Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:14, 18 July 2022

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:RedBull1984 reported by User:Bolgarhistory (Result: Both users, and a third, blocked 24h)

Page: Mintimer Shaimiev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RedBull1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Comments:
The user is waging ideologic edit war in articles about Tatarstan: look at his contributions. And for example, , , . Besides I had noticed that administrators doesn't disallow him to do it. His edits are not equal to consensual versions of articles. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The user does not go to the discussion and continues to wage a war of edits. And simply responds in a rude way, violating the rules of ethical behavior: Tatars in the question of the president should understand that "you will not breathe enough before you die." On what basis do they arrange a war of edits? Where?! In the English Misplaced Pages, your "Latin alphabet" is not fucking needed by anyone.--Ilnur efende (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Then the user started insulting that I was a blind Tatar nationalist.--Ilnur efende (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, they said that you were blinded by Tatar nationalism, which isn't exactly the same as being called a "blind Tatar nationalist". M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it must be perceived as good phrase. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, but when quoting someone you have to make sure to stick as closely as humanly possible to what they said. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest a boomerang, see --Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please explain by rules, why has the user permissions to do editing wars? I want another administrators will see how you doesn't react to it. I think you are not neutral. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So far, the user who started the thermonuclear war of edits with the deletion of the text added three years ago has not even been warned, and is protected by this administrator. Ilnur efende (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have an impression that you woudn't like to aplly sanctions to RedBull1984. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bolgarhistory: The instructions at the top of this page mandate that you notify RedBull1984 of this complaint. Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So I would like this case will be considered by the neutral administrator. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• The edit warring aside, the Latin version of the name is unsourced and unattributable (I couldn't find any RS for it). M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • M.Bitton, the Latin version in the Tatar langunage is not main topic of my request. We are talking about user's behavior. But for example, it is used in Finland. I can find many sources about the Latin version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand, but if it's unsourced (btw, it's not in the above source), then the whole edit war becomes futile. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  If we think in this way a lot of transcriptions haven't a source. I can not find a source about names in the Cyrillic version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Did you try Google books? Plenty of RS supporting the Cyrillic version. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are not official documents. Mentioning a person in books and media is not an authoritative source about his name's writing. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course it is, but that's irrelevant because the name that you want to add is unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize for my English. Therefore, I will be brief. "Нафиг" in Russian is not an offensive word, unlike fuck in English. I didn't write "blind nationalist". I didn't write "fuck". RedBull1984 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  In Russian the word "нафиг" is also offensive like the "fucking" in English. It can not be used in a discussion. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring over this across multiple articles; the discussion above should have happened instead, then at least it would have just been another angry discussion. For the same reason I have blocked Ilnur efende for the same time period, specifically for a 3RR vio on the article in question, but one compounded by similar revert-warring with RedBull1984 on multiple articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Speun reported by User:Mahan Matin (Result: No violation)

Page: Germany national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Speun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Comments:
an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. in 15 July 2022, User:Speun reverts the article Germany national football team 3 times:

Mahan Matin (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No violation He has not made the same revert more than three times. Not yet Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: hi; This user, other than these three items; two revert of information ( ) the previous day and one revert () a few days before. Mahan Matin (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were rightfully as per consensus reverted. It was also over multiple days overall. I have since the beginning told you that this very topic about youth honors on senior articles was discussed on the football project talkpage. Everywbody agreed that post 1992 olympics does not belong on senior articles. Some common sense would tell you, that you should not add medals to a team that did not win said medal. There already is an article for u23 olympic teams, and they are listed on those respective articles. No need to add them to senior articles. It has nothing to do with my opinion or personal viewpoint.. i simply reverted in good faith as per consensus. I kept giving edit reasons to why it was reverted as well, also to you. I told you to open up the discussion again on the footballproject talkpage, if you want youth honors on senior articles. It was never up to me personally, as i consulted everybody in there before removing them. Here Archive 152. Speun (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Acousmana reported by User:Springee (Result: )

Page: Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acousmana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First restoration, prior to discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Zuby" Edit warring notice for an unrelated page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion initiated after initial restoration.

