Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1190

Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken

Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales was closed after being listed at WP:CR & rather than following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, four editors have reverted the closure and the implementation of the consensus:

1. 21:27-21:41, 31 May 2025 by BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 06:27-06:34, 1 June 2025 by Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 20:09, 1 June 2025 by NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 22:18, 1 June 2025 by 199.255.150.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know why these editors have not started a proper closure challenge and instead gone with reverting & edit war behavior. The first two editors were notified by @ToBeFree ([1] and [2]) that this was an invalid approach; @OceanHok & I started a conversation on the talk page highlighting the correct closure procedure & the third editor responded there when reverting. I also reached out to the closing editor who stated:

Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

• The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
• The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
• The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome.
  — User:Toadspike 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like the closure & consensus to be reimplemented without causing an edit war. If any of the editors who have been reverting want to challenge the closure, then they can format their own request. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No one here is challenging close content, to my understanding they're simply saying that the discussion is still going on. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not applicable here and explicitly says that it does not cover the scenario where an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.

This should be closed when the discussion runs its course. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:WHENCLOSE highlights it should occur after the discussion has stopped & "when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful". Two editors running to add comments after a closure – which occurred nine days after the RfC's last comment – mostly seems like editors unhappy with the consensus especially since their comments voted against the consensus that the closure determined. The closing editor even states that "the additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome".

Additionally, when you participated in the RfC on 22 May 2025, you didn't have an issue with the way the RfC was structured; you only claimed there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL issue after the closure occurred. This argument seems like "I don't like the consensus so let me challenge the basis of the RfC". If you want to challenge it, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE highlights you should use Template:RfC closure review & start a discussion at WP:AN. Being the third editor to revert a closure when there's a talk page discussion highlighting the closure challenge procedure (which you engaged with when reverting) is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed; that there were no comments over the course of nine days (last comment before closure, closure) does indeed seem to me to be a strong indication a discussion has [run] its course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor didn't notify anyone, so it went 3 days without any response, had some votes on just two calendar days, and then nothing as people are still figuring out that this RfC exists. Closure would be premature. Even the Tetris RFC is still open. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The language at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing RfCs suggests nothing at having mandatory notifications to individual editors. If one is interested in the discussion(s), the talk page would have appeared on their watchlist or one would have revisited the talk page during the intervening week for further discussions. As such, I find that the close by Toadspike is justifiable. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the mechanics of it. Just that, at least now, its apparent that it would be too soon. The typical duration for them is 30 days so there's no particular reason to demand an early close when multiple editors are still interested. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No new comment had been made for 10 days before it was closed. 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

l voted when I did because I didn't know that RFC even existed. The IP who started it didn't make it clear that it was different than the other RFC on the page. It isn't fair to force the discussion closed when multiple people still want to comment. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE review is not necessary if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Those editors did not ask, though. They force opened a formally closed RfC. As stated below by the closer, no one contacted him. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, closer here. It seems the discussion has been unilaterally reopened, but the RfC tag has not been re-added. If the (now several) editors who are disputing the close had followed the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and asked me on my Talk page to reverse the close, I likely would have done so. However, they did not, and the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One wonders how nothing happens for over a week, whereupon the close suddenly prompts three or four editors to finally pipe up. Toadspike [Talk] 05:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there was enough time to discuss or contribute to the matter before closure. It is also such a simple decision that usually would not require the RfC procedure (a single chart week of a single country in the lead). AN appears to be the only way to conclude this, unfortunately. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably because editing started. Personally I didn't know about it until my entry which illustrates that waiting a bit on the close would be useful to give time to people. With a close now there wouldn't be nearly enough time. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion had a clear consensus and no new comment had been made for 10 days. Someone can make a new RFC in the future but this one is done.2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:54A4:5FFF:DCF1:B61B (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it was "no consensus". And it's not done which is self-evident or this discussion wouldn't exist. 2403:5804:3916:0:25F8:2EE9:A809:F807 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Click here to see the closer's comment 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with Toadspike closing the discussion. The discussion is open for a considerable amount of time (2 weeks), and it has no new response for nearly a week. The three editors who reverted (Wyll, BMWF, NutmegCoffeeTea), however, are definitely wrong, especially NutmegCoffeeTea who still insist on edit warring DESPITE being explictly told not to do so AND being pointed to the correct venue to overturn a RfC result. You have channels to reopen a closed discussion. Edit warring at a consensus-building process is 100% WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours, and you still do it despite being warned. Given the closer is already consulted here, those opposing should follow due process and go to WP:AN for closure review if they insist.

The three editors are currently participating in several ongoing RfCs (see the ones here and here). Their behaviours here (forcing open a closed RfC result that does not favour their viewpoint) is extremely concerning. Who knows what other excuses they will come up with to oppose the next RfC close? This is not the first time they disrupt/disrespect existing consensus-building mechanisms (they have forced their way through WP:BRD in another article to keep their desired version, accused editors of forumshopping when they merely try to consult the relevant WikiProject, and opened bad faith sockpuppet investigations on people who oppose them.) This is just the latest example of them WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously Toadspike's close was sound, and will stand, regardless of any deletion review. On the behavioral aspects, all three unhappy editors are relatively new and certainly inexperienced—BMVF 7 months, Wyll Ravengard 1 month, NutmegCoffeeTea 9 months, with 321, 38 and 286 edits respectively—as shown by the shifting arguments. But because of this, perhaps some trout apiece and a recommendation to read CLOSECHALLENGE. And also WP:EDITWAR. There has been a significant amount of logged-out editing on that article—obviously, we shouldn't speculate who that is—but some protection might help calm things down. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: striking my suggestion of trouting; I was unaware of the extensive background as provided by OceanHok. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, CIVPOV-pushing, tag-teaming and copious ABF. As such, I think the best way of preventing further disruption over multiple venues is to remove them from the topic. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now E/C protected, and I reverted to LCV. The behavioral problems are far worse than I thought; these three editors have edit-warred and weaponized several of our processes in an attempt to "Win". Starting SPIs is a new low. Re. the masses of logged-out editing, while CUs won't connect IPs to accounts, they can still look: {{Checkuser needed}}. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

OceanHok's battleground attempt to target his editing opponents has a grand total of 1 diff, and even that doesn't support any of the vague allegations. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Who are you requesting to be looked at? Izno (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I checked some of the accounts around that article per this ANI thread earlier today; I didn't see anything that suggested direct socking, although that doesn't rule out any potential coordination/meatpuppetry issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• This may be just me, but the more I read through this post and look at the information that’s being argued over the more I get the sense that this may be one of those undisclosed paid editing firms attempting to do PR work in hopes of improving product information. Numbers sold and income made, and the place at the top of the paragraph where would be most visible, seem to me to suggest PR editing. Anyone else get that vibe here, or is it just me? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, TomStar81; I mention 'almost-almost as certain conflcts of interest and promotionalsm in the actual editing area' below, but of course, an organised firm would make a lot of sense. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

While they don't particularly bother me, you should both strike these claims, because they're not true at all. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the overlap with Assassin's Creed Shadows and Dragon Age: The Veilguard, it is likely that they're driven more by culture-war stuff. All three games have been at the focus of culture wars related to representation in gaming, although with Forspoken it was a bit less prominent because the game just wasn't successful enough for people arguing over it on the internet to attract coverage - I don't think that aspect ever got serious coverage, so our article doesn't mention it. (though I haven't actually searched much to see what coverage exists - focusing on that might have been a better use of their time than arguing over sales.) But either way that culture-war stuff was definitely present in the corners of the internet that fixate on such things, so I wouldn't be surprised if their edits are somehow related to that, especially given the politics / Gamergate stuff below. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Broader pattern of poor conduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view, this RFC reversion is not a standalone issue and Sariel Xilo is being extraordinarily kind by only raising that issue. There is a chronic pattern of disruption from this group. They do not meaningfully engage in discussions: they have a suspiciously overlapping pattern of voting together on RFCs and supporting each other's edit warring. I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopaedia—their (very low) history of contributions clearly show they are here to argue about a very narrow set of topics, chiefly the inclusion of sales information on leads. If it is positive information (as in Forspoken), they want it included; if it is negative (as in Dragon Age: The Veilguard) they want it removed. This is all because they have no ability to assume good faith and would rather mudsling and cast aspersions.

BMWF has the most obvious pattern of poor behaviour; if they are socks of each other (as suggested above), I suspect this is the primary account. The other accounts only surfaced after BMWF was repeatedly warned for edit warring (see timeline by Fortuna above).

• BMWF received, and ignored, an admin warning from Sergecross73 about assuming bad faith at WT:VG over a Veilguard discussion.
• silviaASH said they were BLUDGEONING the WT:VG discussion on the topic.
• I posted a CTOP warning to BMWF's page regarding edit warring, which they ignored.
• BMWF's edit warring made a group of editors seek consensus at DNI, they did not participate in—instead, they argued over whether DNI was needed (otherwise they would lose the ability to edit war).
• They have a history of blanking their talk of editing warring notices (example 1, example 2,
• They were warned, and then blanked, a request not to edit war on Assassin's Creed Shadows.
• Three editors—OceanHok, Shooterwalker, and Masem—agreed what was the last stable version of Dragon Age: The Veilguard. BMWF reverted to their preferred version and accused the editor of being a sock, a reversion Masem described "a problem". User:Wyll Ravengard did exactly the same thing, which resulted in full page protection being applied again by Callanecc. Wyll then attempted to obfuscate this on the Talk.
• Despite saying there is persistent bad-faith edits, BMWF tried to reduce page protection for reasons that do not make sense unless they want to edit war anonymously.

Frankly, I am exhausted by this group. They do not want to reach consensus. They want their preferred version of articles to be maintained, to barely participate in discussions, and now clearly show they won't even accept RFC outcomes. They do absolutely nothing but assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with them, as I outlined here about BWMF.

 Looks like a duck to me. These accounts barely contribute beyond these trivial disputes about whether to include sales information in the lead, voting together, and restoring the version of the article they all prefer. I support topic bans for all of the subjects in this case, and strongly urge that they be checkusered. Edit: see my vote with the others. — '''ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This entire post is one giant bad faith assumption against one of your editing opponents, with little to no diffs that actually support the allegations. BMWF has taken positions against content in the Veilguard article that you authored. The only editor that has actually been blocked here is Vestigium Leonis, who is someone that agrees with you on these Gamergate issues and is entirely absent from your post. You selectively ignore the battleground rhetoric and edit warring from Oceanhok and Vestigium Leonis, as well as the broader tag team editing between them and Sariel Xilo, the misuse of processs for advantages in disputes, the POV push, and so on. I don't have much more to add as I don't have problems with any editors individually, and I'm not going to feed into your attempt to target your editing opponents. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What are these Gamergate issues that you accuse editors of, and where did I agree to clear Gamergate-related issues? Anyway, for completeness' sake, yes, I received a single topic block for Forspoken, as I was engaged in excessive reverts. I acknowledged this in an exchange with ToBeFree. I took this seriously and have since avoided excessive revert reactions, opting instead to reach out to other editors or administrators for assistance (unless you disagree, @ToBeFree). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I provided 13 diffs. Secondly, I don't have "editing opponents"—that's a battleground mentality we do not share. I have a record of producing featured content "anti-woke" editors would not like. In fact, I originally agreed with the position you share with BWMF... and changed my mind when the wider context was explained to me by Shooterwalker. Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is editing in bad faith—for example, as you did here at WT:VG and I recommended against—shows you can't focus on content. I don't know, but suspect, that you simply think any editor who disagrees with you is a bad-faith actor. Given your record of guessing (poorly) at my motivations, I find it hard to accept when you do it to others. With your persistent ABF attitude (as in the reply to me above) and tag-team editing (as in the reason this entire thread was made), I'm pretty convinced you should be topic-banned.

You opened a baseless Sockpuppet investigation on an editor for being a sock of someone they warned for edit warring. I've never seen a user get notified of a SPI by the investigator before (so that's an achievement). IMO this is enough to reasonably suggest you might be involved in that behaviour ("Every accusation's a confession" springs to mind. ). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of your links are links to discussions. The diffs you've provided don't substantiate nearly any of the claims you've made. Your post and this is an obvious case of ABF, and a battleground attempt to remove editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

When I am providing evidence of other editors highlighting a persistent pattern of bad behaviour, those are going to be on Talk and User talk pages. Those sort of discussions do not happen on article space.

