Page: Kamen (volcano) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-28102-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:
Constantly changing straight apostrophes to curly, not answering on their talk page. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this continues, it will be block evasion; please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "Already discussed on the talk page. This concerns harm to living individuals/ethnic stereotypes based on sourcing disputed as bad, so please make smaller edits instead of mass reverting."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC) to 01:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
   1. 01:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "This is disputed and under discussion on the talk page"
   2. 01:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332700881 by KiharaNoukan (talk) Disputed in reliable sources as current investigations found no evidence of fraud (https://www.wcvb.com/article/minnesota-child-care-funding-freeze/69915674 and https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-daycares-youtuber-payments-dec-2025), and the rest of this concerns allegations from before the 2020s"
3. 07:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC) ""right-wing" is reliably sourced, but I'll remove it. Also removing the most of the rest of the disputed content under discussion because it is on the other hand not reliably sourced."
4. 04:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1332533778 by Assorted-Interests - Discussion is underway."
5. 17:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1332533778 by Assorted-Interests - Disputed prior to that revision as racially derogatory with bad sourcing. There should be a talk page agreement first."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 2026-01-13T06:27:23Z

Comments:

User repeatedly reverting to their preferred version despite multiple other users challenging. tony 02:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered under exemption #7, harm to living individuals, some of whom are mentioned by name. Editors have attempted to restore politically biased ethnic stereotypes/attacks against an entire ethnic group based on a source that has been disputed as bad, without a consensus. This fear mongering about an ethnic group is leading to real people being hurt.[13] I also want to note that Tony is involved. Luna (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TonySt: Funny seeing you here. Reviewing the page in question, I wonder if a short extended confirmed protection might be in order. If not, perhaps extend current protection.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered bringing this to RFPP seeking ECP (especially under CT/AP) but where it mostly seems to be one editor edit warring I figure bringing the issue up here might result in a less restrictive outcome than ECP. tony 04:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes total sense. Thanks for your work!--Policy Reformer(c) 21:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be appropriate as it would privilege one side of a "valid content dispute". Luna (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post myself, worth noting that multiple editors, self included, have advised this user of edit warring and 3RR, asked for them to make constructive discussions on talk instead of mass reverting and edit warring, but this user appears to believe in having a unique exemption to edit warring and 3rr rules as shown above.

Ex of asking not to edit war on talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4

Wrt ECP, there were some IP's edit warring here too recently, may be advisable to have it there.

2026-24594-2: 1, 2, 3, 4.

2026-24058-2: 1, 2, 3, 4. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KiharaNoukan has been reverting while being aware that he is violating the "harm to living individuals" rule based on contentious material from a questionable source.[14][15][16][17] He is the one who added it.

His top edited pages are Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, Killing of Jordan Neely, Operation Lone Star, Hunter Biden, Project 2025, and while this is fine, the positions he takes in the talk page discussions for those incidents leads me to believe his source evaluation may not be impartial. Luna (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

??? You have 2 reverts in your diffs, 3 days apart. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. You're supposed to wait for a talk page agreement and you haven't. Doubly so for attacks on immigrants and ethnic groups with bad sources, that is leading to actual harassment. Luna (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Lunarscarlet has repeatedly added the content "push MDE Commissioner Heather Mueller into restarting", which is not an action covered by any exception. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meshari&oldid=1332900388
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meshari&oldid=1332902091
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meshari&oldid=1332903021
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meshari&oldid=1332905045

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zavodn&diff=prev&oldid=1332902735

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meshari#c-Fightdisinformation2026-20260114144200-Alphabet_used_in_Meshari

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:Zavodn#c-Fightdisinformation2026-20260114145000-Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
Unfortunately the user is not being cooperative for reaching a consensus.

• Zavodn blocked indefinitely. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/43170403 for additional reason. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PhilKnight The same user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-32637-5 is now edit warring Banjska Monastery. It's another attempt at block evasion. Fightdisinformation2026 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PhilKnight, the user Fightdisinformation2026 is a LTA sockpuppet of InNeed95, when wikipedia will stop LTA sockpuppets to vandalise wikipedia by removing sourced content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josy135 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. You are the one who is creating sockpuppets to evade your block. Fightdisinformation2026 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Game theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N.M.T812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Additional Revert

1. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

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

Comments:
Single-purpose account edit-warring to add links to fringe research. Talk page comments indicate they're treating Wikipedia as a lab for their social experiment. Toohool (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: By VViking:
The user is now engaging in personal attacks against other editors with the following edits [27] and [28] VViking_TalkEdits 17:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zufer Avdija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Deni Avdija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Milotss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Zufer Avdija: Special:Diff/1331826743 / Deni Avdija: Special:Diff/1332697645