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

Comments:

This article is subject to a 1RR limit. This editor has not violated the 1RR bright line however, they have engaged in a slow edit war by restoring the same disputed content 3 times. During the second and third restoration it should have been clear that the talk page discussion did not support a consensus to include the disputed content. Contrary to NOCON (a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit) the editor argues consensus is required to reject and content should stay in place until a consensus to reject is established . I'm not seeking a block but reversion and warning to not restore until there is a clear consensus. Springee (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Reality is there is no "edit war" here, probably best view the ongoing dicussion, that multiple editors have contributed to, concerning the inclusion of properly sourced content that the listing editor finds objectionable. As for any other accusations of "warring" by this editor, again, not real, the edit summaries speak for themselves. Acousmana 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The use of low quality sources to establish weight for inclusion is one of the points disputed by other editors (not just myself). Springee (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This comment at the end of the current discussion also suggests BATTLEGROUND thinking . Springee (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

engaging in accusations of edit warring, rather than providing rational argumentation for why properly sourced content should be excluded, is classic 'BATTLEGROUND' behaviour. As is this attempt at stirring the pot. Acousmana 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: If "the edit summaries speak for themselves", then I'm concerned that you're re-adding material that is still under discussion when no consensus to add it has been reached. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

apologies, to clarify, "the edit summaries speak for themselves" is in the context of the unrelated accusation of edit warring on the article Zuby that has been bolted on here; a clear rational for the Peterson content inclusion is in the talk page discussion.Acousmana 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: The Zuby issue is mentioned here to show that you have awareness of edit warring policies and 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

sorry, I don't follow. The accusation of breaking 1R on Peterson is not borne out with evidence, and the last contribution added 2 new WP:RS cites to shore up sourcing, it wasn't a "revert". Acousmana 02:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: It's technically a revert, because you added the same material, even though you added additional sources. It's in that weird land of edge cases. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, but we have sourcing that is WP:RS and more than adequate in the context of what's being discussed, this is being willfully ignored by the listing party. Acousmana 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: Are you sure? I see legitimate concerns about sourcing being raised at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of internet personality, in relevant sections of RS publications, including Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and Independent are to my mind adequate given both the context and miniscule size of the content added. On balance, it seems due. Acousmana 02:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: A quick look at WP:Perennial sources shows that there is no consensus on whether the Washington Examiner is reliable and that Newsweek is broadly considered unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I did consult perennial list prior to additions, states Newsweek is context dependent. Both Newsweek & Washington Examiner state verifiable information, and on the whole the coverage is neutral: facts, nothing more. Taken together, the sources are sufficient for this small mention, one that augments the matter of Peterson's misgendering of Page. I'm not seeing a substantive argument not to include mention other than "no consensus". My reading is that certain editors don't like it, nothing more. Acousmana 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which is stricter than WP:ONUS in general. Contentious material about a living person sourced to bad sources (video game websites, etc.), which four separate editors have expressed an objection to on the talk page, is inappropriate to slow-motion edit war over. Endwise (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • To be fair, there is no consensus in said Talk discussion that this material is contentious, and one of the four separate editors favoring removal has been topic-banned as fallout from that discussion. Just for context. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Cukrakalnis and User:Marcelus reported by User:Szmenderowiecki (Result: Both users pblocked for two weeks)

Page: Antanas Mackevičius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (16 March 2022)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Cukrakalnis

1. 30 June 2022
2. 30 June 2022
3. 1 July 2022
4. 1 July 2022
5. 1 July 2022
6. 1 July 2022
7. 1 July 2022
8. 4 July 2022
9. 7 July 2022
10. 8 July 2022
11. 8 July 2022
12. 8 July 2022
13. 12 July 2022
14. 13 July 2022
15. 13 July 2022
16. 15 July 2022
17. 16 July 2022