For example, I cited your baseless SPI as evidence that you see editors who disagree with you as bad-faith actors. (You haven't responded to that (and didn't apologise to the editor you accused.) This is because you see them as an "opponent". I don't see you as an opponent. I see you as an editor like any other, but with behavioural patterns that are causing disruption—for example, when you reverted an RFC closure you didn't like.

There's an old phrase among lawyers: "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table". This is table pounding. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You're linking to user pages, talk pages, and things like warning template removals while not linking to anything actionable that supports the allegations you're making against editors here. The table is indeed pounding, and you should stop. Regardless of the word you want to use, you are very clearly fishing and using ANI to attempt to remove topic area editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Linking to discussions in which three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior is the usual method of demonstrating that three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior in discussions. Hope that clears things up. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the usual method. Diffs are the usual method and they are lacking here. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about user behaviour would include talk pages, I can't see why this is a problem. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Posts regarding problematic behaviour on user pages, talk pages, and warnings typically link to the problematic behaviour.

• For example, the CTOP warning I gave to BMWF links to this diff. I provided this warning because 3 users had agreed on the last stable version (as I outlined above). My warning both provides the evidence and explanation—what do you specifically need a diff for there?
• This Talk comment by an admin about BMWF's revert likewise links directly to the revert.
• The edit warring notice given by 1AmNobody24, which BMWF reverted, regarded a series of edits on AC Shadows. One diff for this is here. Another is this series of edits, which Masem said there was no consensus for during an ongoing dispute. At this point, Masem had already reverted and warned BMWF for removing 5000 bytes of content without discussion.

People are voting on on whether to topic ban you, but you're choosing to spend time arguing with me over the quality of my evidence... regarding another editor? No comments on the allegations I've made about your conduct (i.e., the time-wasting, baseless SPI as evidence of your inability to assume good faith)? Unusual, at the least. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The quality of your evidence is being called out because it is incredibly weak. Not coincidentally the three editors you are targeting voted against your position in the RfC in which you do have strong views. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You've addressed very few of the actual concerna about your behaviour being raised here, and quality of the evidence hasn't been "called out" by anyone other than the users it's targeting. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, NutmegCoffeeTea, here is the "usual method", diffs of you engaging in edit warring.

• 4 times on the same content on Forspoken: [3][4][5][6][7]. Once on Star Wars Outlaws: [8], and once in [9] Dragon Age. Given that that the nature of these edits are the same, you have reverted a grand total of more than 6 times. The situation with BMWF are way worse. 14 reverts on Forspoken starting from November 2024 (long-term WP:TE) [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], and additional three times on Dragon Age: The Veilguard.[24][25][26]

I was actually surprised to see this edit summary from NutmegCoffeeTea and BMWF because they actually do know what's WP:BURDEN is, yet they completely forget about it in the next discussion when you pushed through BRD to keep your desired version of the article immediately after the protection period ends when it was your turn to justify inclusion. This simply suggest they are weaponizing our basic policies and gaming the process to achieve what they want, and that is a BIG NO. OceanHok (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is nonsense. You can't combine different edits from multiple articles to push your ABF agenda someone you disagree with. On Forspoken my edits were already looked at, and the only one who was blocked was Vestigium Leonis which is one of your editing buddies. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What you mean, he can't notice and cite an editing pattern across multiple articles? And BMWF's 14 revert edits to Forespoken in particular are absolutely worth noting here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not? The content issue and the editing pattern across these articles are the same. The editing and behavioral patterns demonstrated by all of you are also the same. I no longer need to "assume" bad faith when there is plenty of evidence to show that you are WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

User:PhilKnight has blocked the anon. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per OceanHok's message 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The response given by the editors in question are making me support an indef 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on all three editors. Extensive evidence has been supplied demonstrating persistent bad fath editing and comments, team teaming, cvility concerns, sealioning and general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. And that's notwithstanding almost certain logged out editing and almost-almost as certain conflcts of interest and promotionalsm in the actual editing area. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The evidence of OceanHok, below, also demonstrates severe problems with taking advice. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the continuing IDHT and re-entrenchment demonstrated in the (non)responses here, I'm also leaning towards an indef. Per Abo Yemen; ImaginesTigers; Kowal2701. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Obvious attempt to target editing opponents. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I dont think you get to !vote the proposal for topic banning you, mainly because it is assumed that you don't want yourself blocked anyways. If anything, you should properly respond to the "vague allegations" instead of lying about the existence of "one diff that doesn't even support any of the vague allegations." You also proved that you are engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND right here from this comment 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  You can vote. This is equivalent of saying that the plaintiff can't vote because "of course they support their own position". And this also involves other editors too. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Plaintiffs don't vote in court either. Just10A (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then you'd need to strike 80% of the thread for being deeply involved. BMWF (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• It is also worth mentioning that while the heated RfC debate on Forspoken is ongoing, they push the same across other articles (see Talk:Star Wars Outlaws and Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard) knowing very well that there will be opposition. They are never the first editor that perform the controversial edit [27][28](it was always IP/new editor), but they always participated in the edit war that directly follows it. They also never initiate discussion. Discussions were nearly always initiated by the other side, even when the WP:ONUS is on them (they are challenging the status quo both within and across articles).

My biggest problem with them is that their arguments are constantly shifting and contradicting, their interpretation of policies remained (very) wrong despite being corrected by experienced editors repeatedly, they have a tendency to not respond to very reasonable questions, and they just keep on regurgitating the same arguments again and again. It is like talking to a brick wall, so engaging with them has been difficult.

• My attempt at compromise was ignored (till this very day), yet they went to revive a very dead discussion about editor conduct.
• BMWF supported including only notable milestones yet supported the inclusion of a non-notable milestone in an article as recognized by the consensus.
• I provided counter-examples to show BMWF the other side, yet they were either ignored till this day/ dismissed with constantly moving goalposts while constantly regurgitating his own OTHERSTUFF that also makes no sense (Your examples are bad, but Forspoken is like Mario! and Star Wars!).
• NutmegCoffeeTea said that inclusion of publisher's statement should be based on a case-by-case basis, only to use OTHERSTUFF to support them.
• When I agreed with her in another article (calling her argument a possible consensus), she then said there is no consensus.

It is ok to make flawed argument (especially true for newbies). What's problematic is that when they are shown their arguments are flawed, they will not respond to any of that, but they will reuse that very same, flawed argument later (that's why this content dispute has gone through two very long local talk page discussion, nearly five RfCs, a lengthy WikiProject discussion, and now ANI).

I will have to say, the only thing consistent about them is them insinuating editors opposing them part of Gamergate, which is (1) baseless (2) is irrelevent to the actual discussion (3) is disruptive at this point when I have reminded the three of them to STOP bringing politics to these discussions as they lead us nowhere close to a consensus. I believe that's the problem. Their competence issue stems from them being WP:POV pushers. In conclusion, I absolutely support banning them. OceanHok (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the casting aspersions that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow supporting Gamergate or other culture war stuff is a recurring problem. They've baselessly insinuated that about myself as well, despite the fact that I 1) don't support it and 2) actively try to avoid the subject area because it always gets so messy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support strongly. Their number one function appears to be POV pushing, bad faith assumptions, and specifically BMWF has a bad habit of trying to create a chilling effect from any discussions that doesn't support their POV (as outlined above, I gave them a final warning to stop that because they kept disrupting a very basic WikiProject discussion on brainstorming how to handle article/lead writing.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I support any action being taken on any combination of them, TBAN, partial block, or full block. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose OceanHok, ImaginesTiger, and Sergecross73 etc have all taken strong content positions against me, Nutmeg, Wyll and others in a recent RfC. BMWF (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  same thing here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  On the claim that they are being targeted in revenge for a content dispute: a) the editors they are associated with have done precisely that, and b) making unevidenced assertions without actually trying to refute the evidence merely strengthens those allegations. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the "strong position" I took against you, I recommend others read their argument and my direct response.

  The Forspoken RFC reversions show you three can't accept when the community decides against you. On that Talk, I didn't even vote because I thought it was pointless BATTLEGROUND stuff. You do not engage in dispute resolution beyond insisting that you're right and others are bad. Robert even stated in his closing remarks at DRN that you didn't even show up to the noticeboard... and yet you continued to fight over the content when it was done. Because that's the point. You want to avoid consensus and fatigue editors to get your way.

  I've never seen so much disruption from one person (and over the most boring content imaginable)—multiple massive, circular Talk discussions, multiple page protections, two RFCs. And now you 3 are reverting an RFC closure... like c'mon. What a total waste of everyone's time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  • • Comment - I have been pinged about an alleged pattern of bad behavior including a dispute that I tried to mediate six months ago, and have not been following since then. I will not comment at this time until I have reread the dispute. I will reread the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per Fortuna and Imagines. The chronic edit warring, disregard of policy, and tag-teaming are becoming too apparent. I've interacted with them a limited number of times, but I've had similar experiences. (I wasn't involved in this most recent Japan RFC though.) Based on the readings of this thread however, these situations appear to be far too common. Behavior smacks of WP:NOTHERE. Just10A (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[29], from the person who started the Forspoken discussion. Just10A and OceanHok, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, ImaginesTigers, Sergecross73 all share deep content positions in The Veilguard and other political disputes like Assassin's Creed Shadows. BMWF (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  In my comment below, I referenced your habit of trying to link that TBANed editor (FMSky) to the comments made by other editors you disagree with to poison the well. FMSky did start a discussion back in March 2025 on Forspoken about the lead & stopped editing there before the RfCs (if I recall the timeline correctly, this overlapped with them getting that GENSEX TBAN & it was determined Forspoken fell within the TBAN but I didn't keep track of what user talk that occurred on). This was all around when I reported you, NTC, & Vestigium Leonis for 3RR at Forspoken; Just10A popped up in that AN discussion but I don't think has participated in any of the video game talks.

  This March 2025 discussion led to two RfCs - Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead in April 2025 (this is still open) & Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales in May 2025 (this is the closure that led to my ANI post). OceanHok participated in both (including starting the 1st RfC) as did Vestigium Leonis & Sergecross73 (the latter took a slightly different position than the other 2 in the second RfC), I only participated in the 1st RfC (& then implemented the consensus after the 2nd RfC was closed), & ImaginesTigers has not participated in either RfC. We've all had overlap in supporting similar content inclusions across various video game article but we've also had differences. While you keep saying we all must be pushing some political view that is the same, you haven't actually been able to provide examples outside of "FMSky got TBANed for behavior elsewhere". It is casting aspersions to keep implying that our editing is supporting something like gamergate especially if your only evidence is a tenuous connection to FMSky where some of us agreed with points they made in the initial March 2025 Forspoken discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  This again. I first met this group when they were having a dispute with @FMSky who ended up being GENSEX topic banned. I pointed out that I believed that discussion had some real procedural issues, and I still do. How that has any relevance to this discussion or "speaks to my bias" is beyond me. If anything, I hope that the community recognizing this groups behavior might lend FMSky some help in altering his Tban in the future, cause he was probably baited. However, that's a tangental subject.

  Also FYI, I have never interacted with the Veilguard or AC Shadows pages, including the talks, and I have never edited the Forespoken article. So there goes those "deep content positions." Just10A (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Similar to other commenters, I am also now leaning toward an indef for all (maybe not for Wyll). Just10A (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a TBAN (assuming video games but maybe it should be all media released since 2010 since their focus seems to be caught up in recentism). Along with a TBAN, I think they should all be limited to 1R instead of 3RR for 6-12 months because they often revert 2-3 times as a block to avoid going past 3RR. OceanHok & ImaginesTigers have pulled out some of the main diffs that show the larger pattern of bludgeoning behavior & POV pushing. I'm also concerned with how they don't assume good faith; their style of casting aspersions was also seen when I reported BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea (also reported Vestigium Leonis but isn't the focus here) for 3RR. During that discussion (& for a bit afterwards in other talks), they tried to say because some other editor was TBANed from GENSEX for their actions in non-video game articles, that editor's position in video game discussions is enough of a poison well that any editor who supported similar positions which opposed their arguments was clearly suspect and probably gamergate. (That report is also a good example of their "revert as a block" editing pattern). They've since simplified it to just implying the only reason people oppose their views is they must secretly support gamergate even though editors like myself & ImaginesTigers have repeatedly highlighted clear examples of our work on other GENSEX articles that show we don't have issues editing in this area.

Beyond their inability to assume a NPOV, they also seem to have decided any editing by "opposing" editors must be suspect & reverted rather than assuming good faith & evaluating things on a case by case basis. For example, I found an issue at Assassin's Creed Shadows (quotations were either incorrect paraphrases within quotation marks or direct quotes not within quotation marks) while working on the reception section which BMWF immediately reverted without doing any verification & it was only after other editors chimed in that they agreed that particular issue needed to be corrected. If they had assumed good faith instead of just jumping to reversion, they could have easily found the issue (it was pointed out in the edit summary) or pinged me on the talk to say "hey, I'm not seeing this issue. Can you elaborate with examples?". Another example of not assuming good faith & turning something into a BATTLEGROUND was NutmegCoffeeTea starting a SPI accusing me of using socks (such as the aforementioned Vestigium Leonis) in what felt like a retaliatory report because Vestigium Leonis & I were their "opponents". As outlined by other editors above, I feel like we've exhausted every dispute resolution process possible to deescalate & find consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support video game topic bans for all three based on my reasoning above. The behavioural patterns here – voting together on RFCs; accusing others of being sockpuppets; tag-teaming edit warring; constant aspersions – suggest strong impetus for CheckUser input. If the accounts are connected, I'd obviously support an indef instead. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Edit: I have altered my proposal to an indefinite. See reasoning here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not to derail things, there was a SPI report in March 2025 which accused NutmedCoffeeTea of using BMWF as a sock; when looking at it during my April 2025 3RR report, I assumed it was retaliatory since it was started by the TBANed editor (who I mentioned above) they were in conflict with. Here's what the conclusion states if someone else wants to do an updated investigation: "It is extremely common, in topic areas like this, for many distinct editors to make similar edits to the same small number of pages and have, in broad strokes, similar editing styles; this is something any SPI clerk learns very early on, and it's why we tend to look for narrow similarities like word choice, edit summary style, preferred talkpage arguments, etc. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of sockpuppetry here, but it would need to be based on a clear showing of behavioral similarities other than shared POV or common shared interest". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not derailing at all. I think there's enough to indicate a CU could be useful. The strongest evidence for all three being associated—not necessarily socks—is that all suddenly learned about the RFC, reverting and commenting, shortly after closure. Likewise, all share the "us–them", "everyone-is-a-GamerGater" battleground stuff (for example, Wyll here, BWMF here, and NutmegCoffeeTea calling people "opponents" all over this thread). I don't know the CU threshold so will leave it to others. In any case, IMO the conduct is poor and persistent enough that the TBAN is warranted even without a CU. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think BMWF and NCT are the same person, but some of the newer accounts that have !voted in RfCs might be socks. What's strange is that the IPs are editing without proxy (at least in the case I filed they weren't) and WHOIS doesn't line up, so either there's some social-media-driven meatpuppetry, they're using sophisticated proxies, or it's a massive coincidence. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support, credit to Ocean Hok and Sariel Xilo for putting up with this for so long, looked thoroughly unenjoyable. FWIW, in the previous SPI case I filed against NCT that was rejected, I think it’s much more likely BlackVulcanX is a sock of BMWF, and their !votes at the two RfCs reinforce this immensely. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The lack of any contrition or even acknowledgment of wrongndoing makes me lean towards indef Kowal2701 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all three and checkuser. Everything I have seen from these editors on talk pages strongly suggests to me that they are NOTHERE. I agree with ImaginesTigers that they should be checkusered; their behavior has looked too heavily coordinated for the possibility of sockpuppetry to be ignored. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as well as a CU. The constant aspersions about Gamergate strike me as projection. While it is true that these games have been the subject of agenda-pushing offwiki, they are the only ones pushing an agenda about them onwiki. I'm inclined to think that this is some kind of coordinated meat campaign rather than sockpuppetry, but there's certainly enough evidence for a CU anyway. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose So, uh, what exactly did I do? Sry if there is some unwritten rule I didn't know about. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - What I have concluded on reading this history (and reading the history was an unpleasant civic duty) is that this appears to be a continuing combined content and conduct dispute involving at least two video game articles, Forspoken and Dragon Age: The Veilguard and three editors, BMWF., NutmegCoffeeTea, and Wyll Ravengard. My initial involvement was with a DRN involving Sariel Xilo, Wikibenboy94, and BMWF. BMWF did not participate in the DRN. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but in this case the failure to participate appears to have been part of a pattern of stonewalling. I also see that the three editors took turns reverting the closure of the Forspoken RFC. On the one hand, even if an RFC has been closed prematurely, a close challenge is preferred over edit-warring. On the other hand, the pattern of one-two-three reopening of the RFC is one of the clearest cases of a tag team that I can recall seeing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I only reverted because I thought it was vandalism from an IP that didn't have any other edits. You can see that in my edit summary. You also didn't mention the other side of dispute Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis and some others present. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  A strange argument. "The last edit was by an unregistered editor, so I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it without reading it. " Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban on the three editors from video game articles for tag teaming and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't done those things. Please look the page statistics https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard

  I added 2052 bytes to talk Veilguard and 512 bytes to Forspoken talk. Sariel Xilo has added 74661 bytes making up 40% of all the talk text. ImaginesTigers and OceanHok added 22362 and 15070 making up the other 30%. If tag teaming and stonewalling are criteria then OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis are engaging in. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I really like how even in ANI, the arguments among you three are still the same. See this edit from NutmegCoffeeTea's comments. The way you are counting how many characters we have added to an article is oddly similar, don't you think? OceanHok (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I and others were already checked by MoneyTree, so you should strike these claims, which amount to personal attacks. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees' comment explicitly doesn't rule out potential coordination and meatpuppetry. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you as a SOCK. Also, now you think accusing others as SOCK a form of PA? Then why did you have the audacity to open a SPI on experienced editors in bad faith? OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Neither ImaginesTigers nor I even participated in Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales; I only implemented the consensus after it was closed. While I'm definitely a bit verbose, BMWF has nearly twice the number of edits to the Forspoken talk page than I have. In terms of the Veilguard, my edits go back to 2022 & it is one of articles I've edited the most (#8 on my top 10). On its talk page, I've sometimes copied over large chunks of the various iterations of article itself in hopes of having a more focused discussion (ex: December 2024, setting up the January 2025 RfC at 19234 bytes).

You're a new editor with under 50 edits total (32.5% Talk/User Talk vs 46.5% Main) & I'd request a more experienced editor to evaluate your editing pattern to determine if this WP:MEATPUPPET or not ("A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining"). In terms of total edits, both BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea spend a large amount of time on talk pages - 48.4% Talk/User Talk vs 41.9% Main for BMWF; 32.9% Talk/User Talk vs 50.8% Main for NCT; (for me, it is 9.9% Talk/User Talk vs 83.9% Main). Their main focus seems to be a mixture of bludgeoning/stonewalling on talk pages in order to preserve their preferred version of articles. I've consistently tried various dispute resolution options - on Veilguard, that Dec '24 conversation I started would lead to a DRN that BMWF refused to participate in & when they decided the DRN consensus couldn't be valid, I started the Jan '25 RfC; on Forspoken, I even started a discussion in April 2025 called "Dispute resolution options" in hopes we could find a way towards consensus & it led to a still open RfC (started by another editor). OceanHok highlighted above that neither editor starts discussions; they just revert as much as possible & stonewall discussions started by other editors. If they won't honor the results of an RfC and jump to reverting instead of following the first step of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (ie. contact the closing editor), then what else can we do besides some kind of ban? Most editors here have supported a TBAN over indef which would still allow them to participate in most of the project. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Text added is the metric for blugeoning because edits don't correspond to individual comments. Your chronic blugeoning is undeniable. You've written more text than the three of us combined to repeatedly argue your content points. BMWF (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming a reviewing editor will see my long comments on Veilguard are not bludgeoning & have involved a lot of different types of discussions on the page (ex: suggesting resources to a student editor, suggesting to DENY trolls who wanted to include social media "reviews", defending the inclusion of reviews by queer/trans writers). A process like DRN is great if you have bludgeoning/stonewalling concerns because it is a quite structured & moderated discussion which is why I suggested it back in December 2024 & you decided not to participate. My editing pattern shows a focus of trying various dispute resolution options to work towards consensus while yours shows a denial of accepting consensus if it doesn't match your original view. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"Excessive bludgeoning is okay because I think I'm right" isn't how it works. BMWF (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of time is spent on reminding BMWF about the importance of forming arguments based on policies, avoid argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the real meaning of policies/guidelines like WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT, which he does not understand till this day. We treated you as newbies and explained in detail how this site works and how you are expected to behave as an editor, but you have truly exhausted all of our patience. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeating flawed interpretations of policy to force your content views is bludgeoning[30], and you also mix it with battleground and civility issues toward editors who disagree with you.[31] BMWF (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point that you cannot take any advice (or any comments that don't fit your POV). OceanHok (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like one likeminded group of editors trying to get rid of the other side of editors. Koriodan (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Koriodan has 45 edits and has mostly edited Yasuke and Assassins Creed Shadows Kowal2701 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  And you have a pre-existing dispute with NutmegCoffeeTea and were called out by an admin for trying to get her banned over and over.[32] Why didn't you mention that? Koriodan (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Misrepresenting diffs, that’s a classic! Kowal2701 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support at least a topic ban of some kind, the case against them is clear enough from the evidence provided by OceanHok and other editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that Harryhenry1 was also in the thread linked above trying to get to NutmegCoffeeTea banned and defending the editor who started that thread and the Forspoken discussion, who got topic banned for discriminatory comments about editor identities.[33] BMWF (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  RE: Me "trying to get NutmegCoffeeTea banned", the comment you linked to is me just saying that the discussion there should be focusing on the veracity of FMSky's allegations, not his behaviour elsewhere. That's not the same thing as defending what he said. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, their inability to accept wrongdoing or responsibility and double-down habit of misrepresenting what others say make me lean towards indefs. It's such a polarised, immature view of the world: "everyone who disagrees with me is pro-GamerGate". It's impossible to tell if they know they're misrepresenting or if their mind is so warped that they think this is an actual conspiracy. Either way, competence is required, and there's no competence here indicating they should even be able to edit outside of the VG topic area. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It was in a retaliatory thread started by him, so it functions like excusing it. Kowal2701 did the same:

I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal2701[34]