Diffs of the user's reverts: Zufer Avdija:

1. Special:Diff/1331858827
2. Special:Diff/1332267137
3. Special:Diff/1332722951
4. Special:Diff/1332909588

Deni Avdija:

1. Special:Diff/1331181607
2. Special:Diff/1331551783
3. Special:Diff/1331860954
4. Special:Diff/1332723027
5. Special:Diff/1332909837

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] / warring notices deleted by the user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:
Over the past ten days, the editor @Milotss has repeatedly made contested edits to the articles Zufer Avdija and Deni Avdija, as well as removed well-sourced material from the List of Serbian NBA players. Both individuals are documented in reliable sources as holding dual Israeli and Serbian citizenship (examples: here, here, and here), and this information is clearly cited in the respective articles. The disputed edits appear to replace references to Serbia with Kosovo, based on an interpretation of the 2008 declaration of independence. This seems to conflate citizenship/nationality with ethnic or regional origin, and the changes are not supported by the sources currently cited in the articles. I am raising this here to seek consensus and guidance on maintaining source-based distinctions between citizenship and ethnicity, and to avoid unsourced or interpretive changes. --DragonFederal (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours since they had been alerted to [[WP:CT/EE}] and continued plowing that furrow anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ronnie O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-29686-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "facts"
2. 08:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1333006371 by Seasider53 (talk)"
3. 02:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "what are you doing ? these are facts 100% true events, I really do not see how they need a source when every other player's pages point out these facts."
4. 02:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332979752 by EasyAsPai (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC) to 23:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ""
6. 16:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332917838 by KatnissEverdeen (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 16:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC) to 16:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ronnie O'Sullivan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Border Guard Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-33063-04 (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 19:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC) to 20:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
   1. 19:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332928142 by Aaaas216& (talk)"
   2. 19:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid uncited deletion and vandalism 1332928434 by Aaaas216& (talk)"
   3. 20:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Rank structure */"
   4. 20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Rank structure */"
   5. 20:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Rank structure */"
   6. 20:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "fixed typos/* Rank structure */"
   7. 20:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "edited wrong titles/* Rank structure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
2. 15:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constantly POV pushing with WP:OR. Aaaas216& (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected by The Bushranger for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: User talk:Pythoncoder (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Is this guy an AI */ Reply"
2. 17:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Is this guy an AI */ Reply"
3. 16:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Is this guy an AI */ Reply"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This guy keeps making personal attacks on my talk page, which promptly get reverted by talk page stalkers. Not sure if this is quite the right noticeboard but his behavior is definitely unacceptable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the user got a 48-hour block while I was filling out the form on Twinkle. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder I AIV'd them, better suited for this case since it is personal attacks and will be responded to quicker. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hilton Worldwide
User being reported: Secarctangent

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Multiple users explaining all the Wiki principles being broken; Secarctangent just continues reverting.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

Multiple users have tried engaging here pointing out various issues. User in question refuses to acknowledge and continues reverting everybody's changes. Treats others negatively, tries weaponizing wikipedia's admins, and assumes bad faith (calls other users bots etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31862-4 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - double post. New to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31862-4 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this is not accurate. This temporary account has been banned from the page where they are editing due to repeated efforts to revert edits despite consensus to keep them. This sort of behavior is clearly abusive and suggestive of sockpuppet behavior. Look at the edit history on the page they cite.

Some of my edits might get overrulled by consensus of users with a username, and that is the process. But abuse from a temporary account should not be a reason to do so. Secarctangent (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this TA has confirmed (see talk history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hilton_Worldwide#c-~2026-31862-4-20260115161500-Trade-20260115153600) that they are the same TA as ~2026-29989-4 and thus their repeated reverts are even more egregious in this context. Secarctangent (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're (already) blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is obvious block evasion of the partial block on User:~2026-29989-4. I've blocked the socking TA indefinitely and modified the original TA's partial block to site wide, leaving the original two-week duration.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well theoretically the person behind the temporary account is now blocked indefinitely and continuing after the two weeks would be block evasion ... hm hm hm. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the original temporary account has probably already been abandoned, but this having any visible effect is an open feature request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Three Alls policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wahreit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My attempted edit: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:

Editor has a history of reverting or writing over my edits on various articles. In this case the editor has uploaded an unsourced photo with a verifiably incorrect caption and is trying to use it as the main photo for an article which it does not match. Although I have informed them it is mislabeled and misleading to use in the talk page and edited it on the article, they simply disregard this as "original research" and keep reverting it back.