Marcelus

1. 30 June 2022
2. 30 June 2022
3. 1 July 2022
4. 1 July 2022
5. 1 July 2022
6. 1 July 2022
7. 1 July 2022
8. 8 July 2022
9. 8 July 2022
10. 8 July 2022
11. 9 July 2022
12. 13 July 2022
13. 13 July 2022
14. 13 July 2022
15. 16 July 2022
16. 16 July 2022
17. 16 July 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussions on talk page from this section on; ultimately did not prevent edit-warring behaviour on either side, even during discussions, as the last comments were on 8 July and the dispute still continued.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Cukrakalnis, Marcelus

Comments: A severe case of edit warring about a (Lithuanian? Polish? Polish-Lithuanian? Lithuanian-Polish?) priest about, well, his nationality. Both-sided indef blocks from that article is IMHO a minimum; haven't analysed behaviour in other articles. Marcelus posted to ANI on 8 July (no response). Dispute spilt to RSN on 16 July (both went on to argue who started edit warring). I come here from RSN after having noticed that mess.

Added: It is also apparent that the contact isn't going smoothly between the users and is too frequently about disputes of who is right, so interaction bans may also be considered (though I don't insist, I leave it for admins to decide). The users seem also to be reverting Lithuanian names to Polish names, and vice versa, regardless of the merits of such reverts.

• Comment by GizzyCatBella

(to be forwarded to ArbCom) Explain how did you find that page User:Szmenderowiecki ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: What exactly is being reported to ArbCom...and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Private continued correspondence regarding Szmenderowiecki account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how these unspecified allegations against the reporter are at all helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I know. You can’t see it without knowing the details behind it. Only ArbCom is familiar with it, as of now.

The sudden appearance of Szmenderowiecki here who filed this report, for what it appears, after seeing me asking for a page protection is separate issue. Perhaps ArbCom will share with you the details, if you're interested. It might be actually useful to have experienced users looking into it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I was on RSN, and noticed a thread about the article, in which I commented as it appeared similar to an RSN discussion I submitted my comment to some time earlier. At the same time, I noted accusations of edit warring, which I started to investigate, and came to the conclusion that that was way too much. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki You didn’t see this ?? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I just posted the above today. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You Szmenderowiecki never edited that page before - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about your protection request until you pointed that to me just right now, so if you suggest that it is somehow related, no, that's totally independent of your actions, as I haven't tracked them at all (neither your edits nor the RPP page). One user may request protection of a page, another may pursue sanctions against editwarring users, and there needn't be any sort of conspiracy in it or any malicious intent. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Both users pblocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, what does Previous version reverted to: exactly mean? I understand that the version WP:STABLE must be reverted to, but that has not happened yet and I was wondering whether that was because I misunderstood something.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you were both reverting each other, I posted whatever last version was stable. I'm not exactly sure if this is what I should have pasted there, but for me it looked like the most intuitive option. I certainly do not intend to mean that this is the true/correct version of how the article should look like, and WP:STABLE says that it is up to admin's discretion to lock the article at a stable version - I am not one. There is an active RSN discussion, which you can join. You can still use the article's talk. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Alenk06 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Robert W. Malone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alenk06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Comments:

Note an wp:spa that has in fact blown though 3RR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

One of a series of SPAs that are probably socks. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Likely sock of EsterDay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Don_Rechtman reported by User:Booksofsatmar (Result: Both blocked indefinitely)

Page: List of ethnic cleansing campaigns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Don_Rechtman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Comments:

Booksofsatmar (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You must notify any editor you report here on their Talk page. You have not done so. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} to do so. See the notice at the top of the page. Please note that it appears that you also may have exceeded 3RR unless the editor's edits were obvious vandalism. General Ization 21:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang for OP. Not only have they violated WP:3RR themselves, but given that they're adding the contested text they're ignoring WP:BRD and WP:QUO. — Czello 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Only one of them is on the talk page, and there is unanimous agreement on the talk page for the inclusion. But both of these editors should be article blocked for violating WP:A/I/PIA. nableezy - 23:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Though I would also bet that Don Rechtman is יניב הורון nableezy - 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)NableezyNableezy

Information on the WP:A/I/PIA sanctions and their applicability to this page were not included on the article's Talk page until Nableezy did so a short time ago. While both editors violated 3RR, not sure they can be held responsible for violations of sanctions that were not noted at this article when they did so. General Ization 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Don_Rechtman was informed of the sanctions at 14:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC). Continued to edit in the topic. Regardless, both users should be partially blocked from the article and made to understand that editing about the Arab-Israeli topic, anywhere in article space, is prohibited until they are extended-confirmed. nableezy - 01:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand, and I apologize that I may not have done this procedure properly, although I did follow the instructions as I understood them and did notify the editor. Thank you for your help with this situation. Booksofsatmar (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You notified the editor that they had potentially violated 3RR, but you did not notify the other editor that you had filed a report here, which is required. Also, you may wish to address your having also violated 3RR and the discretionary sanctions discussed above. General Ization 02:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of indefinitely as POV-pushing single-purpose accounts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Should add Briana Pearsall while youre whacking moles. nableezy - 06:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:FrankensteinsDad reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: )

Page: Greg Rucka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "Stop vandalising the site. I have supplied more than ten references. You are the one engaging in an editing war."
2. 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "added sources as requested"
3. 18:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC) "The New York Post is the country's longest running newspaper. You can't disparage it just because you personally disagree with its policies. If you doubt the accuracy of the story, just ask Mr. Rucka and he will confirm it.Undid revision 1097809057 by Sariel Xilo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"
2. 22:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Greg Rucka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC) on User talk:FrankensteinsDad "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"

Comments:

The user has been adding content to both Greg Rucka‎ & Jen Van Meter about their son. The user reverted an IP account which removed the content on July 12 which I reverted. The user then reverted me on July 16 & has continued to revert my removals of the content within the last 24 hours. The original source was the New York Post & the user has refused to accept multiple explanations of why that is an unreliable source. The latest attempt at restoring this information now cites deprecated sources such as Daily Mail and The Sun along with some blogs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2800:484:7393:3CAE:61E9:D985:8D0A:5DA1 reported by User:BOZ (Result: )

Page: Scarlet Witch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2800:484:7393:3CAE:61E9:D985:8D0A:5DA1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

IP user is adding trivial information with dubious sourcing. Their IP address keeps changing, so I did not attempt discussion on their talk page or warn them about this discussion, my apologies if I did something wrong in that regard. Also, I acknowledge that I probably reverted too many times and should have reported them earlier. It looks like they have been edit warring on other articles as well. BOZ (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Steven Weaven reported by User:Wiae (Result: )

Page: Steven Bartlett (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC) to 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:20, 15 July 2022‎ (UTC) ""
5. 16:03, 3 July 2022‎ (UTC) ""
6. 17:38, 2 July 2022‎ (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Steven Bartlett (businessman)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Steven Bartlett (businessman) "justify content removal"

Comments:

Seems to be a single-purpose account engaged in a slow-motion edit war to coatrack the titles of newspaper articles into Steven Bartlett (businessman). User makes no attempt to transform these into encyclopedic text, and seemingly ignores the concerns of other editors raising coatrack issues with what is included. User's reverts include a spurious claim that I and other Misplaced Pages editors are actively censoring the article on the subject's behalf. As for discussion, user does not seem inclined to collaborate (sarcastic response to good-faith admin removal of copyrighted text; threat to go to the national press unless edits remain in article). Probably WP:NOTHERE. /wiae /tlk 10:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring