Page: Poole Museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1339201750 by Roxy the dog (talk): So are you"
2. 12:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MediaKyle (talk) to last revision by Roxy the dog"
3. 12:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1339185724 by Roxy the dog (talk): I've nommed that article for deletion"
4. 09:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1327152462 by Roxy the dog (talk): Non-notable rock removed again"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Roxy the dog has surpassed 3RR at the Poole Museum and seems to be unable to accept that "Bethan's Rock" is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Requesting an administrator to step in. MediaKyle (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the rock has no value other than as a PR piece for the museum. we shouldn't indulge them. I note that OP is edit warring equally.Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 12:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're vandalizing too. Very nice. MediaKyle (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Roxy the Dog self-reverted their 4th reversion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat complicated as it looks like MediaKyle has been engaging in long-term edit warring at Poole Museum, especially when it comes to restoring content in violation of WP:ONUS policy back in December and jumped back into restoring disputed content when Roxy disputed the recent edit in question. When I look at the AfD, MediaKyle is definitely personalizing the dispute in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner continuing to pursue Roxy that only poisons the well at the AfD.

Had MediaKyle followed expectations of ONUS and edit warring policy, no one would have had to revert them anyways. Roxy should have known better than to approach or exceed 3RR, but it's pretty clear MediaKyle's behavior related to edit warring has been the more central and causal issue here that probably at least needs a warning. I've restored the article to before when the edit warring broke out, and if anyone feels strongly about including the content, WP:ONUS really needs to be followed at this point instead of edit warring it back in. As long as no more reverting occurs, there hopefully will not need to be anything else WP:PREVENTATIVE at least. KoA (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed with this response. The true central and causal issue here is the toxic behavior of Roxy the dog. In my last interaction with them, I was so disturbed that I had to take a break from Wikipedia for a few days... This unpleasant behavior is what drives away new contributors. This is the first time I have reported a user, I am relatively easy to get along with, but this behavior is unacceptable, especially from an experienced editor. All that being said, I didn't notice the self-revert until now, and I'm willing to just drop this and move on in the interest of keeping the peace. I'm just glad it's on the record. MediaKyle (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These unspecified allegations are pretty shitty. Toxic behaviour my arse. Statements like this "The nominator wants to continue to punish the Poole Museum for daring to edit their article before and I find it quite unbecoming." from MK in the deletion discussion, are just untrue and designed to mislead from the facts. How you get from me stopping a whole raft of copyvio from Poole Museum COI editer to me "Punishing" is a huge bad faith stretch. Not a nice person. pull your socks up MK. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can specify: first, the message you left at Talk:Poole Museum#The bath bomb was quite inappropriate and uncivil. Next, you proceed to break 3RR at Poole Museum (although you did self-revert, my bad for not looking harder) and then go so far as to vandalize Bethan's Rock with a "meaningless rocks" category, essentially telling the article's creator that their contributions are worthless garbage. This is toxic behavior. As a user with a significant amount of edits and a long tenure, you have authority which you are abusing. I have no skin in this game, I didn't add the information about the rock the first or second time, and I haven't edited the Bethan's Rock article at all. Someone had to say something. MediaKyle (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As this report has been deemed "No violation", further back-and-forth is not productive. If you believe there is a problem that needs addressing, WP:DR is recommended or, if you feel it's especially egregious, WP:ANI. I disrecommend the latter; from what I've seen, both parties have been very prickly toward each other, so the offense is understandable, but nothing has risen to the level of sanctions at this time. I recommend you go edit articles the other hasn't instead. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Roxy self-reverted after two minutes; both users are at 3 reverts. Please either resume on talk or (since it seems strangely hard to get anybody else to take an interest in the rock and the bath bomb) use WP:THIRD, which exists precisely for cases where only two people are arguing. Bishonen | tålk 16:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Page: Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Team event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339571676 by Bgsu98 (talk) See my explanation. ALL previous entries (2022, 2018, 2014, and so on) DO NOT use the 100% width template. Stop reverting."
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) to 05:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Ice dance */"
   2. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Men's singles */"
   3. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Women's singles */"
   4. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Pairs */"
   5. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Results (final round) */"
   6. 05:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Men's singles */"
   7. 05:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Women's singles */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC) to 19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 19:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Qualification */"
   2. 19:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Ice dance */"
   3. 19:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Men's singles */"
   4. 19:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Women's singles */"
   5. 19:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Pairs */"
   6. 19:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Ice dance */"
   7. 19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Men's singles */"
   8. 19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Women's singles */"
   9. 19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Pairs */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

