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:72.136.95.67 reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 72.136.95.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086407715 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) I wasn't referencing The Sun, I was referring to the fact that Depp was suing The Sun... can you please read what I wrote properly and actually look at my sources???"
2. 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086403749 by Agtx (talk) see talk page"
3. 00:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086402871 by Agtx (talk) THIS IS WELL-SOURCED"
4. 00:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086401975 by Agtx (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Can't mark them since I didn't make the warnings myself in this case but user was warned three times on User Talk page and several other times on Article Talk page. There's currently also a discussion over at the Article Talk page but it seems the user still continues edit warring. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd#Judicial Corruption. Reason: Discussion regards the same topic.. ~~~~

★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Extra time for the BLP implications. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Dyldyl9 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Libs of TikTok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dyldyl9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Removed clear bias. Simply reposting videos is not “a derogatory manner”"
2. 21:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "This is important, because it plays a major part into why conservatives were upset"
4. 21:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Adding a fact that this article seems to want to ignore"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Libs of TikTok."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user is persistently POV pushing and once they've reached the black and white limit of 3rr (mind you, they've been edit warring for a while) is disruptively editing the article to suite their narrative after there was already discussion (endless discussion) on the talk page to support the removal about the address and current inclusion of the statement that the videos were included in a derogatory manner. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Another diff to add Being disruptive and pushing pov by removing clear bias? I thought this site cared about “neutrality” Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And now we're entering the territory of personal attacks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And now we've reached the fourth revert in a 24 hour period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m suiting a narrative by removing something that’s clearly pushing a narrative? Sounds like you’re just upset that someone doesn’t want you pushing your narrative Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You're confusing neutrality for blind support. We are reporting what reliable sources say, even if it's negative or has a negative slant. Not doing so would violate WP:NPOV - we don't sugar coat things so as not to hurt peoples feelings. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• And they've continued to edit war to POV push despite multiple editors reverting them and a more than adequate discussion for inclusion on the talk page. See here. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Jhabeer reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Jabir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
2. 07:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Given name */Added content"
3. 07:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Given name */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Please do no add links before notability is established */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps adding his own name despite friendly explanations about notability and warning about edit warring on his talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed for self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)

Page: Aligarh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1] at Latest revision as of 15:50, 8 May 2022 "The real history was Rao Gujarmal defeated Badgurjar Bahadur Singh and area was annexed into Ahirwal . This is true story"
2. 06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Article should be now put protection as It is violating the history No Dor Rajput were mentioned anywhere . The Antiqe of Ghasera fort clearly mentioned Rao Gujarmal and Surajmal as pagdi brothers. The name itself putting mal means they both are expert"
3. 16:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "It was only Rao Gujarmal who killed Bahadur Dacoit and took revenge of his father"
4. [2] at Revision as of 07:01, 7 May 2022 "It was Rao Gujjarmal who killed Bahadur Singh niot by any Rajput ruler as Rajputs were already defeated by Rao Gujjarmal"
5. [3] at Revision as of 01:28, 6 May 2022 "Initially it was ruled by Yadav Rulers. This has to be added and Bad Gurjar Bahadur Singh killed by Rao Gujjarmal of Rewari"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ambati Rayudu."
2. 09:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Aligarh."
3. 09:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"
4. 16:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aligarh."
5. 16:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */ new section"

Comments:

User keeps on removing sourced content, replaces with their own unsourced content, POV pushing caste Yadav/Ahir replacing sourced mention of "Rajput". Fails to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page despite multiple requests. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Similar unsourced Yadav/Ahir-caste POV push in other articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

With this edit, Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh broke WP:3RR (also linked under Diffs of the user's reverts above). Still no discussion at talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Enemy of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "The dispute is still ongoing which term should be used, so let's delete both before dispute is over" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi")
2. 11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */ Dispute is not solved so it should not be added" Re-removes "neo-Nazi"(Removes a different "neo-Nazi", undoing another editor's addition)
3. 19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */ Approximately 100 words added as suggested in the Talk page" (Re-adds summary)
4. 15:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Most of the sources say "fascist", so it should be "fascist"" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi")
5. 21:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Most of the sources describe him as "fascist" rather than "neo-nazi"" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi", undoing another editors addition)
6. 20:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */" (Re-adds summary, undoing another editor's removal)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Enemy of Europe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk page section with clear objections to AA2017's summaries
2. Talk page section with editors objecting to the removal of "neo-Nazi" as a description of the author

