We are still having a problem with User:C.monarchist28 editing/edit waring their favorite page.... using multiple IPS day after day as seen here.

We are fully aware that this IP is them. And all the rest of the IP's are from Vancouver British Columbia using Rogers communications. Wondering if the best thing to do is to simply lock up Canadian ethnicity this page too IP's overdoing investigations for every IP that keeps popping up. Moxy🍁 04:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page and reverted their other edits. - Aoidh (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been facing difficulties with a particular editor on Wikipedia. They have a habit of removing well-sourced content from articles, particularly Lovely Runner and Byeon Woo-seok, without seeking consensus from the community. When I revert their edits, they often respond by tagging my account with Ultraviolet Rollback multiple times. I'm concerned that this behavior is disruptive to the collaborative editing process and would like to find a way to resolve this issue." Puchicatos (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh How lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "Material that fails verification be removed" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE [and not assuming] WP:FAITH"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Wikipedia's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've been busy the past day and will continue to be for the next few days, @Puchicatos: Without commenting on the merits of anything as I haven't looked deeply into any of this, I would suggest speaking with User:Paper9oll directly, and if you two are unable to resolve the issue, dispute resolution may be warranted. I would recommend a venue like WP:ANI as a last resort if this is a conduct (rather than a content) issue that cannot be resolved by discussing it with the editor. - Aoidh (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focused on resolving a content issue regarding the "Lovely Runner" article. There's an ongoing discussion at Talk Page: Lovely Runner, and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look when you have a moment. Puchicatos (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Puchicatos: I apologize but the time that I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is currently occupied with another matter, but it looks like other editors have also weighed in at Talk:Lovely Runner#Proposed restoration of Lovely Runner awards data. Dispute resolution is available if needed. - Aoidh (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]