Hi all. For my side of the story, if I recall correctly the 3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page", so four reverts (a limit I had in mind), evidence of which Adachi doesn't seemed to have provided. ,

Furthermore, I want to establish that I have tried explaining why Adachi's edits were not appropriate in the article talk page. What was objected to was Adachi1939 replacing a picture caption with synthesized unsourced information. I tried explaining to him several times that per WP:NOR we are not supposed to integrate our own judgements into the article.[46][47][48][49]

Rather than discuss, Adachi's course of action was to insult me[50]. Then mock me[51]. Then insult me (a lot of times) again [52]. All while constantly reentering his disputed caption back before receiving a consensus. [53][54][55] (an example of edit-warring according to the standard Adachi put above). I find this particularly inappropriate that he chose to do this on an article detailing an enormous atrocity involving massacres and slavery. When I attempted to draw a line out of respect for the content, he insulted me again.[56]

I suspect that Adachi is just trying to get me banned so I can't contest his edits. He has tried this before unsuccessfully. [57] There was a lack of genuine engagement with my points (save for insults) until he alleged I stepped over the 3RR line (which I didn't) and immediately brought the issue here. I'd like to work with editors, but at the same time I don't like bully behavior.

I'm happy to discuss. Wahreit (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Wahreit[reply]

It must be noted that this is standard behavior from the user. If it helps, here's a list of this "history" adachi mentioned (a lot of its archived but still visible. He also archived almost his entire talk page today after making this edit warring post). Specifically:

- Threatening editors: [58]

- Pursuing an ownership approach: [59][60][61][62]

- Mocking other editors [63][64][65][66][67]

That was before we met.

Here's some past interactions including ownership approaches, edit warring, insults, and trying to report me to get me banned: [68][69][70][71][72]

Note that these incidents are from 2024. What seems concerning is how it seems he has been trying to get revenge on me for the last one and a half years.

He constantly interjects in conversations I have with other editors uninvited to accuse and insult me: [73][74][75]

He pays visits to my talk page to accuse me: [76][77]

He recently appeared in a talk page debate I was in (that he must have gotten from viewing my activity log, something he admitted to [78]), not to contribute to the conversation but to attack me and offer his future help to anyone opposing me: [79][80]

At this point Adachi really seems to have crossed multiple lines and has not been respecting anyone's boundaries or Wikipedia's rules. It's also disheartening to see him behave this way on super heavy pages like the Nanjing Massacre. I initially planned to ignore it, but seeing how he has brought me here a second time, I can't remain silent about this anymore. Wahreit (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like a deju vu looking back at some of these interactions. My first interaction with Wahreit some two years ago was them using unreliable sources to allege a unit not involved in the Battle of Sihang Warehouse was in fact the main participating force. As the talk page and edit history shows, theg remained entrenched in this belief for months despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary. To this day they have not taken responsibility nor apologized, despite levying numerous accusations at me over those months. Fast forward to today and they are still engaged in similar behavior, this time using a photo of a totally unrelated unit in an attempt to illustrate an article. Wahreit seems to think I have a personal issue with him but I don't, the problem is his poor quality edits and behavior he uses to defend then. Looking at his edits, he often cites unreliable (eg webpage with no sources) or outdated material (random newspaper from 1937) and appears to suffer from an overall lack of the subject they're engaging with. For example despite editing many articles on the Second Sino-Japanese War, he does not consult modern scholarship in either Chinese or Japanese, and then takes issue when what he has not consulted does not align with his older English sources. For all I know Wahreit is a splendid person outside of Wikipedia, but he has proven to be a problem on several Wikipedia articles. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wahreit also seems to be trying to coverup his harassment of me on his talk page. A quick glance through his edit history shows myself and other editors he disagrees with are treated to various forms of badmouthing across personal talk pages. I am not a well-versed Wikipedian but as far as I knew the personal talk pages were meant to facilitate cross-article discussion and collaboration, not serve as some sort of gossip forum. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Adachi1939

All your complaints are content issues that could have easily been resolved on their respective talk pages had you refrained from resorting to insults and immediately escalating here.

Furthermore, you are not forced to be on my talk page, and when you do visit, you accuse me of spreading propaganda, call me "smug", and make a variety of other comments about my life decisions, value as a person, and mental state that I do not appreciate. At some point @Adachi1939, you need to realize that people do not like being talked down to and that if you want respect, you need to give it. Wahreit (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]