NoWikiNoLife was Bold in removing the width parameters from a number of articles (the one linked here is just one of many). I Reverted, as the Figure Skating WikiProject established a few years back that tables on competition articles should be of uniform width. NWNL then reverted my reversion, breaking the WP:BRD cycle. I reverted, citing BRD and instructing NWNL to take his complaint to the talk page(s). He has again reverted. So, while he may not have broken the 3RR threshold, he has engaged in edit warring across a number of articles. I will not revert again as my first reversion was the R in BRD, and the second was to remind NWNL of BRD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this matter. You beat me to it, as I was going to report YOU. 1) You keep reverting to a format that is not used elsewhere and you have not provided a reasonable explanation why. I, to the contrary, HAVE provided the necessary explanation - none of such tables in previous entries (for events at 2022 Winter Olympic Games, 2018, 2014, 2010, etc.) use tables with 100% width. You, for some reason, prefer that template, but that is NOT the template used in ANY of the previous instances. 2) You seem to love to engage in disputes with other editors. For instance on the talk page Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Team event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), on 10 February in your debate with editor Jasper Deng, you even resort to swear words (the F-word). I think that says it all. 3) Even on your User page, you have a 'warning' that you are a person under stress. Maybe you should just take it easy for a while and stay away from Wikipedia? Just a friendly suggestion. NoWikiNoLife 06:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an explanation on your talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that Figure Skating WikiProject says that tables on competition articles should be of UNIFORM width does not establish the standard of 100% width. In fact, the template actually used in ALL past instances is the one where tables are NOT at 100% width, so the uniformity is already there, it's just not the template/width you prefer. This is a FACT. Now, if you truly care about this so much, then open a debate page, so that other editors can weigh in, and if you can gain consensus on the 100% width, then you will have legitimacy to start changing pages for all past competitions (and should also volunteer for that undertaking). This 100% width thing is NOT a standard on ANY sports page in Wikipedia, so if you want to establish that as a standard, you should at least try to present a very good explanation of why that template would be better. In my opinion, it makes results much more difficult to read, so it makes no sense to use 100% width as the standard. NoWikiNoLife 06:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the particular width as long as they are uniform. If you want, I'll set them to 80% like we use on the rest of the FS articles. Like I said, these Olympic tables have way more columns than usual. They display fine for me, but if you want it narrower, I can make it narrower. But what you don't get to do is run roughshod over everyone else, bark out orders, and bully other editors just because you're an "18 year editor" or whatever. The WP:BRD guidelines apply to everyone, not everyone except you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned Bgsu98, why did you report this? There no 3RR violation, not warnings or discussion on the user's talk page, no discussion on the article's talk page, and no attempt at resolution. This is an premature and unwarranted report. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  EvergreenFir: I apologize for wasting your time, but I just wanted to get NWNL's attention. There were at least 10 different articles being mass reverted, so one article talk page would not have been sufficient. I did post to NWNL's talk page, but the only responses I received have been here. I said in my initial report that the 3RR threshold wasn't broken, but I don't know how else to impress upon someone the importance of WP:BRD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Bgsu98, you could start by reading its first sentence that clarifies it's an optional approach. You're currently treating it as a policy that must be followed all the time and can be enforced by reverting again. It isn't. Special:Diff/1339475986 lacks a proper explanation, Special:Diff/1339571676 starts an edit war and should have been an edit to the article's talk page instead. The template {{please see}} can be used to invite someone to a just-created article discussion. That's usually a good way to get their attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @EvergreenFir and ToBeFree: NoWikiNoLife is far from the first editor to take issue with Bgsu98's conduct in this topic area and I invite you to comment on the ANI thread I opened 3 days ago: WP:ANI#Bgsu98: Incivility and WP:OWN behavior surrounding figure skating articles. This has gone on long enough that a simple warning is not going to suffice. Jasper Deng (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for the context and the notification. I have now blocked Bgsu98 for 48 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:40, 21 February 2026: 1RR [2]
2. 01:01, 21 February 2026: 2RR [3]
3. 04:18, 21 February 2026: 3RR [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 02:20, 21 February 2026: Warned [5]
• 02:41, 21 February 2026: Removed warning, showing that it was read: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7][8][9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:

At [11], I tried to explain that WP:NOTABLE is for deciding whether an article should exist, not for deciding what belongs in the lead. The only response I got was rudeness and aggression, to the point where I am no longer willing to interact with this user. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon Show us "rudeness" or "aggression" towards you.

Also, you are being misleading here. You are bringing up an editor who has been indeffed for block evasion AND being disruptive.

What do you hope that is evidence of?? If anything, this is proof that we just came out of contentious heated situation for which some of us where in the right to push back on. Again, that user was permanently banned. You are trying to resume his editwar, which is itself suspicious.

As for me and you, I have stayed within 3RR, and I have even invited you to join an RFC to work this out in a WP:CIVIL manner, and you haven't taken up said invitation.

Instead, you went straight into warning me on my talk page because I won't allow you resume the other banned editor's edit war.

If anything, you are trying to unilaterally revert a long standing edit that has been up for a while (as did the banned editor).

Two other RFCs have been left unresolved, and we are trying to respect a prevailing consensus. Again, please take into consideration your own history of battleground behavior rather than simply complaining that I won't step aside when you are conveniently leaving out the outcome of that editwar by the now banned editor.

the tl;dr version is that-- if I offer to work things out on the talk page with you, and you refuse, and then I offer you logic and policy for my desire to preserve existing edits, and you refuse (again) to even address that, then how is it my problem if you refuse to WP:AGF in light of you resuming an editwar by a banned editor?

