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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Hsjalizs reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029867683 by M.Bitton (talk) please stop unjustified removal of scholar Erkek Ekinci reference which shows Fez mentioned in 17th century and not of Greek origin."
23:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029772138 by M.Bitton (talk) Rv disruptive edit. Unjustified removal of academic source of Erkek Ekinci."
23:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029742830 by M.Bitton (talk) please stop silencing Erkek Ekinci the scholars legitimate source. Stop the bias and OR."
19:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029689009 by M.Bitton (talk) Rv. Disruptive edits. Removal of sourced content based on POV and OR."
03:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029434139 by M.Bitton (talk) it is not misrepresenting it. Please stop deleting reputable source of denting Greek origin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Fez (hat)."
19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "/* ANI notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Fez_(hat)#June_2021 "/* June 2021 */"

Comments:

Hi there, not an expert but M. BITTON is edit warring with me and he ubjustifiably removes Erkek Ekinci's scholarly source which states the Fez hat cannot have a Greek origin and that Evliya Celebi of the 17th century described it. Please stop such edit warring and removal of sources without justification and consensus. Erkek Ekinci's research is acceptable by Wikipedias standards whereas M. BITTONS OR is not. Also, M. BITTON started a similar dispute in ANI noticeboard. Why does he want to censore non-Western supremacist views? Hsjalizs (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also warned M. BITTON to stop edit warring on his talk page as well. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the moment they joined the project, this editor has done nothing but blindly revert my edits on Fez (hat). My explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist was simply ignored and so were my repeated attempts as getting them to explain why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They have now broken the 3R rule for the second time. After I left a detailed comment on the talk page asking them to explain their edit, they reverted my edit (again) and left this tangential answer (the ultimate proof that they have no intention in answering any of the questions and all they're interested in is edit warring). M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note there is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Hsjalizs about this same issue. I have protected the page for two days as an interim measure to stop the ongoing edit war and encourage discussion, but am not available to take a detailed look at the behavioral concerns, and so am not marking this as a formal "result". I will return to this issue later today if no other admin has intervened, but I would invite any admin to take any additional measures they deem appropriate (or conclude that page protection is sufficient with no further action). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have returned to this, and have decided to leave it with just the protection for now. However, I would strongly encourage M.Bitton or Hsjalizs to begin a discussion (WP:RSP, WP:3O, or WP:RFC are good options) to get outside input on the content dispute. Continuance of the edit war after page protection expires will most likely result in a block—you need to come to consensus first, then update the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkonrad reported by User:Uanfala, take 2 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2] 14:16 (UTC)
[3] 16:46 (UTC)
[4] 17:05 (UTC)
[5] 17:19 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] 17:09 (UTC)

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [7]

Comments:

User:2804:14C:1B3:8900:5DF5:C12A:ABA4:D692/64 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: three month range block)

User being reported: 2804:14C:1B3:8900:5DF5:C12A:ABA4:D692/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029893981 by Czello (talk) Facts are facts"
17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP range Special:Contributions/2804:14C:1B3:8900:5DF5:C12A:ABA4:D692/64 has been repeatedly edit warring poorly sourced POV content into the above article. One IP in the range, Special:Contributions/2804:14C:1B3:8900:4C4D:7071:8864:154E was previously temp blocked for 3RR on this same page. A rangeblock would be very helpful, with little/no collateral. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP needs to stop complaining. Blocked the range for three months. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AtmaramU reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[8] 14:36, 21 June 2021
[9] 14:54, 21 June 2021
[10] 15:30, 21 June 2021
[11] 15:40, 21 June 2021
[12] 15:59, 21 June 2021
[13] 16:12, 21 June 2021
[14] 15:44, 22 June 2021
[15] 15:55, 22 June 2021
[16] 19:19, 22 June 2021
[17] 20:32, 22 June 2021

This is the bloody limit: removing my talkpage-posts twice:

[18]
[19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Vyasa#Lead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [21]

Comments:
Unbelievable: the guy has even reverted my talkpage-additions, to solve this, *twice*. Can someone please block them rightaway?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable is Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) association with 245CMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in trying to discredit my edits for no strong reason. Admins, please take a look at the log of Vyasa and see for yourself that all I tried to do was add a content with reliable source but 245CMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disagreed reverting my changes with no credible reasoning. On top of that when the issue was discussed in TALK page of the article VYASA, 245CMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pinged the close associates who can help in supporting him such as the user who reported me here Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) himself reverted all the changes all the way back to June 16th (three times) when the topic of discussion was just about whether "Vyasa was a founder of religion". And I myself removed this disputed comment till the discussion came to a conclusion in the TALK page. And 245CMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) states that there will be no reverts from him but then Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) steps in to completely make all the reverts as far as back to June 16th, which wasn't even necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 22 june 2021 (UTC)

Also this user Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) didn't even try to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. All he has done is reverted without a conclusive discussion. And just posted messages that I have been reported for Edit Warring.