This just seems like a continuation of his defense and a way to target editors with opposing views. BMWF (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"It functions like excusing it" Really? Communicating in a discussion does not equal endorsing everything that's being said by others in it. My message there also does not resemble Kowal's in any way, and this goalpost shifting is getting absurd. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support If this isn't a WP:TAGTEAM, then I'm not sure there's ever been one, and the related essay would best be deleted. This group is making the encylopedia worse and greatly more unpleasant for editors in this area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games for User:BMWF, User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea (if those are the 'three editors' referred to by other voters above). I'm not involved in this situation, however as an onlooker I've read through this thread (which seems to be getting a lot of traction) again and again, and what can I say, the amount of chaos that has occurred on not only the article but also its talk page is unlike anything I've seen before... (and it's all over a single sentence, am I right?) From reading through quite a number of their responses here, they don't seem to be recognising and/or working towards resolving the behavioural issues that led to this AN/I thread being created. Oh, and it looks like this has happened on other (video game) articles too and not just Forspoken, looking at some diffs above. Time for TBANs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The overlap with one side of the content dispute here is very high. The discussion starters and a lot of editors here are from one side of the content debate. The IP reverting, which it appears the other side participated in, stopped after semi-protection so I don't see what a topic ban would resolve. BlackVulcanX (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Which goes both ways. 'Clearly Gamergate-motivated', 'per BMWF'. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And that diff has no reference to gamer gate. Secretlondon (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The person he's quoting per concluded "clearly Gamergate-motivated." Just10A (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was confused too, so I went to go check. The diff is endorsing another editor [35] Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for video games but without prejudice toward an administrative review of other parties The evidence presented is sufficient grounds to observe these three editors engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment and it would be wise for them to find something other than video games. I think a topic ban is more appropriate than a block here. However I'm not sure that these three topic bans are sufficient. From the evidence and dispute presented here it does look like two relatively entrenched battleground playersparties. I am aware of political motivations for wanting to present the success or failure of certain media products (Go woke go broke is the term I believe), and it does look like there are people who may want to downplay the success of certain games to advance a political POV. Just because those people who opposed them behaved badly does not mean that they behaved above reproach nor that they should have free rein to maintain the POV on these articles without dissent. As such I'd say that there's sufficient evidence for these three topic bans and also possibly for topic bans for Vestigum Leonis and Sariel Xilo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, just hoping to understand your position. As the primary three under discussion are "anti-anti-woke" battlegrounders, if you are suggesting a possible TBAN for Sariel, I assume that would be because they are "anti-woke"? The positions are relatively easy to differentiate, but I can't see any pattern of that from Sariel. For example, in the Veilguard RFC they created (and voted for) a custom option to increase the lead's coverage of the game's positive reception (adding mention of representation & diversity) and earlier defended the inclusion of LGBT+ journalists. I'm never opposed to calling out bad behaviour... but if you want an admin to review, can you point to what they've done that might be advancing a political POV (and, if so, which political POV)? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

When I look at the edit history for Forspoken I see Sariel Xilo and Vestigum Leonis engaging in edit warring as much as the three original subjects of this thread. In WP:BATTLEGROUND situations it generally takes two to tangle and what is needed is for somebody, frankly anybody to say "while I disagree with the current state of this article I'll take it to talk," instead of edit warring. This is also why I didn't suggest you or OceanHok should receive any sanctions at all. You didn't engage in edit warring and were not being disruptive. The link to "Go woke go broke" was simply making sure to contextualize the "gamergate" accusations brought up in this thread. Much like I consider edit warring over box office estimates to be silly I think edit warring over video game returns is silly regardless of which side of the edit war one is on. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Got it, thank you for clarifying. Having a look, is that the edits from those two from June 1 and June 2? If yes, I think that was their attempt to enforce an RFC closure (which was then re-enforced by an admin)—it's what initiated the creation of this thread. I can't speak for Vestigum because I have not seen them around to the same extent, but I see extraordinary patience for Sariel in particular with this group—going to DRN with them (where BMWF didn't show up) and creating multiple RFCs. Sariel has almost 20,000 edits across the video game topic, so I wouldn't support a TBAN for them based on them attempting to enforce an RFC outcome (that's not edit warring). Sariel previously reported Vestigium for edit warring on the Forspoken article. I don't have strong views about Vestigium (if they broke a TBAN, block 'em), but Sariel's conduct has been really even-handed at every possible juncture here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In the edit summary, from 10000 feet, it did look like edit warring but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong here regarding Sariel based on your clarification. I don't support blocks for anyone here though. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

All good. I can see that a series of IPs have – quite straightforwardly – lied in their edit summaries about the situation (I suspect precisely to mislead people glancing over the dispute). Vestigium's response below indicates their restriction was a temporary 1-month TBAN from the article, so I rescind my previous suggestion of wrongdoing by them—as with Sariel, their attempt to enforce the RFC was justified and not further edit warring (for which they seem to show immense contrition both in the immediate aftermath and today). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• If some clarification is needed, I was not edit warring at Forspoken. From the breakdown of my 10 total edits, you'll see I did the initial expansion of the reception section with 7 edits, removed some nowikis in 1 edit, I removed the lead sentence to implement the RfC (stated as such in the edit summary), and I did a single revert after a 3rd editor reverted the RfC consensus. I did not participate in that RfC but did participate in the other still open Forspoken RfC. Before all that, I reported BMWF, Vestigium Leonis, & NTC for 3RR/edit war behavior at Forspoken. When the subsequent discussion following that 3RR report became a stonewall, I then started brainstorming potential dispute resolution options (this conversation would lead to 2 RfCs and the closure of one would then lead us my initial report here about edit warring over the closure...). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Since you have—very reasonably—now seen that the parties were edit warring against an RFC, perhaps consider striking but without prejudice toward an administrative review of other parties. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that my previous edit warring was a mistake and accepted a one-month topic block without contest. It was inappropriate behavior (partly influenced by a brief period of significant real-life stress, though I understand that this does not and should not excuse my actions at all). Since then, I have made only one revert, which was performed to restore consensus of the closed RfC and content that was unaffected by the RfC. I partially restored it once more, after which the IP edits left the sentence alone, which made it clear to me that it had been removed by mistake. If you review my editing history on Forspoken, you will see that I have included both aspects that could be deemed as "positive and negative" of the game's performance. If I had a particular agenda or bias, as some have suggested, I would not have improved articles targeted by so-called "anti-woke" editors. It would make more sense, in that case, to focus only on "negative" content, or not? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef proposal

I voted above for a topic-ban because of the long-standing tag teaming, stonewalling, edit warring, assuming bad faith etc. After reviewing their comments overnight, I doubt a topic ban is sufficient and Support Indefs. The three continue to misrepresent others' arguments and cast aspersions on their motivations. They argue on each others' behalf. They insist others are their "opponents" representing pro-Gamer Gate positions with no evidence other than "they disagreed with me". They seem to be learning terminology as others highlight it in their behaviour and then accuse others of it. They ignore clear, simple statements or questions because there's nothing to fight over. If diffs evidence poor conduct, it's not the right diffs. When clearly told they did something wrong, they actually didn't and it's suspicious you didn't mention they're being targeted? When their behavioural pattern is demonstrated across multiple articles, it's some innovative type of OR to "combine diffs". No acceptance of wrongdoing on the primary, initiating issue (tag-team reverting an RFC closure). Competence is required. This behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on the site. They want to scream and thrash until others get tired of them and deferring the problem to other editor groups—who may have less stamina than the reasonably admin-active video-game wikiproject—is not a good outcome. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above, definitely for BMWF. I think NCT might be able to contribute to the project in other areas, her comments tend to have more substance whereas BMWF is just non-stop sealioning. Would rather a tban for her conditional on some contrition, but there’s no indication of behavioural change as of now so indefs are necessary for preventative measures Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You could be right about NCT's ability to contribute beyond VG culture war stuff. I think her misrepresentations in this thread are actually the worst of the lot, which is why I included her. This is all a bit exhausting so I'm going to take a step back from here and let the community decide what should be done. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Also opposing. Way too harsh and seems motivated by opinion differences. BMWF is a little wordy but not as much as editors on the other side. NCT doesn't appear to have any behavior issues in particular and neither does Wyll Ravengard. BlackVulcanX (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that you are "also" opposing when Kowal7201 supported the BMWF ban; the only other person to oppose so far is BMWF (and they opposed after you). For context, this user has edited Wikipedia 81 times, including RFC voting with BMWF, and was suggested as a possible sock of BMWF by Kowal7201. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I oppose both so the 'also' was in reference to my earlier vote. BlackVulcanX (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose ImaginesTigers is continuing his battleground crusade as retaliation for my comment in the Veilguard RfC[36], which makes a case for removing some of the content he wrote. BMWF (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No real reply about their conduct—simply more "this is about a conduct dispute"... when I initially shared their position and changed my mind after the WT:VG discusion (that they bludgeoned). The "detail" was detailed aspersion-casting, using content nobody worked on as proof of a conspiracy... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support block on all three BWMF, The next bit applies to all, with the addition of stonewalling and sealioning, of course whose particular brand of aggression, bludgeoning and gaslighting—evidenced by their every reply to these threads—is unconducive to an atmosphere of collegiality. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Fortuna, piggybacking off your response as my final message to say that I agree BMWF is the primary problem (hence why so much of my earlier detail is about them). I proposed blocks for the entire group because of their conduct in this thread, of which BMWF and NMC are the worst offenders. Of less concern is Wyll, who genuinely does seem to only edit on these narrow disputes (and has barely commented here except to deny that the RFC close reversion was improper). Given Wyll's current editing activity, a video-game TBAN is, in practice, an indef. I'm quite frustrated by NMC's (condescending) distortions of others' messages. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Reading the newer responses, it is apparent that NutmegCoffeeTea and (especially) BMWF are here to cancel criticisms rather than addressing the issue, and make issues worse than they already are. I will support indefinitely blocking them for being WP:SPA who are a net negative for the entire project. And if you think you made a strong case for your POV and requires "retailation", you are absolutely misguided. OceanHok (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• reiterating my support for this here per my comment above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indefs, per Fortuna. This behavior is becoming quite severe. I leave it to admin's discretion about Wyll, I am not sure he is at the same level as the other two in terms of violations. Just10A (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite blocks. We don't need editors that consider Wikipedia a culture war WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that goes for whatever side of the specific culture war they're on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's clear that there is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here going on and while it's also clear that the hands of the original three editors are not fully clean it's also pretty clear that there is a concerted effort by others with a competing WP:BATTLEGROUND stance to remove some ideological opponents. I don't think anyone should be pulling blocks here also because I don't think any blocks are necessary in this circumstance where tbans would do. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Simonm223, why do you always go with the highest, most punitive sanction for anyone that appears to skew right, but wave away any wrongdoing by anyone who skews left? You’ve made 18,500 edits, 29% in project space and only 20% in mainspace. Your incentive to edit Wikipedia seems to be political, like that time you tried to extend WP:NONAZIS to the Trumpian right (I can’t find the link now). Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't. If you look above I supported a topic ban for all three I don't believe a block is the appropriate action here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, apologies if I’m way off the mark, even still I would consider you a big net positive. Just don’t see how someone could read this thread and come to the conclusion you did. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Because I read the thread carefully and all the diffs even more carefully and because, being honest, I think we've been generally too quick to block editors who have blind spots in specific areas but who are a net positive elsewhere. You'll note I don't pursue ANI or AE actions against people who I disagree with ideologically but who operate within the appropriate rules of engagement of the project and even with the small number of editors I have pretty serious concerns I'm far more likely to approach them at user talk than here unless things go thoroughly sideways.

  I do think that noticeboard participation is an important thing for highly engaged editors to do. Including this one. But the only thing I am a "hanging judge" over tends to be the source reliability of newspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, tbh my first run in with NCT harmed my ability to AGF a lot, was my first ANI report (and SPI), this more recently made me conscious of it. I'll stay away from CTs and noticeboards and work on it Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with Simon, but this is a little strong and inappropriate @Kowal2701. Simon and I disagree on (almost) everything we ever interact on, but he does genuine, good work here and at times has actually illustrated great strength of character. Let's stick to the topic at hand. Just10A (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Indefs per Fortuna (or alternatively topic bans, as I haven't voted above). There have been so many attempts to find solutions, and reactions by experienced editors and admins, but none of them got us anywhere. I do think that the comments and diffs of ImaginesTigers, OceanHok and Sariel Xilo above provide enough insight into how bad and disruptive this has been across multiple articles for months. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - per my comments in the section above, I support any action taken against them. Its pretty clearly some sort of TAGTEAM/SOCK/MEAT situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef blocks Whatever this is, and it appears to be a wide open field (Sockpuppetry, undisclosed paid editing, meat puppetry, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, etc), it’s effectively undermining both the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and making trouble for the community by causing an apparent chilling effect with regards to editors and The article is in question. That’s absolutely unacceptable, and fortuitous it’s also absolutely blockable. Let’s drop the hammer and then clean up their mess, and after an appropriate period of absence (usually six months at the earliest) we can entertain any unblock requests that come up. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Appears to be retaliatory and ideologically motivated. Many participants above such as Kowal have previously tried to get some of these editors banned.[37] Koriodan (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How come all things recently created accounts are suddenly appearing in this discussion? Four weeks old, ~40 edits. Update: Ah, I see it's because you edit- warred against multiple editors on Assassin's Creed Shadows, including an admin. Curious. Anyway, I've removed your WP:ASPERSION; please don't assume ideological motives to editors without very good proof. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not an aspiration to say that it "appears to be retaliatory and ideologically motivated" when editors have made ideological comments in this same case and were called out on retaliation[38]. If you remove that you must also remove all of the ridiculous paid editing, COI, group conspiracy aspersions and insults being thrown. Koriodan (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It is an aspersion if you do not support your claim with diffs as evidence. I know you think you did do so, but since that random diff from three months ago contains absolutely nothing relevant to this discussion, your aspersion remains unjustified. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if this is an incorrect assertion, but this continues to just be weird and suggest some sort of meatpuppeting/socking going on. An account with less than 50 total edits (a significant amount of which overlap with the accused group's pages) that hasn't been active in 2 weeks just suddenly becomes undormant, and goes directly to this thread, despite them having no way of otherwise knowing about it? Further this account pulls out a link to a sockpuppet investigation archive from nearly 3 months ago? That's a surprising amount of wikipedia adeptness for an account with less than 50 edits, all of which have been substantive (article space/talk page) and not procedurally involved.

