Page: Possession (1981 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbossbalrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1331510480

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1331875445
2. Special:Diff/1331912552
3. Special:Diff/1332045924
4. Special:Diff/1332046217

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See edit summaries and user's talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1332102235

Comments:

• This pattern of editing is concerning. Sources are repeatedly removed in order to introduce WP:SYNTH (see, for example, changing "Possession received lukewarm critical response when it was initially released in the summer of 1981.<ref name="makingof"/>" to “Possession received a polarized critical response when it was initially released in the summer of 1981.[no source]"). In addition, the existing text appears to be disregarded, and explanations are then provided that do not align with the actual changes made (see again, for example, removing the source and then stating "No content has been removed", while altering sentences to read "…too serious for its own good.[45]."). The editor also states that these edits organize the text, but it was already organized, and the changes do not result in any improvement. ภץאคгöร 22:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are factiously misrepresenting my edits . There was a review in the release section that was written twenty years, and you accused me of removing it when I had placed it in a more suitable section with the modern reviews. That was moving, not removing.

The original text read "lukewarm". I changed it to polarized. The source is from the variety of reviews that were posted which are mixed not lukewarm.

I organized the reviews based on what kind of the review they were (positive, mixed, and negative) the fact they were disorganized and not in proper blocks. (read above about the review written in the 2000's and placed amidst the section that were supposed to be about contemporary critical reactions)

Rather then talk about it, you simply choose to remove all the edits, which other users contributed too. And then you mocked me by saying "I'm going to fix it". Bigbossbalrog (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention I already restored "polarized" back to "lukewarm" despite it not making sense in context to the reviews on the page. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyxaros and Bigbossbalrog, why is there no discussion at Talk:Possession (1981 film) about this? Instead of discussing here, please start a discussion there, focus on content instead of user behavior and find a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be clearly understood from the editor's comment above, they are aware of the issue, as it has been explicitly raised in edit summaries and on the talk page. Despite this, they either lack a proper understanding of how to make appropriate edits, or they are deliberately disregarding the concerns and attempting to force through problematic changes. They attempt to modify changes and explanations in ways that are not related to my original statements, presenting them as incorrect and making unsubstantiated claims. They continue to refuse to acknowledge the issues with their edits and have even claimed that WP:SYNTH should apply in this case, arguing that sourced information should be removed and replaced with their own interpretation. Page protection is unlikely to resolve the problem in the long run, as the editor has created a dispute even over basic encyclopedic writing standards. If not on this page, the same behavior is likely to continue on other pages. Also the stable version that was reverted to appears to be incorrect; I will check it when I have the opportunity. ภץאคгöร 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    As indicated by this poster, the user here has refused to acknowledge the fact they didn't bother to discuss the edits and removed them without nary a mention on the talk page. They are misrepsenting my edits, ignoring that much of the original section was incorrectly sorted, and attacking me personally. They are now saying the administration are wrong for their approach, and that they are right. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, okay. I guess you will continue to make changes that adversely affect the quality of this encyclopedia. But any attempt to mislead is evident to the community and ineffective. As a long-standing contributor who has reported numerous similar cases and made the article a GA, I am fully aware of the nature and impact of your edits. So the decision not to acknowledge your mistakes and to advance unfounded allegations is neither constructive nor appropriate. ภץאคгöร 11:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adelbeighou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] and [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]
7. [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: [diff]

Comments:

Highly recommend a intervention here by a administrator. The user has been stalking my edits for quite a while now. And today, the editor has been disruptively removing several of mine edits. After I warned him at his user talk page, he still kept reverting back my edits on two different articles and then removed the entire section (where I warned him for edit warring) from his own talk page after I caught him with a lie at his previous edit summary: [[12]] He even started accusing me of ‘’vandalism’’ and ‘’stalking’’, which is pretty much what this user has been doing to me as he has been caught doing the same thing months ago as well, like on this article here:[13] At one point, after I asked him multiple times to use the talk pages there, he suddenly accused me of not using the talk page, while I clearly did and waited on him to respond there. And so far, still nothing: [14]. Hope some action can be taken against this. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stalking you. I have been editing volleyball pages for years before you showed up. I deleted your edits on my talk page because you accused me of lying and I am not going to take that. If you can't be civil then don't bother writing. As for the "lie" I said official link is not working, this link - https://en.volleyballworld.com/en/volleyball/worldcup/2019/ And this link is not even about disputed content on page.

As for Kosovo battle edits - fact that Yakub was executed that same day during the battle stood there for years if I am not wrong. You came and changed that [15]. After I reverted you, you kept going on. You did not seek resolution on talk page as you advise me to do. Adelbeighou (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The link I added and was talking about is this one here: [16]. Your claim here was this: ‘’There are NO proper sources which say this was World Cup’’, and after that, you just remove the source I added.

Also, as I noted above, you were very clearly stalking me, and despite having asked you a multiple times, you never used the talk pages for any of these articles, despite having asked you multiple times: [17] Talk:2023 FIVB Volleyball Women's Olympic Qualification Tournaments. You didn’t use any if the talk pages on the other articles either.

’’fact that Yakub was executed that same day during the battle stood there for years if I am not wrong’’- So, instead of using the talk page to discuss this and reach a consensus, you just start edit war?

’’I have been editing volleyball pages for years before you showed up.’’- Because you are a older editor than me, that gives you the right to behave like that? It gives you the right to edit war and disruptively remove sourced content? I leave this one to the admins.