Two times; learn to count. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect Wikipedia "Be Nice" policy.

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours RegentsPark (comment) 20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Looks like that the user has once again tried to remove the warnings on his talk page. [22]. .245CMR.•^👥📜 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AtmaramU: Whatever you think, but I just asked some experienced users, who know about Hinduism, to help in concluding the discussion..245CMR.•^👥📜 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deedman22 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: One week)

User being reported: Deedman22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029908196 by RandomCanadian (talk) inaccurate statements made. Lysippos contemporary bust was not "rejected", and on talk user made indifferent comments indicating that he believes that it doesn't really matter what busts are depicted. user also reverted a contemporary bust (backed by an ancient source). inappropriate reversion"
18:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "changed to more contemporary bust"
18:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029900841 by Pipsally (talk) there is nothing to discuss on talk"
18:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029891629 by RandomCanadian (talk) user reverted a more accurate model bust (that is the same used as the lead image) as well as a link to an individual. uncalled-for reversion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"
18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"
18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"

Comments:

This is a longer term issue (see previous section from about a month ago), and the editor in question has shown no signs in attempting a compromise - when faced with policy based arguments, they instead dismiss them and try to edit war their way in. In either case, this isn't the first time they're breaching the brightline 3RR line on this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also here for a previous example of edit-warring (7 reverts by my count) between this editor and me and others - in that instance the page had to be protected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I should have gone to ANI instead. Well, I've just been called a "homosexual" (as though that was a meaningful insult) by the reported user, [23]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for one week. For the record, as I stated in the block log and on the user's Talk page, I blocked the user not just for edit-warring, but for personal attacks, a general battleground mentality, and failure to collaborate with other editors. All of these behaviors are interrelated and part of a very disappointing picture. I also noted on the user's Talk page that if these behaviors persist after expiration of their block, the next block will be (should be anyway) indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyawkah99 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: CU blocked)

User being reported: Newyawkah99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Democratic primary */ background changes"
08:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */Added in neutral language re: Yang subway, something user shoestringnomad has repeatedly reverted/deleted with no justification whatsoever."
Consecutive edits made from 08:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC) to 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
1. 08:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */Added in nymag bit again…for the fourth time."
2. 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */Added in tapper comments again, also for the fourth time"
04:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Doesn't matter. Bits about Adams are neutrally worded in background and Yang bits should be as well, free from loaded and tilted language like "akin to a tourist". Tapper's comments were relevant and some of Adams' prominent supporters openly condemned the statement."
02:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */Added relevant bit about adams nymag article that was somehow deleted."
02:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */“Akin to that of a tourist” is heavily stilted and leading language. Added jake tapper comments on Adams comments (along w/source)"
08:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Background */Reverted back to previous version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2021 New York City mayoral election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA has been editing against consensus to either non-NPOV change the factual reporting on Andrew Yang or/and use non-neutral phrasing to disparage Eric Adams on linked page. Also very suspicious behavior in quickly editing 11 seemingly random articles very superficially on June 14th when started *this* account to get seasoned into a confirmed user most likely, and then has edited nothing but this page. JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add that I hadn't noticed that the user had two warnings on their talk for EW, though none for 3RR, but it looks like a violation to me, and the warnings and reverting edit summaries were quite clear. JesseRafe (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: While I recognize your beliefs that the vocabulary on Yang and Adams was neutral on the background page, it is telling that both you and user Shoestringnomad have been very active in editing Eric Adams' candidate page, the other user explicitly mentioning on his homepage how he was proud of his edits of "New York's Next Mayor, Eric Adams." Additionally, the addition of a negative article on adams (from NYMAG) was repeatedly deleted, while one mentioning Yang's controversial comments on the subway remained. Go ahead and think if that's a conflict of interest or not.

- NY99

Comment: And they just... keep... going... After acknowledging this very notice by responding to it, Newyawkah99 made 5 more reverts (as of posting this comment). Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, user who is responsible for the overwhelmingly glowing edits on Eric Adams' page: You might not be the one to tell folks what's neutral and what isn't.

