaceMusk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorilla&type=revision&diff=886899989&oldid=886797009

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_lowland_gorilla&type=revision&diff=886900626&oldid=884590078
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_sea_lion&type=revision&diff=886900067&oldid=886809718
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMeerkat&type=revision&diff=886899461&oldid=886810235
4. etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komodo_dragon&type=revision&diff=886900418&oldid=886789939

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceMusk&oldid=886809354

Comments:
Absolutely wants to publish bad quality pictures. Doesn't understand. -- Vacuasword (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

it is your opinion, that those pictures are bad and again your opionion is very subjective, what makes your opinion better then mine...., did not hear an answer yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMusk (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

SpaceMusk The same goes for you; you can't edit war to preserve a picture that you feel is better. If you change a picture and others disagree, you must obtain consensus that your favored picture is the one that should be present. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SpaceMusk: I'm seeing that multiple users have pointed out technical issues with the photos, issues other than "I just don't like it." Acting like they have not is just disruptive and only going to get you in trouble. Repeatedly dismissing those technical issues as "just their opinion" and asking to hear another reason is also disruptive and not going to help you.

Also, multiple editors have asked you to stop trying to add those photos. It seems pretty clear that you're taking the removal of your photos personally -- don't. No editor owns their contributions here.

In short: knock it off. Find a different way to contribute for now besides photos, until you learn to properly take criticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

so you are saying i can not take critisism, i think that's an attack but ok.... SpaceMusk (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your behavior has so far demonstrated an inability to take criticism. Saying that you view that as an attack rather proves it. You are more than welcome to change your behavior. Trying to "win" this "fight" is only going to dig a deeper hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The user was blocked indef by Acroterion. BTW: Vacuasword seems to be a one-purpose account. --Leyo 22:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dimsar01 and user:Robster1983 reported by User:Robster1983 (Result: Agreement to discuss)

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimsar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Robster1983 (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:
I don’t know how this works, but me and Dimsar01 are in an edit war. Instead of going in, I just would like a non biased person to have a look at the page. It involves the high ticket prices of this year’s contest. I reckon it should be mentioned, others, however, don’t want it in the article. Is there anyone who could give us some guidance? 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. And I want to ask for the protection of the page to be changed back to Extended Confimed as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s at least something we agree on. I hope this works out for all of us. 🙂 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since it appears that Robster1983 and Dimsar01 have agreed to a proper discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Full protection after an intervention by admin User:Samsara. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:90.43.10.244 reported by User:Vauxford (Result: Blocked for two weeks)

Page: BMW 3 Series (E36) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.43.10.244 (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. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

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

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

Comments:

IP 90.43.10.244 has been constantly edit warring on the BMW 3 Series article by replacing the infobox image despite the fact we already reached a consensus of what image to use on the infobox and is getting out of control. They already been warned for their behaviour. The motive as they stated: "As anonymous wiki user,i won't let this unacceptable image represent the BMW E36" --Vauxford (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

While I support a block for the IP, Vauxford needs to be advised that their handling of the situation was wrong. I tried doing that when they posted at AN, but they appeared not to accept what I said.[35] When both sides are in the wrong, both sides need to be addressed; not just one who was more in the wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I simply fumbled up with the report, technically I did not edit warring as the diffs you showed me are about 2 weeks apart and I done no more then 3 today which I then stopped and tried to get assistant, I could of address this problem better in the future but I personally don't think I'm in the wrong here as well. --Vauxford (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: See the very first sentence at Wikipedia:Edit warring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." It says nothing about the amount of time between the reverts. The essential point is that it was a single dispute over a single bit of content, the infobox image. So yes, you were a participant in the edit war, and there is no "good" edit warring. You have now reverted six times in that dispute, and one should have been your limit. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution describes how to handle content disputes and I don't see your actions described there. I am not suggesting a block in your case, but I would if you acted in the same manner in a future dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Goodness cut me some slacks... Whatever happened to the three-revert rule? Tthey are within more than 24 hours, you're taking this far out of proportion just because I made some mistake, if what your saying is the case then you should inform others who been reverting this user's edits as well. --Vauxford (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Longer than normal block duration set as the editor stated they would continue using an IP account to edit war. A SPA registered account like this would be blocked for an indefinite period. I don't see anything particularly problematic with Vauxford's conduct, especially given the unpleasant way the IP editor has chosen to conduct themselves - which included making the above threat in the attempt to discuss this matter. This report was malformed though - please fill in all the standard fields in the future. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MattanJohnson11 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Indef)

Page: Pacific War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MattanJohnson11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Stable version of the article (especially the infobox): [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts: This new account has been re-inserting extraneous material into the infobox added by other accounts and adding other extraneous material despite a discussion of this on the talk page, and is edit warring against multiple editors. Please see the article history and the below diffs (note that most of the diffs are the combination of a series of edits):

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43] (since this report was lodged)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Has been warned four times, and twice been asked to join the talk page discussion [44] [45], [46], [47] The edit warring has continued since the fourth warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). MattanJohnson11 has ignored this, and instead posted a new thread trying to justify their edit warring where they state that they are being disruptive: [48]

Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this report was lodged, the editor has posted this and this in which they state they will try to evade any block and continue edit warring as "I love edit warring", and continued edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – The user has stated 'I love edit warring' which does raise the possibility that they might be a sock. (Is this a case of 'please block me'?). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:9W 3937 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

9W 3937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Get lost, please discuss instead of only reverting"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) to 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Consensus reached sucessfully"
   2. 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887023659 by 9W 3937 (talk)"
3. 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887002031 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886932654 by Abdotorg (talk)"
   2. 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
   2. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
7. 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gugudan. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Gugudan#About_these_Source

Comments:

Relentless edit-warring against multiple editors. PAs on edit-summaries. Use of socks, article had to be semi-protected, but despite that, these confirmed new accounts are still edit-warring adding cruft into the article. Regular editors had to ask Drmies for help; that's where I came in to try to help them. Dr. K. 10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

3GFRIENDSNSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly a sock of 9W 3937, not only it posted the identical message at my talk page (sock dif, 3GFRIENDSNSD dif), it also re-inserted the same fancruft and "article is outdated" maintenance template at Gugudan, same as 9W 3937 did. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:VwM.Mvw (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. On article edit summary: [54]
2. On user talk page: [55]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Iran#Recent revision

Comments:

The user has ignored all of my messages, both on the article's edit summary, the article's talk page, and their own talk page. M . M 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)