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, though AA2017 did revert four times in a 25 hour period. Despite the lack of a bright-line violation, this user is definitively edit warring, with universal talk page objection to their summaries of the work and their repeated removal of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor of its author. Over the past few days, this pattern is evidenced across other related pages (Francis Parker Yockey, the author, and Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, his previous book). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not even an edit-warring. The summary of the work has been reduced in size by every edit and reached app. 100 words as suggested on Talk page, also the debate about which term should be used ("fascist" or "neo-nazi") is still ongoining so I removed both of them currently exactly to avoid edit-warring. There is no patter of me sabotaging the page in any way by engaging in edit war.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I edited the report since the above reply, so I want to make sure, ArsenalAtletico2017, that you see the changes. You're undoing the work of other editors, and you know that there are objections to the edits I linked. It's edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC) this edit was not about Yockey unlike three other edits which removed "neo-Nazi" from the text. Other three edits are not done within 24 hours.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That's worth clarifying, so I've struck the original description and substituted in that it was removal of a different neo-Nazi. It was still an undoing of the other editor's addition, and edit warring includes any reversion "involving the same or different material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to clutter the report too much, but if admins would like diffs of edit warring on the closely related pages, they are available upon request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nebakeaddis reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

Page: Tigray Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 20:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086836057 by Dr.Pinsky (talk)"
5. 16:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086831884 by Wowzers122 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wikipedia and copyright */ add"
2. 18:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of copyright violations to this article and its talk page, no response to messages on their talk page from four different editors about copyright and edit warring. DanCherek (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wareno reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: )

Page: Battle of Sincouwaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wareno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments: I was also reported by him here: [17]

• The User:Qiushufang is currently reported for disrupting Wikipedia with arbitrary and very obviously partisan pro-Chinese edits. This is just him trying to get out of it. Wareno (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Bulleye Jackie reported by wolf (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: List of modern armament manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bulleye Jackie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

1. [19] @ 2022-05-09T07:49:45
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24] @ 2022-05-09T02:08:21

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [25] (by different user)

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

Comments: (I'm an observer, not involved in this dispute). This editor has reverted the same content 6 times in less than 6 hours, (a significant amount ≈25 kb) against two different editors; Chipmunkdavis and Horse Eye's Back. Does't appear a 3RR notice was given, possibly as it all happened rather quickly, or because it seems each user felt they were reverting vandalism and 3RR didn't apply...(?) Perhaps the users involved can clarify. - wolf 08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's WP:Harassment. The account exists solely to harass Horse Eye's Jack on this page, and somehow isn't blocked. CMD (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Up to 9RR now. CMD (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Further look at the history shows this content was first reverted by an IP user back on 30 December 2020. Following a revert by Horse Eye's Jack, the Bulleye Jackie account was created the very next day, as an SPA, editing this article only. They reverted that content 9 more times over the next year or so, before this set of reverts (making 15 in total). Another IP user then reverted the same content, and user UBQITOSW has reverted the same content, in whole or in part, several times, but not in the past few months. There are other issues to consider here including possible socking and the need to address and very long running content dispute. - wolf 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is a WP:SPA who has done nothing but disrupt/edit-war List of modern armament manufacturers. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• @Thewolfchild: Great catch, just a historical note that the content dispute actually began in November 2017‎ not December 2020. The content was originally removed by Drmies in this series of edits[27][28][29][30]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• wolf, thanks for writing this up--I know it's a drag to file edit warring reports. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:X11311y reported by User:Russ Woodroofe (Result: Both socks blocked)

Page: Riemann hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: X11311y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "AMS Reviews and Zentralblatt give no objection to this paper really."
2. 08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "It is not for promotion.but for check by all mathematicians."
3. 07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "honest"
4. 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "welcome; please do not edit war"
2. 08:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:X11311y "/* Edit warring */ cmt"

Comments:

After explaining WP:3RR policy to X11311y, the similarly named account X11311 appeared to advanced similar edits. It looks like both accounts are WP:NOTHERE, violating WP:SOCK, etc; but there is at the very least a clear WP:3RR violation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Both socks blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Soumyadip3 reported by User:Czello (Result: Indef)