-NY99

Blocked indefinitely Newyawkah99 blocked as a Confirmed sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SobySobea reported by User:Augend (Result: Blocked; globally locked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Only warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Melecie."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

07:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Only warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Melecie."

Comments:

Not edit warring per se, but repeated blanking of others' talk pages, and continued blanking after a 4im warning. (this comes after another L2 warning) Augend (drop a line) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) user has been blocked. although I have a slight suspicion that this user is a sock and/or a hijacked account, given their insistence on PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDITS when few of their edits have been reverted (with most edits seeming in good-faith) and soby seeming like a good editor prior to today's events. melecie t 07:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked locally for a limited time and locked globally. Based on what I see, it is unlikely to be a compromised account as it is identified on multiple projects as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiswick_Chap reported by User:RZuo (Result:No violation )

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [30]

User:Chiswick_Chap kept reverting based on an obviously wrong rationale, and also accused me of editwarring when s/he was at fault.--RZuo (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ~~The~~ explanation on the article's talk page, posted initially to RZuo's talk page, was as follows:

"Dear RZuo, I am afraid you are mistaken or confused. You have three times attempted to add a redirect for the phrase "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" which one might expect to abbreviate to LOIR, were it to be abbreviated at all. A google search for "LOTR" does not turn up any page with that acronym and phrase in the first 10 lists of 10 pages; it turns up many pages of Lord of the Rings. There is no Wikipedia page named "Leave outside the Immigration Rules"; and the page you linked to, "Leave to enter", contains neither the words "Leave outside the Immigration Rules", nor the acronym LOTR, nor anything that would stand for that acronym. The gov.uk page on "Immigration Rules" cited in that article, needless to say, does not contain any of those three things either.

"Further, you have accused me of incivility by placing a mildly-worded informal warning notice, above. It was not incivil in any way; indeed I could readily have placed a formal warning instead; and your action in accusing others of incivility is itself unhelpful. Further, the other editor reverted you properly. I do hope, given the amount of time it is now taking to deal with your case, that you will accept gracefully that your proposed hatnote may well not be justified in this instance, and that other editors have (all) acted in good faith. All the best, (signed)"

I was not the only editor to revert RZuo's edits. Indeed s/he appears to have inserted the hatnote three times against consensus and without joining the discussion; s/he has also made multiple assertions about other users' conduct on very doubtful grounds. I'm happy to discuss the hatnote but so far it does not seem to be at all appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i "inserted the hatnote three times against consensus and without joining the discussion"?

i inserted a hatnote in accordance with Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous_term_that_redirects_to_an_unambiguously_named_article,

and i was the first to start the discussion, even though users who removed valid material should have done started that discussion.

stop twisting facts.--RZuo (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted the hatnote 4 times, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Per WP:BRD, the person being reverted is expected to start the discussion. Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.

@RZuo and Chiswick Chap: I would caution both of you that you are on the edge of WP:3RR. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I shall await consensus, which seems to be building on the talk page now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.

when there was neither reason given in edit summaries nor a discussion on the talk page, the reversion was clearly disruptive.--RZuo (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation No violation; the four reverts of the information were made by two different editors. ~~RZuo, you're newish, so I'll simply warn you that you're actually the one in violation of 3RR.~~ —valereee (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: i reported edit war, which is not limited to 4RR. i did not violate 3rr either. i did exactly 3 but not 4 reverts.

so, neither of your conclusion was correct.--RZuo (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, miscounted. It remains that accusing others of/reporting them for edit warring -- while your own reversions are those of two different editors -- is at minimum disingenuous. You edited, CC reverted. You reverted him, SST reverted you. You reverted SST, CC reverted you. You accused CC at article talk of edit warring, then reverted him again. He reverted you, and you came here to report him. To me it's looking like its your own behavior that's the actual problem here. —valereee (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you could of course defend your conclusion by omitting key events.

first, the accused user made a baseless accusation of edit war against me, only after that i had to start a discussion "at article talk".

second, i then reverted only after the accused user's 1st and 2nd reverts were evidently based on nonsense, as shown in his own words on the article talk page. he didnt even understand the hatnote itself, but kept reverting.

i wont reply further when a complaint is not properly reviewed.--RZuo (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Numidia-dz reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: )