Again, if this is unfounded I apologize. But zoinks, this gives me the creeps, gang. Just10A (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Occam's Razor would suggest Japan has something to do with it :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What gives me the creeps is that you and Kowal2701, both voters above, defended the discriminatory comments about editor identities from the person who started the Forspoken discussion/edit war, and then Vestigium Leonis edit warred 8 edits to continue that dispute for him. Kowal's defense:

I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal271[39]

And here is you defending the same comment. BMWF (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is approaching don't feed the trolls territory. Repeatedly shouting your same argument with the same links is not helpful. I'm allowed to point out procedural issues on AN discussions I come across, sorry. Just10A (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't an AN discussion. It was the talk page of an Arbitrator after Arbitration Enforcement. And then you went to the RFC to vote mentioning the "opposition" so your interest wasn't just procedural.[40] BMWF (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll let other editors decide if Wyll Ravengard should receive the same sanctions as BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea but most of my comment is going to be directed at the latter editors. I think their comments here really stand in contrast to the comments made by Vestigium Leonis over the same Forspoken edit war behavior. Vestigium was quick to acknowledge that they made mistakes during the previous 3RR report & respected their 1 month TBAN. In regards to this latest edit war over the RfC closure, Vestigium went to the admin who was involved in that 3RR report to ask for advice & that admin said the closure occurred correctly & pinged BMWF/Wyll about it. I too have acknowledged things escalated a bit in late 2024 over at Veilguard and made a point to try and change my behavior (such as going to DRN, starting or contributing to RfCs, not participating in other RfCs, reducing the number of reverts I make, etc); I also asked for advice on how we could deescalate to have productive talk page discussions. I think this is all reflected in my recent engagement at Forspoken including going to the RfC closing editor after BMWF reverted the closure & saying essentially "I'm worried if I revert them, I'll trigger an edit war so what are the next steps so we can avoid that". BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea have not acknowledged the problematic aspects of their editing behavior – such as often reverting 2-3 times without starting a talk age discussion & continuing to revert even after other editors have said on the corresponding talk "hey, can we not edit war & discuss this instead". For me, the line between a limited TBAN & INDEF, is their ability to acknowledge those issues and commit to changing their behavior; this should include things like "I'll start talk page discussions" or "I'll follow WP:BRD & limit myself to 1R". It feels like all of this could have been avoided if they hadn't jumped to revert & edit war and instead taken the first step of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE ("contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion"). It is a really simple thing to do which is why I did it before opening the thread here asking for help in resolving this. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I previously asked what I did and no one told me. I only made one revert and I just did it because I thought it was strange the IP had no other edits. I didn't revert again when Leonis and Sariel reverted. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  From my POV, you’ve denied there was any issue with your RFC reversion, insinuated your own editorial negligence (reverting RfC enforcement because they were an IP? really?) and tenuously blamed a group of editors (the latter 2 in response to Robert’s follow up). You also accused me of tag-teaming and stonewalling—accusations that are currently unsubstantiated given your low participation. Robert has directly tagged you in the section he created below about it asking you about these, so that’s maybe one place to start. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting those diffs and assuming bad faith toward Wyll, and you linked the same diff twice in your second and third link. Wyll linking to page statistics to point out the bludgeoning of you, Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, and Vestigium Leonis is not unsubstantiated. BMWF (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

C'mon. You know what you're doing. Firstly, (as others have told you) it isn't assuming bad faith to say people are breaking the rules; it is having eyes. Secondly, I linked the same diffs twice? You mean, like where I wrote the latter 2 in response to Robert McClenonon? How are page statistics (representing additions I made to single article over 7 months age) evidence of bludgeoning? (Which is usually a Talk-page issue.) I see the same stuff from you over and over: restate your position, blame a cabal, and hope it tricks people. I didn't even asked you—I asked Wyll! He wanted to know what he did wrong. I told him. And here you are defending him without responding to anything I actually said... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefs per TomStar81 and others. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support site ban of BMWF. They have shown a consistent unwillingness to listen to others who criticize their editing for any reason, and their response to Robert McClenon below continues that pattern of casting aspersions on other editors and WP:RGW and WP:BATTLE behavior. I am not convinced that they will ever be able to collaborate productively in any topic area. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Simonm223. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia: Simon223 (courtesy ping) opposed on the grounds that there were attempts by "competing BATTLEGROUND opponents to remove ideological opponents". Simon struck the remarks about the "competing battleground opponents" in his support for TBANs but hasn't revisited the rationale for his opposition to indef. Consequently there is a bit of misalignment here and I'm not understanding the rationale of justifying "per Simon233". Extraordinarily bad conduct from the 3 subjects in this thread led me to propose the indef. If opposition is on the basis of my "ideology", it's reasonable for me to ask for some clarification given my track record of progressive content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I still feel a block should be avoided when a tban is enough. So I support tban, not a block. Simonm223 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary and retaliatory by ImaginesTigers. As a slight aside and for clarification, there was no nefarious intention with my edit. I saw that a new editor had his comment removed and I actually felt bad for him. New editors often don't understand why they're reverted on content, but for a new editor to have their good faith comments removed too is likely to be very disheartening. After seeing that a legitimate WP:RFCNEUTRAL claim was raised (the IP user completely misrepresented the existing state of the article to neutral editors) and looking at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which says the situation does not need a closure review to keep going if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion, I figured that was a legitimate reason to allow them to comment. The policy makes it obvious that it's customary to extend the discussion a bit in that situation, especially for an early closure without an admin. Though once I learned that it was normal to let the closer know I didn't make any further edits and wanted to let others handle it from there. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• But you (and the rest) did not hesitate to bring new editors who do not share your content position to SPI, and revert numerous IP editors for being "socks" or "IP hopper". Asking for a discussion to be reopened and edit warring are two different things. It is highly problematic that you still choose to click that undo button after (1) seeing Wyll/BMWF's attempts already failed and (2) reading my warnings, Sariel's comments on CLOSECHALLENGE, Toadspike's summary, and the bold red text from the archive template telling you not to modify the discussion. OceanHok (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - As I have noted elsewhere in this matter, I was not involved in this controversy until I was pinged in, and so have had to read the history in more depth than I would have liked to, and have not yet decided on the proposed indefinite block or site ban (and have never fully understood the difference if there is a difference) of these three editors. However, what I can see at this time is only complicating things is references to culture wars and to skewing left and skewing right. I live in a country that is deeply divided between people who skew right and people who skew left, and I would prefer to stay clear of the culture wars when I can. I think that I don't want to know what the culture wars background is. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  My comment referring to skew right and left wasn't to characterise the dispute, just that BMWF and NCT's POVs skew left, imo other participants are NPOV, but my comment was very ill-judged regardless Kowal2701 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban of BWMF for a combination of POV pushing, tag teaming the close of an RFC, and use of non-participation in a DRN as a device for stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of Wyll Ravengard for a combination of POV pushing, tag teaming the close of an RFC, a truly bizarre non-explanation for edit-warring, and trying to confuse the jury by alleging misconduct by other editors without providing details. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of BWMF. The misrepresentation of ImagineTiger's comments below shows that either they cannot understand that the diffs don't show what BWMF says or else are deliberate misrepresentation. Either way, a TBAN does not seem sufficient for this severe of a behavioral issue. Neural on CBANS for the other two; I hope the TBAN will be enough to prevent disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of BWMF per their response below (thanks Robert McClenon for giving the opportunity), showing an undeniable commitment to weaponising PAGs to push a POV and Wyll Ravengard for pretty obvious reasons. Also support at least a TBAN for NutmegCoffeeTea, for their disingenous conduct visible in this ANI report alone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: NCT is already tbanned, per the section above this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Simonm223 has it right and these sorts of things aren't supposed to be punitive. Bladeandroid (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site bans / blocks on User:BMWF, User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea. I've been quite hesitant to support this proposal for a while, as the three editors have already received a topic ban from video games in the TBAN proposal above, which should ideally be taking care of much of the problems described here. I see good arguments both for and against site bans for these editors, the 'for' being the ongoing misrepresentation of diffs by the editors, and the 'against' being the "political nature" of the content dispute, as suggested by Simonm223 and Robert McClenon's comments/votes. It does seem as if this proposal is eliminating a viewpoint in the matter. Going back to the "for" argument, I had a look at some of the comments by the accused editors regarding diff misinterpretation, and indeed I can see that there's a bit of dishonesty going on, there. (Having the same opinion as another person is "defending" that person, really??)
  All in all: as much as I don't like harsher administrative action being taken against good-faith editors, as well as editors of a different viewpoint being banished, I think that the ongoing misconduct, combined with the "time sink" factor (the amount of time spent by the community in this thread as well as in trying to resolve the content dispute) warrants site bans being implemented on the three editors in my view. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to say that I can also see (and would principally support) separate cases being made for each of the three editors, as it has turned out thus far that there are varying levels of disruption between them. Looks like User:BMWF is indeed 'bludgeoning' in the next subsection below, while indef blocks / site bans may not be needed for User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea at this time. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The majority of the support votes belong to one side of an RFC which is a major conflict of interest. This looks like an editor clique trying to remove ideological opponents. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  IP that was tag-team edit warring at Forspoken which led to this report being made Kowal2701 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't tag team and no I shouldn't have edit warred. But edit warring is never justified regardless of which side and both sides did (me, Sariel Xilo, and other IPs). No one here deserves a ban. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  The issue isn't necessarily their behavior as much as really the Sock/Meatpuppeting problems. The community's pretty much already acknowledged there's some amount of puppeting/logged out editing going on, it's just to what extent. This equally applies to the BladeAndroid account vote (68 edit account, used to support NCT in an RFC in the past, has been completely dormant for 5 months, then suddenly just wakes up and comes directly to this thread, despite having no way of knowing about it. Sprinkled in some basic platitudes that take 5 seconds to write so it's a little less obvious [41] [42], and then went back down again.)