Page: Luhansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Soumyadip3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "LPR is a partially recognised state recognised by Russia and is a seperate breakaway state who hates Ukrainian Neo-Nazi regime. Stop DISRUPTIVE editing and use your Western ideas somewhere else"
2. 10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "The thing which is very much unclear is your DISRUPTIVE EDITING and having a Pro-Ukraine mindset because LPR is internationally recognised as a country by RUSSIA. So it's a PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED State. Is that THAT much difficult for you to understand"
3. 09:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 06:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Added about Russia's recognition of LPR"
5. 12:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Added details about Luhansk People's Republic being recognised only by Russia"
6. 11:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "LPR is a country recognised by Russia only"
7. 10:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Luhansk People's Republic, a breakaway state"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luhansk People's Republic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition, user is promoting Kremlin propaganda.[31] Clear WP:NOTHERE — Czello 10:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:647:cc00:4a0::c2c8 reported by User:Aluxosm (Result: )

Page: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:647:cc00:4a0::c2c8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:53, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086892373 by Vsmith (talk) please see talk"
2. 14:23, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086952254 by Aluxosm (talk) The age has been reported as fact and is not in dispute. Kjær quote has no citation & may not be actual quote."
3. 16:00, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086970013 by Aluxosm (talk) the unsupported Kjær quote appears to be fabricated to be fabricated to support a false narrative. See the Voosen ref."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:58, 9 May 2022 "→‎Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: new section"
2. 16:14, 9 May 2022 "→‎Edit warring over well sourced statements: new section"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts made at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § Hiawatha Crater (beginning at: "The following statement has no source to back it up...")

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:58, 9 May 2022 "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring notice"

Comments:

IP user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, predominantly by removing sourced material regarding Kurt Kjær, despite discussions and explanations. Aluxosm (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I accidentally reverted their last edit (diff before correcting). While I think that it should be done, I'm not sure that I should be the one to do it. The contentious version is the current one. Aluxosm (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:MovieBuffIndia reported by User:SP013 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page: K.G.F: Chapter 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "On what basis KGF Chapter 2 stands with 3 days old ₹1007 crore. Just because a non RS Jatinder Singh published it? Very basic thing of this movie surpassing RRR itself is void if you persist with this number. Have a discussion on talk page before reverting to 3 days old box office number. Those who have been following the BO section of this article knew that till 3 weeks only MB figure quoted by ht was used. Pinkvilla Jatinder is not a sole source."
2. 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Refer ICTF discussion, Manobala Vijayabalan is very much reliable. Dozen sources with their editorial board approves it, unlike Jatinder Singh. Pinkvilla is never used for Bollywood or Telugu BO. Do no revise sourced figure current figure with outdated non RS figure. Undid revision 1086914626 by TuluveRai123 (talk)"
3. 04:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Do not use non RS Jatinder Singh from Pinkvilla for BO. Refer ICTF."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on K.G.F: Chapter 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User violates the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule on this single page and has been trying to push a POV about box office figures and attacks other editors who disagree with him. (He has already been banned multiple times for doing this but he still continues to do this) SP013 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Partial blocks don't work here, it seems.

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )

Page: Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33] (next edit: [34]),
2. [35],
3. [36], this is revert of this edit [37]
4. [38], this is revert of this edit [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
The user openly refuses to respect WP:3RR rule [43], even though they were blocked for 3RR violation before.My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not true. What "My very best wishes" is doing is deliberately confusing "bold edits" (such as number 4) and "reverts", while edit warring themselves against multiple editors (including Mhorg). Also, before filing this report, they left this notice (unlike them, I wasn't aware of it), and finally this sarcastic edit summary for the 3R notice.

The discussion on the talk page was started an hour after we stopped editing and so far nobody agrees with their so-called "improvements". M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I answer here as I got a ping. I can only say that user "My very best wishes" almost seems to be using this technique of bombing stable articles, removing whole chunks full of important text and sources. In just 24 hours he has removed all this stuff:[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] and therefore pushes many users to commit to reverting all his actions. In my opinion, while not violating any precise rules, it comes close to a type of malicious behavior. So I would suggest to those who have to deal with this practice to consider this aspect.--Mhorg (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)