User being reported: Numidia-dz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1030034230 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1030030430 by M.Bitton (talk)"
12:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1030023453 by M.Bitton (talk)"
09:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1030005913 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 08:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) to 08:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
1. 08:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029985436 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
2. 08:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 18:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC) to 19:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
1. 18:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029895455 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
2. 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC) to 15:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
1. 15:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
2. 15:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Barbary lion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are also vandalizing another article by misrepresenting what the sources say and adding baseless OR. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Alluburam reported by User:Nahtrav (Result: )

Page: 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election
User being reported: User: Alluburam

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: [31] [32] [33]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:
He has been continuously reverting the edits made by me and some other users.He give names by his wish, but If I revert it according to government records , he again reverted it, many users are annoyed by him. Nahtrav (talk)

User:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Pofka (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Multiple pages described below.
User being reported: Лобачев Владимир (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Multiple reverts in multiple articles, constant, systemic edit warring described below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:
I am sorry in advance that this report is long, but I had to provide evidence I collected.

Hello, multiple users of multiple nationalities already encountered malicious activity, systematic and persistent edit warring and pushing of the Russian POV, WP:OR by user Лобачев Владимир. This user clearly does not seek to comply with the Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia. As a result, I think he should be blocked permanently for his malicious activity and systematic attack of other countries, nations, their statehoods, languages, and similar because various warnings towards him already were proved to be fruitless. Seeing how systematically he attacks other countries identity (those which have quite anti-Russian sentiment like: Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania), he is most likely part of the Russian web brigades or similar groups (which certainly has no place in Wikipedia) and probably is even getting paid for such hatred. Knowing such topics as Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Internet Research Agency, Propaganda in the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that we encounter such disruptive users online, but they must be stopped as soon as possible and their malicious activity should be prevented. Evidence is presented below.

First of all, I encountered his malicious activity at the article Pahonia when he came up as a backup for other aggressive user Kazimier Lachnovič, who is already tagged as a disruptive user by two administrators (Barkeep49, Ymblanter), but still was brave enough to perform an enormous edit warring in this article. But user Лобачев Владимир proved to be equally aggressive. He persistently inserted unrelated Russian illustrations and attempted to Russify the Coat of arms of Lithuania in this article. See these edits: 1 (e.g. he attempted to prove that Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy are somehow related with Lithuania, when in reality Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Novgorod Republic, Grand Duchy of Moscow were constant enemies and aren't related see: Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars). Then I removed his unrelated illustrations with well-motivated explanation (my edit) and he began agressive edit warring and pushing of the Russian POV: reinserted these symbols which aren't related with Lithuania (2), then I removed them once again because they weren't related (my edit), but he kept reinserting Russian POV (3) and following my last well-motivated removal (my edit) I created a report at the administrators noticeboard about disruptive activity (now archived: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic_vandalism,_pushing_of_the_Belarusian_propaganda_to_the_article_of_Pahonia).

As a result, administrator El C became involved and warned that any continuation of edit warring will certainly result in sanctions because this article was already locked twice per one month (El C warning). For some time the disruptive editing stopped, but today user Лобачев Владимир showed that he doesn't care about warnings and attempts to provoke the same edit warring once again (see this edit). In today's edit he single-handedly removed the Lithuanian CoA with azure (blue) color symbol purposefully and inserted pure white horse rider which resembles not the Coat of arms of Lithuania (main subject of this article), but the Belarusian pure white horse rider (see: National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia). The initial edit warring at this article was initiated by already mentioned Kazimier Lachnovič who defended the pure-white Belarusian horseman as the "right" one: 1, 2, 3, which resulted in the first locking of this article (locking edit by admin Alex Bakharev). So his friend Лобачев Владимир obviously wants to provoke the same edit warring again and I really do not want to participate in it. He also keeps reinserted unrelated random illustrations (4) as Pskov Republic never was part of Lithuania. His POV and hate for the Lithuanians, who founded the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and created this CoA (evidence: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times" (ref from Britannica), is perfectly illustrated by this chauvinistic statement that the Lithuanian CoA belongs to Russia (Russian Empire) because at some periods of history Russia annexed Lithuania (see: Russian partition, Occupation of the Baltic states) and not to the Lithuanians and Lithuania. By the way, he performed identical edit warring, involving a pure white horseman, at Wikidata (see this page). But that's certainly not all of his disruptive editing.