’’After I reverted you, you kept going on. You did not seek resolution on talk page as you advise me to do.’’- Again, your are openly accusing me of things that are not true. As I already showed above, you never responded to my calls to use the talk pages, and then removed the message I left on your user talk page. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I said OFFICIAL WEBSITE as in FIVB site, not the dubious turkish source. Do you have reliable source which says this was a World Cup? I can't find it listed on FIVB site as a official World Cup event. I talked to you about talk page in my edit summaries on that article. I explained the rest already. Adelbeighou (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [18]. In fact, I have mentioned this one at the talk pages as well, which you could have noticed if you ever had used one to start a discussion before you started edit warring: Talk:2023 FIVB Volleyball Women's Olympic Qualification Tournaments And despite all of this, you still removed it, didn’t use the talk page, didn’t respond to my edit summaries where I asked you to use the talk page, kept removing it again, started edit warring, deleted the talk page discussion on your own user page where I warned you for edit warring and then you started accusing me of vandalism and stalking? Leaving this one for the admins as well. Woxic1589 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it World Cup or Olympic qualifiers? Pick one. Can you show me where your 2023 World Cup is listed here [19]? It is not under World Cup section... Adelbeighou (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the topic of this report about edit warring and your behavior. You can ask those questions at the talk pages of those articles (see the discussions I opened there:[[20]] and [[21]]). Which so far, you still have not done so. Woxic1589 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR was not violated on either article, but that's besides the point when you do it on more than one article, and one of those articles comes under a contentious topic area the editor has been alerted to in the past (WP:CT/EE) Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2025 Green Bay Packers season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: GreenBay2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332440199 by Onorem (talk)"
2. 22:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332439134 by JayTee32 (talk) These comparisons are not that cherry-picked"
3. 21:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332437154 by Canw2qr (talk) So, they're both collapses, so just leave it there because there's two sources attached to it."
4. 14:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332338977 by JayTee32 (talk) How?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following a disagreement on Talk:Southern strategy, where @Jon698 keeps on reverting my edits and refusing to elaborate, he is now going on a reverting spree to all my edits on pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why he picks my edits for such a contentious topic is unclear to me, especially considering he never edits that area. His motivations are vague things like "no consensus", as if WP:BE BOLD is for decoration. If the edits are controversial, it will be discussed more expertly by users with a more seniority in the topic, it's not up to a stalker to protect the page.

Please tell this user to stop stalking and harassing other people and reverting their edits following a disagreement. If this a person's standard behavior following a disagreement, they are unfit to work on a collaborative encyclopedia. Shoshin000 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshin000 has been editing the place of birth for multiple figures with no consensus. They have opened up two places of discussion for this here and here. Neither of these discussions produced any major support for their position. You cannot just edit Israel/Palestine topics willy nilly, especially the infoboxes. Jon698 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshin000 has been in violation of basic civility by instantly accusing me of being a stalker in edits here and here. They also created a section on my talk page called "Mind your business" here. Jon698 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BE BOLD, Jon. Your only argument is "no consensus". That's not how it's supposed to work. Do you have counterarguments, or are you just there to pester me? Shoshin000 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been informed of the standards for contentious topics that we have on Wikipedia. BE BOLD also states "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes; but there are nevertheless situations in which bold edits can safely be made, even to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." Jon698 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "reverting my edits and refusing to elaborate" is fundamentally incorrect as well. I have made multiple talk page comments and edit summaries explaining why I have removed the content you have added. Jon698 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Shoshin000 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For those viewing this discussion: Here is a timeline of events

January 3: First interaction (Southern Strategy and LBJ)

January 4 to January 10: No activity

January 11: Second interaction (Southern Strategy and reverts on four biography pages)

This can hardly be considered wikihounding or stalking. Jon698 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no activity because i was busy in real life. it's today that you started hounding, after i knocked on the door again. Shoshin000 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to look into your edits and found this. Your edit request was explicitly rejected on the talk page, but you put it into the article nevertheless. You were told "Please obtain consensus for your proposed changes before making such a request." Jon698 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my information above:
Shoshin000 made an edit request here that was rejected and told "Please obtain consensus for your proposed changes before making such a request." They made this edit nevertheless and have been editing the place of birth for multiple figures with no consensus. They opened up two places of discussion for this here and here which did not produce support for their edits.

Shoshin000 has been in violation of basic civility by instantly accusing me of being a stalker in edits here and here. They also created a section on my talk page called "Mind your business" here. Jon698 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: This isn't an appropriate place for this kind of dispute. If you have an editor conduct concerning a claim of stalking or harassment, take it to WP:ANI. AN3 is not designed for this kind of complaint. That said, everybody who posts on any administrator's noticeboard should come with clean hands. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2026 (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. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Joe Root (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-23672-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332536838 by Spike 'em (talk) to correct revision."
2. 10:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332536630 by Spike 'em (talk) How did Palace get on this weekend? Your opinion is not the law."
3. 10:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1332535791 by Spike 'em (talk)"
4. 10:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "Joe Root has scored the second most test runs of all time. He is clearly one of the greatest batters the game has produced. It is common sense. Please stop changing this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Stop edit-warring and discuss the issue on the talk page */ new section"
2. 10:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "/* Stop edit-warring and discuss the issue on the talk page */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC) "/* "one of the greatest of all time" */ Reply"

Comments:

anon editor, whose only changes are to edit war over the status of Joe Root. Spike 'em (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]
7. [29]
8. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

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.[34] 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.[35][36][37][38] 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: [39]

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]

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: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Additional Revert

1. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

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 [48] and [49] VViking_TalkEdits 17:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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