  Obviously IP editors are human too, but the issues are apparent. However, the broad consensus among actually established editors seems pretty clear here, so it's really nothing to worry about and can just be left up to the closer. Just10A (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Completely untrue. Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[43], from the person who started the Forspoken discussion. He went as far to badger an Arbitrator to argue for removing the sanctions on that editor against the consensus of multiple admins.[44] Just10A and OceanHok, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, and so on all share a position that overlaps with the Gamergate POV on Forspoken, and voted together in the RFC. The fact that Just10A's vote was only after he defended the discriminatory comment suggests political interest. BMWF (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Accusing any concerned users of being part of Gamergate or sharing its POV is not helping your case here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have to accuse him when the diff evidence is there. BMWF (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  The diffs do not show any overlap with the "Gamergate POV on Forespoken", which itself is too vague of an accusation. Would that mean any of the users are harassing people involved with Forespoken? Are they calling Forespoken "woke"? This is veering into a weird kind of guilt by association. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just10A's initial engagement with this matter was downplaying the discriminatory comments from the starter of the Forspoken discussion, voting in a RFC to support that sanctioned editor, and going after editors who disagree with that sanctioned editor. I've always treated Just10A with good faith aside from responding to his allegations, which appear to be retaliatory and intended at removing the political opponents of the maker of the above comment. BMWF (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since when have you treat Just10A with good faith? You questioned his motive since the very first comment in the Forspoken talk page. You have linked FMSky's comments here for seven times every time Just10A/Kowal2701 commented to cancel their opinions. Your biggest problem is that you think every one is wrong except yourself. People who oppose you on content are gamergaters (baseless accusations till this day), people who point out your behavioral issues are "retailatory" and had stalked you. People who educated you on policies are pointy and their interpretations must be flawed. The person closing the RfC is not an admin so their judgement must not be right. Guidelines are not policies so whenever a person quotes them we should dismiss it. People who bring a discussion to WikiProject must have forumshopped and OWN issues. There are just so many excuses to cover up what is essentially WP:IDLI. OceanHok (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef/site ban of BMWF, whose continued bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in this discussion make it very clear that they are not compatible with a collaborative project. NCT and Wyll have not bludgeoned the process with assumptions of bad faith; while I don't strictly oppose the possible indef of them both, I don't outright support it either, however BMWF has, through their own actions here, evidenced why a ban is necessary for the protection of the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  It is not bludgeoning to respond to allegations that directly or indirectly concern you. And if assumptions of bad faith are criteria, then you will have to support site bans for the editors here that have continuously made them. BMWF (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  'It's not bludgeoning', says the editor proving my point with another, bludgeoning comment. If you feel the need to reply to every comment against you, you should take a step back and ask if maybe those comments have a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't bludgeoning per the link: when someone is the subject of an administrative board report, they may need to respond several times to questions, and others shouldn't be linking this essay to call out the numerous replies. BMWF (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef for BMWF unsure about the others. Of the three BMWF is by far the most disruptive, continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:ABF. (Note: BMWF you don't need to respond to EVERY support vote, that is what bludgeoning is and this continued IDHT is what is driving me and others to support an indef). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support the site ban of User:BMWF. I said, after having seen the case made by the three topic-banned editors against the 'other side' of four or five editors, that I didn't want to support bans without taking a deep dive, and that I didn't plan to take a deep dive. I haven't had to take a deep dive. I see bludgeoning after I struck my support, and bizarre accusations that I don't understand about a woke agenda or about opposing a woke agenda. I am not sure that I understand or care what the sides are about woke and anti-woke and the Trumpian right. (The Trumpian right is clearly anti-woke.) However, those allegations were made after I had struck my support. At that time, I saw a reasonable doubt. They have continued digging a hole. Leave them in the hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite blocks as punitive rather than preventative; the three editors in question are already topic banned from the area in which they were judged to have behaved problematically and I have not seen evidence of the behaviors which resulted in their topic bans occurring in other areas. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hatman. Since the TBAN went into effect, none of the editors have engaged in any of the problematic behaviors. BMWF and NMC in particular have only edited this conversation. I think for now we can consider the issue resolved. If in the future they go back to this pattern of behavior, though, I would support indefs. Thesixthstaff (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What's the Other Side?

As I noted above, I was pinged into this mess and spent more time reading about it than I wanted to spend. So I want to be sure that I understand at least as much of the dispute as is needed to assess what the problems are. So I want to follow up on a question that I was asked, although it may have been meant to be a throw-away question. User:Wyll Ravengard wrote: You also didn't mention the other side of dispute Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis and some others present. No. I would prefer not to think of content disputes as having sides, but it is clear that this is a conduct dispute with sides. I didn't mention "the other side" because I haven't seen a case presented that "the other side" was being disruptive. This section begins with a listing of editors on one "side" and is followed by a case of how three editors have interfered with collaborative editing of at least two articles. I think that I was reading the tedious history with an open mind, so that I think that I would have seen incoming boomerangs or disruption or misconduct by the other side. I didn't mention "the other side of the dispute" because I didn't see evidence of disruptive editing by another side of the dispute. Maybe I wasn't looking seriously enough, or maybe the case hasn't been presented yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

So, before the community decides whether to impose sanctions on BWMF, NutmegCoffeeTea, or Wyll Ravengard, I think that we should ask them to present a structured case (since BWMF says, reasonably, that DRN is for structured discussion) that the editors whom Wyll Ravengard listed have been disruptive. I think it is especially important to ask them to present the "other side" before considering any community bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a bit irrelevant by now, sorry Robert. They've had days and 1000s of bytes in which to do what you are now suggesting and at no point have they done so (or attempted to do so), merely sealioning and gaslighting in order—as someone puts it above—"to cancel criticisms rather than addressing the issue". I think we've established by now that their reasons are quite simple: to remove negative information about one game and restore positive information in another; I disagree that we should give such editing equal weight with that of editors attempting to follow policies. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Robert and suggest that evidence be presented on the other side as well. Vestigium Leonis has made many problematic reverts on Forspoken.[45][46][47][48] Koriodan (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that we should give equal weight to the editors who are likely to be sanctioned. I am saying that they should be given a clear opportunity to present their case concisely. If they do not present a case that neutral editors can understand, then we (neutral editors) may conclude that they have been sealioning and gaslighting. We should invite them to present a structured case so that we can decide how much weight to give to different editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth seeing if any case other than "we want to say good things about these games but not bad things" can possibly be made. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't primarily asking for the topic-banned editors to present a case about their own editing, although they can present such a case to argue against being site-banned. I was asking the now topic-banned editors to present the case that "the other side" was disruptive. In fact, if they don't present such a case, some editors may conclude that they were casting aspersions on "the other side" having the nature of personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Under 10 hours ago, Wyll asked what he had done, to which I responded and asked him to respond to you. No response from them, but BMWF dropped in with some responses that really don't make sense to me. Sorry to drag you into this Robert but hopefully you can decide whether "another side" of this dispute even exists from this as I don't think you're getting any statements from them. Their sole goal is to fatigue our content processes to get what they want, not to talk with us and form consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Robert and sorry for the delay (I was not pinged). I'm a little busy IRL, but I can update a brief summary here if someone doesn't beat me to it. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have problems personally and I don't care about this topic that much. It's not that serious and I'd just encourage everyone to go out and get some sun. I'm not interested in drama. But since Robert McClenon asked I can provide some details.

Vestigium Leonis, Sariel Xilo, and OceanHok repeatedly exhibit severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues over video game articles and tag team edit. The ownership issues mainly manifest through extensive talk bludgeoning and, from what I've seen, are primary articles involved in culture wars (On Forspoken's talk page these three editors alone are over half of the text and on The Veilguard's talk page they over 60%)

The way they go about it is that they will tag team edit to insert or elevate Gamergate-style commentary. That isn't to say that they're involved in gamergate, but at least that the POVs they push line up with it incidentally or not. It could be coincidence. But regardless I think the way they go about it pushes away new editors.

For background context these Gamergate POVs are:

• That Forspoken is a "flop" (for having a black female lead) which isn't actually true or supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources didn't cover this (good on them) but if you wanted direct sources you would see thousands of mentions on right-wing social media.
  • Vestigium Leonis made 10 reverts on Forspoken to imply it was a flop.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Sariel Xilo then filed an editing report that completely excused him while blaming the people he disagrees with.
  • This behavior by Vestigium Leonis was a continuation of the editor who started the Forspoken dispute, who made discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors. This editor frequently edits right-wing topics.
  • Kowal2701, who voted above, defended the discriminatory comments of the above editor with the justification I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs[57].
  • Just10A, who voted above, defending the same comment. Given that these two editors have no interest in games, this suggests political factionalization.
• That Veilguard is "woke" (slur) because it has LGBTQ representation. Also not true.[58]
  • Sariel wrote something like 4000 words to defend calling the game "woke" in the reception section even though it's WP:UCG from bigots that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. He claimed this was okay because sources covered the review bombing, but instead of just mentioning that it was review bombed he directly quoted "woke" from user reviews.
  • OceanHok even went as far to try and remove the "Critical Reception" header from the article so that they could make the reception to be entirely what online bigots think about the game instead of critics[59]
  • Sariel edit warred to make sure the reception mentioned that the game is "woke" and that it mentioned that MetaCritic had negative user reviews.[60][61]
  • An example of the tag team editing is here too. Sariel will revert[62], and then Vestigium Leonis will revert saying As Sariel said[63], and then OceanHok will revert.
• That it is "woke" that Assassin's Creed Shadows has a black protagonist.[64]
  • OceanHok edit warred to insert that a "conservative Youtuber called it pandering" and "online users attacked the option for LGBTQ relationships" which is obviously undue [65][66]
  • The editor who started the Forspoken dispute, who Vestigium Leonis edit warred to support, and who Vestigium Leonis/Sariel Xilo/OceanHok all heavily bludgeoned the talk page in support of, edit warred to add an attack section for the protagonist[67][68][69]
  • Also the way the above editor changed the header from Marketing and release to Delays and controversies matches how Sariel Xilo edit warred on Veilguard to change the headers from Early Development to Early Development and Controversies and Completion and release to Staff turnover.[70]

Sariel will often make the first edit, and then attempt to play admin while abusing procedural processes such as requesting protection in a way that will benefit his editing friends[71][72], or filing an editing report where he excuses his friends and attacks the people he disagrees with.

They also heavily bludgeon the talk pages of games in political controversies by repeating long arguments.

• They are over half of the Veilguard talk page. This includes ImaginesTigers who bludgeoned that page and this ANI with aggressive comments. Sariel alone is 40%.[73]
• These three editors are over half of all talk page text on Forspoken.[74]
• OceanHok is chronically aggressive and rude on talk pages such as saying that people he disagrees with are 'gaslighting' and 'not serious'
• Both OceanHok and ImaginesTigers are pointy and like to imply that new editors are not smart.[75]

The result of this that, even if new editors survive the tag teaming from these three, if they make it to the talk page they will get bludgeoned.

Something else they do while bludgeoning on talk pages is try to intimidate new editors in content disputes by implying that WikiProject VG probably won't allow the content of the edits they want to make, but I actually checked and this is forbidden by policy.

But anyway I don't care about this that much, and ANI probably isn't optimal. If it goes to AE or the Arbitration Committee though I'm sure they would want to clean house.

Also to clarify, I only had good intentions with my edit. I raised a WP:RFCNEUTRAL concern about 4 hours after the close and I thought it was okay. I didn't ask anyone else to edit. BMWF (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm about to start striking your comments for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. This is, I believe, the 3rd time in a row now that you've vaguely characterized my discussion (mind you, on an AE post that's totally tangential to this thread) as "defending discriminatory comments" in some effort to ad-hominem me as some political hack. I explicitly stated "I want to be clear. That is not acceptable." regarding those comments. Pointing out procedural issues in an AE case is not "defending discriminatory comments," and you've been explained this repeatedly. Instead, your refusal to admit any wrongdoing and your newfound cavalier attitude ("I don't care about this topic that much. It's not that serious and I'd just encourage everyone to go out and get some sun. I'm not interested in drama.") just cements your sanctions. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Why aren't you including the rest of the quote? But to say that warrants a GENSEX TBAN is crazy. and However the only "stance" FMSky expressed here was "people with progressive gender views are more likely to be left leaning indicate that you think his comments aren't worthy of sanction.

You're twisting what he was saying in a way that completely downplays it. What he actually was saying was "people with these identities are not worthy of having discussions with/cannot contribute". Your entire interest in this is political. BMWF (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not gonna feed the trolls/sea lions anymore. Explicitly said that exchange was worthy of timeouts and reprimand. Anyone can read my full comment if they wish on that issue (it's certainly been linked enough). Anyway, I think the lack of any admission of wrongdoing at all here is pretty indicative, and the constant WP:SEALIONING/WP:GASLIGHTING is just icing on the cake. Let's just drop the hammer and move on. Just10A (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Strange that you only recommend a 'reprimand' for someone who engaged in discrimination, and argued for his sanctions to be removed, but recommend full sanctions against his editing opponents. I've already made clear that I had no bad motive with my edit and had no intention to edit again which is why I haven't. Your political bandwagoning and retaliatory posturing is very obvious. BMWF (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

These are false accusations about me and Forspoken. I never called the game a flop, even though reliable sources actually have (and it only took me a minute to find them) [76][77][78]. My intention was to present the lead in a neutral manner. The bigger issue was your insistence on pushing a random chart statistic while trying to remove publisher information. If you review the provided diffs, you can see that a) I never called the game a flop and b) you contributed to the edit warring just as much, including fully reverting content that needs no consensus (like OpenCritic). The difference is that I acknowledged my mistake and took the punishment given by the involved admin to heart.