User Лобачев Владимир also performed massive anti-Lithuanian edit warring at article Pogoń: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Pay attention that he found no problem to perform edit warring against three users there: me, Onel5969 (patroller, reviewer, rollbacker), Elmidae (patroller, rollbacker). And once again stopped edit warring only when admin El C became involved.

Recently he also performed very similar anti-Lithuanian edit warring at article Pogonia and once again persistently attempted to prove that Lithuania is "not" Lithuania: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Pay attention that prior to 1918 the Belarusians had no state (ref from Britannica) and no national symbols (ref from Britannica), therefore he purposefully refused to accept reliable information as it does not comply with his anti-Lithuanian POV and his desire to humiliate the Republic of Lithuania.

Nevertheless, his desire to attack other nations, languages, states and push Russian POV includes not only the anti-Lithuanian sentiment. See evidence below (collected from his edit history).

Attack on the Romanian language in Transnistria (an unrecognized, illegal region, pseudo state created by the Russian Army, see: Transnistria War): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Enormous amount of edit warring even against a bot at article Lapta (game): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Vandalism, fueled by his chauvinistic hatred for the Ukrainian language name of Kyiv (Kiev is a Russian language name, while Kyiv is the Ukrainian language variant): 1.

Inserted self-made illustration of a flag into article Grand Duchy of Lithuania (pure case of WP:OR): 1, same here: 2, thus replacing the existing one, which is based on the authentic 16th century image (see this file here). By the way, pay attention that the Lithuanian CoA (horse rider) is once again white in his self-made illustration. This is part of his anti-Lithuanian routine because the authentic Coat of arms of Lithuania includes azure (blue) color, unlike the 1918+ Belarusian variant.

Pushing of Cyrillic alphabet (used in Russia) in Moldovan topics over the Latin alphabet, thus completely removing the Latin variant and performing edit warring: 1, 2, 3.

Failed attempts to separate modern Lithuania from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (all these pages were deleted by administrators): 1, 2, 3. As already mentioned before, this is part of his hatred for Lithuania.

More hatred for the Republic of Lithuania: 1 (same idea: Lithuania is "not" Lithuania), 2.

He also performed edit warring at article Moldavia and was warned for the violation of three-revert rule (warning by Rgvis): 1, 2, 3. Due to this edit warring, user Лобачев Владимир was warned by an administrator at the administrators noticeboard (see archived report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#Moldavia._War_of_edits_again). Did he stopped edit warring in this article after the warning? Obviously not. See these edits he made 1 month later: 1, 2, 3. Was it the end? Nope. Here is more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The problem with this reference was that he stubbornly attempted to prove (still continues this edit warring today) that the Russian nationalistic POV website, named cyber leninist (leninka), is "reliable" when describing Moldova-related topic.

This user's nationalistic-imperialistic POV is especially visible at the talk page of article Moldavia. Here he stubbornly attacked other users and attempted to prove two chauvinistic things:

1) First myth was that the Ruthenian language was the primary language of Moldavia (based exclusively on the Russian/Soviet sources): Talk:Moldavia#Native language of Moldavia. He even attempted to prove an absolute propaganda that West Russian language exists and was spoken in Moldavia, thus in a chauvinistic way denying that the Belarusian language, Ukrainian language exists (example of a supreme Russian nationalistic POV). In reality, the standard Russian language is just a Moscovian dialect (see: Russian language#Standard Russian). See this discussion from Wikidata (with text "Ruthenian (Q13211)" in its title): LINK. Since this short chauvinistic discussion is written in the Russian language and would not be understandable for the anglophones, here is Google translate link to it: LINK.

2) Attempted to single-handedly replace the flag of Moldavia and failed to provide reliable sources when other users rejected his edits: Talk:Moldavia#RfC: Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia. I'm not familiar with these flags, but I'm quite sure they are somehow related with Russia, especially the Russian Empire as this user does not perform edit warring without attempts to Russify something. But I'm sure the Moldavian-Romanian users will clarify this.

He also removed the Lithuanian CoA with azure (blue) color from this Lithuania-related template today: 1. Basically, he will attack non-Russian topics and perform vandalism, insert his personal POV (WP:OR) as much as he is allowed to.