Note: English isn't my first language, so forgive me for my grammar or length. Have a good one guys. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamiltondamonae, welcome to Wikipedia. You've been here for a week and the sole purpose of your account appears to be getting involved in disputes. Please find something more productive to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is highly likely this user is a WP:SOCKPUPPET, as he abuses regulations in a way only an experienced editor would. Should also be taken into account here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the determination "suspected sockpuppet" but I don't have enough evidence to prove it. A SPI has been opened (not by me) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamiltondamonae. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Varanasi (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Trimming promotional or interpretive wording in cast section for neutrality and sourcing per talk page discussion. I made a limited neutrality edit to the cast section to remove promotional interpretation. No further changes from me pending discussion and third opinion."
2. 15:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339637733 by Sugar Tax (talk)"
3. 15:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339636243 by Cicada1010 (talk)"
4. 15:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339636089 by Sugar Tax (talk)"
5. 15:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339635800 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Varanasi (film)."
2. 15:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Varanasi (film)."
3. 15:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Varanasi (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Response: My edits concerned sourcing and neutrality of cast descriptions. I removed interpretive or promotional wording that was not clearly supported by independent secondary sources. I have opened discussion on the article talk page and proposed neutral wording limited to what reliable sources explicitly state. I am seeking consensus and will not continue reverting while discussion is ongoing. I acknowledge the revert concerns and will follow the dispute resolution process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglybruv (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: User talk:GlowstoneUnknown (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-11683-41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Threats and vandalism

Comments:
Already blocked indefinitely by Acroterion Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pala Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Qmko92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC) to 21:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 21:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "Reverted edit by Aaaas216&, Aaas216& removed the name of capitals from the infobox, page no 56 of one cited source clearly mentioned "Murshidabad", cited source "Sarkar 2016" clearly Ramvati in Malda", cited sources didn't give any specific date 750-1161 or "Various " ."
   2. 21:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "Link correction"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC) to 19:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 19:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision bye Aaaas216&"
   2. 19:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "Spelling correction"
3. 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "Vandalism done by partially blocked user Assass, I restored previous edit"
4. 21:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC) "Restored previous version which was removed by a blocked user"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Pala Empire."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user relatively new solely created to disrupt this particular topic. Moreover, they are edit warring crossing WP:4RR and started POV pushing. Aaaas216& (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, user Aaaas216& edited the page too. Aaaas216& reported me but Aaaas216& didn't mention anything about Previous edits.I didn't add any unsourced content or new topic to the page, I just removed the edits of Aaaas216&. Qmko92 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The fourth revert was just a few minutes past the 24-hour period from the first revert. And they have not continued since then. Time will tell if Aaaass realized that they were pushing things, or if this was a calculated effort to avoid a block.

However, this should not be taken as a "Carry on" by any means. Aaaas's partial block is not a reason to revert them, not by itself anyway, since it applies only to someone else's user page. And yes, it's interesting that Qmko went right to this after creating the account, but as no sockpuppetry has yet been alleged we cannot take a decision based on that IMO.

But most important is the conspicuous emptiness of the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" field above. Because that talk page hasn't been edited since last July. Given that this article is clearly in a contentious topic, under WP:CT/SA (I will be marking it as such on the talk page after I'm done here), taking all measures possible to resolve disputes before seeking sanctions against another editor is of the utmost importance. I am reluctant to do so here, in a borderline situation, for that reason.

If the edit-warring continues here after this review, any other admin may take whatever measures they wish. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ujjivan Small Finance Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC) by Yuvaank (talk)
2. 09:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC) "failed verification" by Yuvaank (talk)
3. 09:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC) "Wikipedia is WP:NOT Investopedia, these numbers change on a daily basis" by Yuvaank (talk)

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

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

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

Comments:
This user has deleted the sections that made the page more structured. Additionally, the company underwent a reverse merger and there was a change in their shareholding pattern post reverse merger, which was highlighted. This section has been important for companies that underwent a structural change. However, this section was deleted suggesting that such changes are made on a daily basis which is factually incorrect as the company is a listed entity and reports its shareholding pattern once every quarter along with its quarterly financial results.

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Muhammad Yunus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1340073283 by Aaaas216& (talk)"
2. 19:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1340054280 by Aaaas216& (talk)"
3. 12:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1339905605 by Aaaas216& (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Proposed Infobox Update: Add Yunus Centre Chairmanship and Deprioritize Past Chief Adviser Role */ Reply"

Comments:

This user recently got blocked from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in spite of not having an agreement, they constantly editing this particular article according to their rule. Please guide me if I am wrong at this. Aaaas216& (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this specific article only. The correct place for discussing the edits is Talk:Muhammad Yunus. Aaaas216&, please ignore the previous block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]