Additionally, you're now seemingly attempting to associate me with FMSky’s alleged discriminatory comments (I say 'alleged' because I haven’t reviewed that full history myself yet). The only connection is that FMSky and I happened to share the same view on what content belongs in the lead. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Re "discriminatory comments", he was in a discussion with multiple people who disagreed with him, he looked at their user pages which all had pronouns, and assumed they were pov pushers. Other than a major AGF issue, tbh I still don’t see what’s discriminatory about that, discriminatory would be casting aspersions against someone due to their specific identity/set of pronouns, no? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is, in fact, discriminatory to assume that a person indicating they prefer specific pronouns indicates their politics. It's also mistaken on Wikipedia where they/them is default. I am aware of some deeply conservative editors who indicate a self-disclosed he/him. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

But it isn't discriminatory against their identity, just their decision to highlight their preferred pronouns? I guess it could have a chilling effect and their absence leads to misgendering, being indirectly discriminatory. While it's something associated with left-wing politics, I agree the logic is faulty as well Kowal2701 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's a bad argument because it's basically the equivalent of saying that it's OK to discriminate against a person if they don't closet themselves online. It's also a distraction from WP:FOC and is the reason I personally deleted all my userboxes as I was very tired of people presupposing my positions on Wikipedia on the basis of my personal identity. I would suggest always pretending no editor has any infoboxes and ignoring them except to refer to editors by their disclosed pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I remember reading a great essay about an ideal on how people shouldn’t be able to discern your opinions from your editing, and userboxes sort of negate this, but can’t find it now as it’s not in Category:Wikipedia essays about neutrality Kowal2701 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what this was about. This appears to be a justified description then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:INSCRUTABLE! Kowal2701 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no point in me reading this because I have already demonstrated BMWF's habit of blatant misrepresentation. BMWF mentions me once in their response: Both OceanHok and ImaginesTigers are pointy and like to imply that new editors are not smart, providing this diff. This diff obviously doesn't include me. I'll generously concede I'm capable of being pointy (who can't?), but there's no evidence here of my "battleground crusade" aside from disagreeing with them in 1 RFC. I'm going back to writing an encyclopaedia. Cheers — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You insulted three editors above while simultaneously assuming extraordinary bad faith.[79] You were also wrong on your assumptions too.

You treated the Veilguard talk page as a battleground while tenaciously replying to almost every RfC position against yours.[80][81][82] You also bludgeoned that page.[83]

Your retaliatory proposal here, against editors who voted in the RfC to remove content you wrote, is a continuation of your feuding and bad faith assumptions. BMWF (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Any interested parties can review the comment BMWF is responding to and evaluate if this actually responds to it. Please apply its findings when reviewing BMWF’s diffs. I’m done engaging with them — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

To start with, I've asked you multiple times to not refer to me using he/him pronouns - I mentioned this at the 3RR April 2025 report & more directly on your talk page in May 2025 (the latter of which I received a thank notification from you indicating you read it). A few days ago, I also addressed above your poison well argument trying to connect editors to that TBANed editor so I'm not going to rehash why I think that's wrong. This is going to be a lengthy rebuttal (mostly focused on what occurred at Veilguard from Nov '24 to Jan '25 because that's what I was most involved in) so I'm also going to collapse some of it for readability.

• Going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is not " play admin while abusing procedural processes"; it is a suggested way to stop edit warring to allow discussion to occur and it also means an outside admin reviews if PP is needed. During one such discussion, I described it as stop gap measure & we needed to find a productive dispute resolution method.
• The tl'dr on Veilguard is that I was one of a number of editors who argued we needed to maintain a NPOV & stick with what RS had reported which includes both positive & negative commentary; I assume because it would show that I don't edit from gamergate POV or support that kind of biased editing, BMWF left out the times I argued to DENY trolls who wanted vandalism (ie. IPs wanting to include user generated reviews) or argued for the inclusion of reviews by queer/trans writers. I also argued for including a robust sentence in the lead which highlighted both positives & negatives from the reception section; there's no good faith read of me wanting to include this sentence (The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat.) that leads you to "must support gamergate".

Sariel Xilo's argument with diffs

Veilguard review bomb context - this is the sentence which was the main focus of the November 2024 discussions (the current iteration is slightly different): Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Breakdown (with diffs) from 11-17 Nov '24 focused on the review bomb discussion & BMWF's mischaracterization of calling it a defense of using the word "woke" On 11 November 2024, you removed it; OceanHok restored it, you removed it again, I reverted you (with an edit summary asking to discuss on talk). I then pinged you to open a discussion on the talk page. 11-17 November there was a discussion on including this sentence. I was not the only editor who argued for inclusion (non-exhaustive examples: OceanHok, LaffyTaffer, Harryhenry1, Ergzay, etc); the general gist of the arguments for inclusion was WP:UCG was not a concern because we were quoting RS discussing the events surrounding the review bombing, this followed the guidance from WP:VG/REC on including review bomb events, and we used a direct quote around the word "woke" to avoid SYNTH issues. During that discussion, on 15 November 2024, you removed part of the sentence again which I reverted. Over in the talk, I had argued that it was important to keep this part of the sentence ("reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" because outlets had pointed out it had contrasted with what occurred over on Steam). You were the only editor arguing for the removal of that sentence. I think my statement on 15 November 2024 is pretty good summary of the points I made throughout that discussion: "Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" is a summary sourced by reliable secondary sources and is not violation of WP:UGC (again, self-published sources are not being cited and examples of negative reviews are not included); it also directly aligns with WP:VG/REC on including review bomb events. Please stop reverting (see WP:EDITWAR) to your preferred version when the consensus is to include these details. BMWF's above statement ("Sariel wrote something like 4000 words to defend calling the game "woke" in the reception section even though it's WP:UCG from bigots that doesn't belong on Wikipedia") is a total is mischaracterization of events. Even at the time, I said: "I don't agree with people who did the review bombing at Metacritic or made the arguments in the talk above that those self-published reviews should be included. I agree with Harryhenry1 that this is an accurate & limited summary of events which isn't undue & adheres to NPOV. At this point, you're just rehashing the same statement on WP:UGC and bludgeoning the process". December 2024 there was a discussion on other aspects of the article & return to discussing the review bomb sentence; this led to DRN and then a RfC in January 2025 Breakdown of what led to the DRN & briefly touching on the subsequent RfC that occurred after BMWF didn't participate in the DRN This started with Wikibenboy94 making changing to the lead which BMWF reverted twice (03:56, 3 December 2024 & 21:39, 3 December 2024); on 3/4 December, I partially reverted BMWF & Wikibenboy94 reverted the other part. When BMWF made partial reverts again on 4 Dec, they also removed part of the review bomb sentence which had been of that Nov 2024 discussion. I pinged both editors on the talk stating: "There's been some back & forth reverts for a few weeks on parts of the lead and now the reception section so we're firmly in the discuss part of WP:BRD. I'm going to take a stab at breaking down the areas of disagreement below & hope we can come to consensus on the exact prose" That discussion stalled out (see Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1#Prose for all of it) but I will note that Wikibenboy94 & I were not in total alignment of what we thought should be included. This led me to going to DRN - at the time, I said " My thought on this specific sentence was consensus was resolved during the Nov 11-19 discussion above & this was a backdoor restart of that. I think the next step is the dispute resolution noticeboard to get an outside view from someone who hasn't been working on this article for weeks" & I also said "Rather than explaining again why I don't think this is a case of SYNTH or editorializing, as I mentioned below, I've brought this conversation over to the dispute resolution noticeboard in hopes that a fresh set of eyes can evaluate. I hope you will participate in the discussion there so we can come to a consensus". Both Wikibenboy94 & I participated at DRN but BMWF did not. After that DRN finished, I implemented the changes and BMWF returned on 5 January 2025 to revert them saying there was no consensus. I did not revert BMWF but instead pinged them on the talk (see Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1#DRN followup). This led to an RfC; I believe this was when I started to interact with Vestigium Leonis as they participated in the RfC. It was also my first time starting an RfC & I've acknowledged that the set up was a bit of a mess; I thought it had a clear question ("should what occurred at DRN stand") & what I should have done was split it up into multiple RfCs & not assumed people would read the history of the DRN so definitely lessons learned. By 29 January 2024, I felt like BMWF was continuing to create a STONEWALL & said in the RfC to the two editors who seemed to want to work towards consensus: "@Shooterwalker and Vestigium Leonis: For the moment, we should set aside BMWF's repeated assertions that only their interpretation of policy is correct since it is once again creating a WP:STONEWALL situation (which is also why I went to DRN in the first place). Vestigium Leonis proposed resolving the questions I listed before addressing if the "Reception" is too long. So I think all of us would agree that the opening sentence for ¶3 is fine but could be improved by adding in-line citations. Vestigium Leonis also agreed with me on restoring the Metacritic details in ¶1 (question #3) - Shooterwalker do you have any thoughts about that?". Discussion died down basically after that; the RfC was not closed but bot moved to the archive after discussion ended. I have not reverted or attempted to implemented anything that was discussed in the RfC. I reported BMWF & Vestigium Leonis (and mentioned NTC) for 3RR at Forspoken (see report) in April 2025 → I was upfront in my report that BMWF & I had past disagreements. I standby my characterization that it was indicative of BMWF's tendency to edit war while it was the first time I had seen Vestigium Leonis escalate like that. I also addressed this a bit above where I highlighted the key outcome was that Vestigium Leonis acknowledged the mistake they made & has tried to correct that behavior whereas BMWF continues to edit war & even after being TBANed has not acknowledged they made mistakes with their editing behavior. BMWF continues to mischaracterize by trying to link edits by other editors at Assassin's Creed Shadows to my edits at Veilguard; they even misquoted what I suggested as seen in the diff they included above (I did not suggest using the word "Controversies" in a section heading but instead argued for maintaining the word "Challenges" which had been the heading for months & reverted exactly 1 time) → in the current RfC on this, I even voted for 2 options which would removed the word "challenges"...

There's probably more ways I could argue that BMWF is mischaracterizing events but I think I've said a lot. Mostly, I would really like them to stop accusing me of leading some kind of gamergate cabal & get my pronouns right. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon thanks for writing this. I previously explained some of the bludgeoning and other behaviors above but I think BMWF has done a better job than me. I also want to add that ImaginesTigers misrepresented my explanation above. I didn't think it was a vandal just because it was an IP, but because it was an IP with zero other edits. I wasn't misleading you or anyone else when I mentioned the other side. I think it's a messy political debate and I hope everyone will get along. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Respondong to these "allegations"

• On AC Shadows, BMWF displayed their typical behaviours (pushing content despite being objected and bypassing BRD). I was the one who took the steps to resolve the conflict. On Veilguard, my edit summary itself was pretty self-explanatory.
• I do not believe I was rude when they did all the things I mention (gaslighting), and took contradicting positions which were difficult to follow (moving goalpost to a point where he was essentially denying his own examples; the same who goes for NCT who denies her own argument as a possible consensus of a discussion).
• I merely suggested editors should consult the WikiProject when they push for systematic changes. I never said that the WikiProject will reject it. Maybe you get your way. Maybe you don't. Maybe you get half of it. That's how consensus-building works (which BWMF still doesn't understand till this day).