Also, here is a relevant example to grab his mentality and way of thinking. In Wikimedia Commons, he single-handedly denies Lithuanian sources reliability in a Lithuania-related topic and censors, blocks attempts to insert such reliable information. See edit history of this file: Seal of Algirdas (proved by the Lithuanians to be a late period falsification). Just a yet another example of his hatred for Lithuania. What is even more funny, is a "discussion" (see: File talk:Lob Печать Ольгерда.svg) in which user Лобачев Владимир reaches an agreement with Kazimier Lachnovič, who is already well-known disruptive user in English Wikipedia, that the Lithuanian sources are not reliable and they cannot be trusted. However, according to them, the Belarusian sources are fully reliable. Truly funny to see when two disruptive users, edit warriors (from Russia and Belarus) reaches an anti-Lithuanian agreement in a Lithuania-related topic between themselves and presents it as undeniable "truth".

Some more interesting findings from his talk page: 1) He was warned for disruptive editing already in 2018 (see this warning by Polyamorph); 2) Attempted to humiliate the Lithuanian language already in 2015 (last edit from the 2015 discussion), but was stopped by other users; 3) Performed WP:OR edit-revert warring in article Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 2015 (warning by Sabbatino, who has reviewer rights).

Short summary of this report. User Лобачев Владимир edit history consists of two distinct spheres: 1) editing of Russia-related articles; 2) Attacking, humiliating of other countries, especially those who were annexed by Russia at some point in their history. From the arguments above, it is evident that we gave enough chances for this user to adopt and act normally, but he simply refuses to comply with the Wikipedia's rules and constantly tramples them. This already is at least the third time this user is reported to the AN for his disruptive editing and his case of a constant disruptive editing is getting extremely close to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Consequently, I request to permanently block user Лобачев Владимир because it is truly disturbing to constantly encounter his disruptive editing, vandalism, edit warring, WP:OR, pushing of personal/Russian POV in non-Russian topics, and humiliation of others. This mess, nearly constantly created by him single-handedly, should be finally over.

Pinging users who recently encountered Лобачев Владимир's malicious activity (notified them at their talk pages as well): @Buidhe:, @Rgvis:, @Anonimu:, @Itzhak Rosenberg:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @El C: -- Pofka (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The participant accuses me of exactly what he is doing. For example, it tries to change the Moldavia article by pushing it forcefully. First it asks for the source, and then it changes the information anyway. In addition, unreasonable attacks on me personally violate the WP: CIVIL rule. I consider all accusations here to be unfounded attacks. The only violation - I succumbed to the war of edits with this editor. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Pofka (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Pogonia: 1. Moldavia, Pogoń, Lapta (game), Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: reverting the same things again and again.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Pogonia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Moldavia (first episode): 1, 2, 3; Moldavia (second episode): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Pogoń: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pogonia: my edit summaries supports that user Лобачев Владимир was simply performing anti-Lithuanian WP:OR, while he refused to provide any counterarguments and left random summaries.
Moldavia: he stubbornly attempted to prove (still continues this edit warring today) that the Russian nationalistic POV website, named cyber leninist (leninka), is "reliable" when describing Moldova-related topic. He failed to provide neutral source and keeps reinserting it.
Pogoń: he performed edit warring against three users there: me, Onel5969 (patroller, reviewer, rollbacker), Elmidae (patroller, rollbacker) and stopped edit warring only when admin El C became involved.
Lapta (game): he was fighting with a Wikipedia bot alone.
Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: I did not participated in this edit war, but found it in his edit history. He is a systemic edit warrior, who attacks Lithuanian and Moldovan-Romanian topics.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; 1

Comments:
I shortened, simplified the earlier report: this report, which was too long.

User Лобачев Владимир was already warned not to perform edit warring by admin El C recently (El C warning). Also, this user was already recently reported to the AN twice: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#Moldavia._War_of_edits_again (he was warned by admin there) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic_vandalism,_pushing_of_the_Belarusian_propaganda_to_the_article_of_Pahonia. But since he was not blocked, he continues to provoke new cases of edit warring.

His hatred for Lithuania is perfectly illustrated by such chauvinistic statements like this one: EDIT (an example of Russian supremacy over previously annexed countries). All these anti-Lithuanian edits-reverts were made by him in order to humiliate the Republic of Lithuania and to push WP:OR that Lithuania is "not" Lithuania. I informed Romanian-Moldovan users about this report who also encountered his malicious activity and they will probably provide more information about his edit warring in Moldovan-Romanian topics.

Some more interesting findings from his talk page: 1) He was warned for disruptive editing already in 2018 (see this warning by Polyamorph); 2) Attempted to humiliate the Lithuanian language already in 2015 (last edit from the 2015 discussion), but was stopped by other users; 3) Performed WP:OR edit-revert warring in article Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 2015 (warning by Sabbatino, who has reviewer rights). Over the years he learned nothing and continues to be extremely aggressive. He could be part of the Russian web brigades as he aggressively attacks identities of countries which previously were annexed by Russia. I suggest to permanently block him because it is truly disturbing to encounter his disruptive editing again and again. -- Pofka (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that an editor who unleashes edit wars, justifying only with a personal glance, decided that if he complains about me, then he will be able to push his views in the articles quoted. I am guilty of two things: I do not support his point of view, which is not supported by the sources (1), and I did not turn here when he started the editing war (2). I think that in these applications, he again shows a lack of respect for opponents, allowing unethical statements and unfounded accusations (see the nomination above). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pofka from the Pahonia article removes images that are described in the sources, but contradict his personal opinion (1, 2). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets look at the edit histories of articles Pogoń and Pogonia. You performed an edit warring against multiple users without providing any arguments in your edits summaries. Edit histories there perfectly shows that you are a systemic disruptive user who single-handedly performs edit warring and attempts to present the Russian/Belarusian superiority in other articles. All removals of images in article Pahonia were well motivated in my edits summaries. For example, Novgorod Republic is not related with Lithuania in any way (1, 2), so insertion of random, unrelated illustrations to a section about Lithuania should not be tolerated and your complains are baseless. Other users would do the same if anyone attempted to insert the French CoA images into the German CoA article, etc. Just another example of your disruptive editing with which you attempt to Russify a Lithuania-related topic. -- Pofka (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Alexander Nevsky in 1236
Seal of Lengvenis the ruler of Great Novgorod Republic. 1395
Seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich, 1331

You don't know history well. In 1261, it was decided to end the war with the Vladimir-Suzdal princes and involve them in joint actions against Livonia, for which Mindovg in 1261 sent an embassy to Vladimir to Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, and an alliance was concluded with Veliky Novgorod (where Dmitry Dmitry Alexandrovich, son of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky). Lengvenis was one of the sons of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the ruler of Great Novgorod Republic (1389–1392, 1406–1411). One of the first images of Pahonia: the seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich, 1331. According to the Novgorod chronicle, Prince Alexander became the Pskov prince "from the hands of Lithuania". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that for you your own ideas are always more important than any reliable sources. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just your ordinary WP:OR based on Russian sources in a Lithuania-related topic. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability due to Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problems mentioned in this noticeboard are similar to those that user:Лобачев Владимир constantly practices in the case of other articles. Unfortunately, even after long mediation discussions, he continues these disruptive editing practices, without taking into account the arguments of the other editors. By using all sorts of tactics (not only on Wikipedia, but also on the other sister Wikimedia projects), he has only one goal: to impose his personal POV, no matter what.

Some examples of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS practiced by user:Лобачев Владимир:

- Although he was shown that the source on which he relied did not support his claim [34] + [35] + [36], he continued to use it and change the content accordingly;

- He disputes sources that do not suit him (for example, scholar sources, or FOTW, [37]), but does not hesitate to use sources like vexillographia.ru, or all kinds of blogs: [38], [39]; even his own sources contradict him [40], he continues to make the changes he wants [41];

- In order to impose his own images (drawings), he labeled as "fictitious" similar images brought by other users over time, even if they had all the necessary explanations: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49];

Moreover, user:Лобачев Владимир continues to be a promoter of WP:FRINGE: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] although he has been constantly given valuable references [59], [60] to those theories; in addition, he considers any prior debate on this topic held on Wikimedia project (Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia + Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia 2 + Deletion of Moldovan Wiktionary) to be irrelevant.

In my opinion, this user knows very well what he is doing, taking advantage of the fact that in recent years Wikipedia edits have become increasingly difficult to control, many honest users (including administrators) being completely overwhelmed by the present problems. Some time ago, these repeated behaviors of any user would have quickly led to the most drastic sanctions. (Rgvis (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Rgvis: Thanks for providing even more evidence about this user's systematic disruptive editing in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These appear to be mostly content disputes based on shaky evidence (some of the "sources" Лобачев Владимир contested are not reliable or are abusively used, i.e. they don't support the editors' claims). If you actually check the history of the diffed pages, you'll see a history of slow-motion edit warring on both sides, a clear violation of process. Considering the topic area, all editors should be made aware of the discretionary sanctions applying to these topics under WP:ARBEE. Disclosure: I have been engaged in the BRD process in the article regarding Moldavia, endorsing some of the reverts listed here as evidence "edit warring". Anonimu (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu: According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times" (I presented this information to him in this edit), so it is not dubious that the Lithuanians created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But user Лобачев Владимир doesn't like it and what he does? See this edit: 1. A report was created about his disruptive editing yesterday. Did he stopped edit warring? Of course not. Take a look at his edit today: 2, while we were discussing it here. He has been doing the same style attack in other articles. He simply wants to distort information he doesn't like and to replace it with his personal POV, based on websites like cyber leninist and similar. If nobody would stop his editing, he would rewrite the entire Wikipedia according to his personal POV. His disruptive editing is supported by the fact that completely unrelated editors from Lithuania, Romania, Moldova noticed these edits at the same time. He certainly will perform edit warring again and again, and again until he is permanently blocked. He has been given enough warnings. By the way, by performing his disruptive editing he closely collaborates with another disruptive editor Kazimier Lachnovič (tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators: Barkeep49 edit, Ymblanter edit), who attempts to rewrite articles according to the Belarusian publications and see his edit today in article Pogonia: 3. Both of them performed edit warring together at article Pahonia previously. -- Pofka (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ekdalian reported by User:Dr.SunBD (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [68]

Comments:

Dear wikipedian,

User:Ekdalian  destroy informations with references by editwarring. This  user's Warring activity against some castbase article specially Vaidya,Vaidyabrahmin ,Ambhastha.

Please check this user's editing history . Thank you.

User:31.134.178.99 reported by User:Calton (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] and [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was pointed to Talk page, but insists on reverting anyways.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [75]

Comments:

--Calton | Talk 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:204:dc00:c6e0:ecde:5491:a433:ed48 reported by User:2A02:C7F:F8BD:F100:71BC:967F:C4A7:8E9 (Result: Semi-protected three days)

Previous version reverted to: [76] [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:204:DC00:C6E0:ECDE:5491:A433:ED48 [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

Page protected three days. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Rray reported by User:Cigarlover Status: The matter is unresolved and is being escalated to Wiki arbitrator User:Barkeep49

User:Joshua Jonathan and and User:Rray has been committing repeated edit warring See [[81]]. These activities are highly suspicious as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor. User:Joshua Jonathan has past history of repeated edit warring 3RR behavior on multiple wiki articles and thus disrupting the neutrality of the articles. A userblock on User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Rray would be very helpful, with little/no collateral. --Cigarlover (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I have also rolled back to the last stable version, before the edit war that Cigarlover was a participant in. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response by JJ:

Regarding These activities are highly suspicious as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor. - the statement "as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor" is ridiculous. Cigarlover is on a crusade against Echhart Tolle, engaging in WP:OR and violating WP:NPOV. See also this comment diff: We need to escalate this, as this seems like a concerted effort by a 70$ Million dollar Eckhart Empire to create wiki articles that promote his image.. I'm hardly willing to accept or tolerate misplaced accuations like this.
Regarding User:Joshua Jonathan has past history of repeated edit warring 3RR behavior on multiple wiki articles and thus disrupting the neutrality of the articles. - hard evidence please when casting WP:ASPERSIONS and breaching WP:GOODFAITH.
Regarding edit-warring:

[82] 14:18, 24 June 2021 "Updated with citation. Any revert will be escalated"
[83] 14:45, 24 June 2021
[84] 15:33, 24 June 2021
[85] 15:44, 24 June 2021

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Rray:

I've repeatedly asked Cigarlover to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page. I even began the discussion of the problems with his edits on the talk page for the article. Looking forward to additional opinions and improving the article further. Everyone, have a great day! Rray (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rray reverted the changes without discussing them objectively. An honorable editor, discusses and takes sufficient effort to resolve the issue, instead of making unilateral reverts to other author's article. You are clearly working towards boosting and maintaining a page which is unsubstantiated by literary, reliable sources. Justify, why did you repeatedly delete the article write by Staff of Vancouver Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eckhart_Tolle&diff=1030231790&oldid=1030197949.

Rray and Joshua Jonathan you both need to disclose WP:DISCLOSE your affiliation with Eckhart's organization. If you are not affiliated and paid WP:PE by his organization, you should clarify that as that is a WP:COI--Cigarlover (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49 Kindly help restore the neutrality of the Eckhart Tolle page. The page has content whose listed citation does not have any corroboration with the content that is cited. This page is a propaganda page which is being incrementally build by a set of folks who seem to working in the interest of promoting the image of ET.

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