BMWF still do not understand we never said any game is "woke". Our secondary reliable source do, and we cover them in due weight. On Forspoken, BMWF's relentless attempt at policing whatever an editor want to call a product is absurd. I am within my rights to call it a massive flop in the talk page, but that doesn't mean that is the content position I take for the mainspace. The idea that someone is a racist bigot for calling Forspoken a "flop" contains numerous logical fallcies. Also, you are assuming we and FMSky share similar ideology while we only shared the same content position. OceanHok (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have read the post by BWMF and the responses to it. I have one opinion on which I expect to be in the minority, and am taking one action. It appears that we have another Gamergate or Yasuke case involving conflict over representation of minority characters in video games. I haven't taken a deep dive into this mess and don't plan to take a deep dive into this ugly mess. So I don't know whether BWMF's characterization of the dispute is at least partly correct that the conduct of the other four editors, Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis, and others is as bad as that of the three topic-banned editors.
  • ArbCom has been elected to take deep dives into ugly messes. I think that it is time for the community to ask ArbCom to conduct what may turn into Gamergate 2, and that it is time for ArbCom to take the deep dive. Maybe I am in the minority. Maybe some of the other participating editors here think that they have already taken the deep dive and are prepared to take action. If ArbCom takes a case, maybe they will conclude that one, two, or three of the topic-banned editors are disrupting the encyclopedia to the point where bans are needed. On the other hand, if ArbCom takes a case, maybe they will conclude that there have been conduct violations on both "sides", and decide what level of sanctions are needed. That is my opinion at this point.
  • I will be striking my recommendations to site ban two of the three topic-banned editors, because I no longer am confident that I can assess responsibility without taking a deep dive that I don't plan to take. That does not mean that I oppose indefinite blocks or site bans, but I don't know enough to support bans against one "side". Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - If other members of the community have taken the deep dive into the ugly mess, then the community can deal with this dispute and does not need to ask ArbCom to address it. If there is a conclusion to block or ban the three topic-banned editors, I will infer that the community has decided that some editors are sufficiently knowledgable about the ugly details to take action. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• I probably should have raised this earlier, but back in March NCT called me a white supremacist without evidence [84], and then after a general warning from @Tamzin: about personal attacks bizzarely doubled down on it, catching a final warning which read If you accuse FMSky or Kowal (or anyone else) again of the kinds of things you're saying, without clear evidence of that thing—and I mean exactly that thing, not "someone once said he did something like this", but rather cold hard diffs—you can expect a lengthy or indefinite block. [85]. In my comment above I tried to leave the door open for NCT because I felt guilty for biting her initially [86] (which I later apologised for), but frankly given the above thread, I think we're all out of WP:ROPE. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  You edit warred to push a biased colonialist POV on African articles[87] and defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors, from the editor who started the Forspoken dispute.

  I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal271[88]

  Above you made some weird defense of the Trumpian right and criticism of WP:NONAZIS by attacking Simonm223.[89]

  You filed two spurious reports against NCT and Tamzin warned you about that, and said they would block you if you did not stop[90]. You've stalked her to an AE thread that had nothing to do with you, two talk pages, a RFC, and now this thread. Your participation here is both political and retaliatory. BMWF (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm only commenting here because you brough up my exchange with Kowal2701.

  While I'm not really sure what Kowal2701 meant regarding WP:NONAZI (I looked over my edit history on that page and didn't see anything about Trumpism on that page) I would say that you should probably look at WP:NOTTHEM a bit. I've had my conflicts with Kowal2701 but they're not the ones who appear to have been edit warring here. And edit warring is something I do take a very dim view on. It's an unproductive way to correct errors on the encyclopedia and leads to unnecessary friction. Frankly: there are very good reasons for our policies on edit warring. In fact my stance on that is part of the reason that my main space edits are outnumbered by my project space edits: I think that edit conflicts should be removed from main space and to article talk as fast as possible and should be discussed thoroughly at article talk prior to resumption of mainspace edits. I've opposed blocks here largely because I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with indef blocks as methods of remedy when other remedies will work but the balance of the evidence is that you were doing quite a bit of edit warring on these pages. And that is on you. Please believe me that Wikipedia is much more lenient on people who recognize their mistakes and commit to not repeat them than it is on people who try to deflect to others when their mistakes are identified. I do hope you listen to me on this because it does look like my opposition to a block is in the minority here. You would be well-advised to change approaches while you still have the chance to, if it's not already too late. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Meatpuppetry is the main issue for me, and it doesn’t seem to have been talked about much. What BMWF references in their first sentence is a long term on-and-off edit war between me vs NCT, a bunch of IPs, and BlackVulcanX over section titles at History of Africa. I’m pretty sure it was the first (and only) edit war I’d been in and had no clue how to handle it, but BlackVulcanX kept making some banal WP:ICHY comment and then reverted back each time. Frankly, idk how BMWF would know about that unless a) they’re in touch with them off-wiki, or b) they are BlackVulcanX. I did not stalk anyone, I became aware of FMSky’s AE thread when he filed an SPI against NCT and BMWF because I had created that page and had it on my watchlist.

  (Btw have we had conflicts? I only remember disagreeing w you in a couple ANI threads, mostly because I didn’t know the context) Kowal2701 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your history of stalking NCT and your previous disputes were made obvious after your second spurious SPI report. BMWF (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Re NONAZIS, what I was referencing was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 216#Upgrade WP:NONAZIS to policy. I seem to have misremembered and conflated Trumpists with the far-far-right, but tbf they’re pretty indistinguishable Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I was pretty upset over politically motivated attacks on Wikipedia when I posted that suggestion and abandoned it when I calmed down. Simonm223 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD disruptive editing

• OCDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If I am in the wrong place, please let me know where I should be instead, but on to the point. User:OCDD is persistently making major Cricket InfoBox changes without proper discussion or providing a valid reason for doing so. Many contributions have been reverted. They were previously blocked for edit warring. They do not seem to be interesting in collaboration. They also told this editor they would be blocked over a dispute of what host (Pakistan or UAE) should be listed in India Cricket Team InfoBoxes rather than collaborating: [91]. Also replied to me No template was removed here: [92] when I was mentioning content and not just templates. If I am not in the right place, please let me know. It is just a concern about editing behaviour I have. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For context, there's been some back and forth editing of Template:Infobox cricket team without any prior discussion on the template talk. I've reverted everything in the short term and asked for a pause and some proper discussion at the template talk. There has been some discussion of the related issue at WT:CRIC#Old style Test Championship / Test Rankings. I've been slightly involved there and generally feel that OCDD is trying to push a very specific view on a very minor and not very important point. It's gotten a little unpleasant perhaps, and I've not been struck by OCDD's ability to compromise on other issues either (Virat Kohli and the issue of colourful tables, for example) and iirc there was an issue with edit warring a little while ago? This diff from the template edits today seemed quite intemperate in that context and I felt that this diff demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise that I find a little unhelpful. But we all do that at times of course. e2a: I should probably also mention that I've had need today to twice revert a bunch of edits which ended up introducing invalid infobox parameters into the cricket team infobox. It's probably connected with the back and forth editing of the template, but I didn't get a response to my initial note on OCDD's talk page, simply a reversion of my edit on one of the pages Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, the invalid parameter was fixed which is why the edits were reverted. Probably the other user that had an issue with the parameter reverted the edits which is why it ended up showing as invalid yet again. OCDD (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As for the user above, I don't need to remind you many times you have reverted correct edits because you simply thought they weren't. And then you had to self-revert after realizing. And your insistence to work the way you personally do seems very forced and not how everyone prefers to function. OCDD (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure which of us you're responding to here. Perhaps you could clarify? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a significant concern about this diff from just now. It seems to suggest an unwillingness fo compromise and that there's a battleground type of mentality being adopted at times. I'm sure this comes out of frustration, but, as I pointed out on the user's talk page, simply reverting reasoned edits without any kind of explanation would seem to be lacking in consideration for other viewpoints Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted. I'm not the one reverting any of your edits in the first place. So the unwillingness to compromise and "I know best" mentality is yours. Self reflection maybe? And the "As for the user above" message is not for you. It's for "Servite et contribuere" who has repeatedly made mistakes during their everyday reverting sprees. OCDD (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Well if you wouldn't make these changes without explaining why, I wouldn't need to revert them. I honestly find these unexplained changes a waste of time so I just use the simple full revert and let other users restore stuff that should be there so I can get on with my day. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Claiming you just revert changes randomly because you don't think the editor explained them no matter how right they are shows exactly how irresponsibly you act. No wonder many of your reverts are wrong. OCDD (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please try and make things clear so that people can understand what you're suggesting is happening. Diffs would help. I've provided diffs of where you've reverted edits where there are concerns. I might point at this diff from five minutes before you left the note above where you reverted my removal of obvious original research that you had reinstated. One minute after, in this diff you removed the OR that I was concerned about. You could, of course, just have done that in the first place Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken

Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales was closed after being listed at WP:CR & rather than following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, four editors have reverted the closure and the implementation of the consensus:

1. 21:27-21:41, 31 May 2025 by BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 06:27-06:34, 1 June 2025 by Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 20:09, 1 June 2025 by NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 22:18, 1 June 2025 by 199.255.150.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know why these editors have not started a proper closure challenge and instead gone with reverting & edit war behavior. The first two editors were notified by @ToBeFree ([93] and [94]) that this was an invalid approach; @OceanHok & I started a conversation on the talk page highlighting the correct closure procedure & the third editor responded there when reverting. I also reached out to the closing editor who stated:

Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

• The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
• The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
• The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome.
  — User:Toadspike 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like the closure & consensus to be reimplemented without causing an edit war. If any of the editors who have been reverting want to challenge the closure, then they can format their own request. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No one here is challenging close content, to my understanding they're simply saying that the discussion is still going on. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not applicable here and explicitly says that it does not cover the scenario where an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.

This should be closed when the discussion runs its course. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:WHENCLOSE highlights it should occur after the discussion has stopped & "when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful". Two editors running to add comments after a closure – which occurred nine days after the RfC's last comment – mostly seems like editors unhappy with the consensus especially since their comments voted against the consensus that the closure determined. The closing editor even states that "the additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome".

Additionally, when you participated in the RfC on 22 May 2025, you didn't have an issue with the way the RfC was structured; you only claimed there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL issue after the closure occurred. This argument seems like "I don't like the consensus so let me challenge the basis of the RfC". If you want to challenge it, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE highlights you should use Template:RfC closure review & start a discussion at WP:AN. Being the third editor to revert a closure when there's a talk page discussion highlighting the closure challenge procedure (which you engaged with when reverting) is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed; that there were no comments over the course of nine days (last comment before closure, closure) does indeed seem to me to be a strong indication a discussion has [run] its course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor didn't notify anyone, so it went 3 days without any response, had some votes on just two calendar days, and then nothing as people are still figuring out that this RfC exists. Closure would be premature. Even the Tetris RFC is still open. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The language at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing RfCs suggests nothing at having mandatory notifications to individual editors. If one is interested in the discussion(s), the talk page would have appeared on their watchlist or one would have revisited the talk page during the intervening week for further discussions. As such, I find that the close by Toadspike is justifiable. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the mechanics of it. Just that, at least now, its apparent that it would be too soon. The typical duration for them is 30 days so there's no particular reason to demand an early close when multiple editors are still interested. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No new comment had been made for 10 days before it was closed. 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

l voted when I did because I didn't know that RFC even existed. The IP who started it didn't make it clear that it was different than the other RFC on the page. It isn't fair to force the discussion closed when multiple people still want to comment. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE review is not necessary if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Those editors did not ask, though. They force opened a formally closed RfC. As stated below by the closer, no one contacted him. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, closer here. It seems the discussion has been unilaterally reopened, but the RfC tag has not been re-added. If the (now several) editors who are disputing the close had followed the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and asked me on my Talk page to reverse the close, I likely would have done so. However, they did not, and the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One wonders how nothing happens for over a week, whereupon the close suddenly prompts three or four editors to finally pipe up. Toadspike [Talk] 05:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there was enough time to discuss or contribute to the matter before closure. It is also such a simple decision that usually would not require the RfC procedure (a single chart week of a single country in the lead). AN appears to be the only way to conclude this, unfortunately. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably because editing started. Personally I didn't know about it until my entry which illustrates that waiting a bit on the close would be useful to give time to people. With a close now there wouldn't be nearly enough time. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion had a clear consensus and no new comment had been made for 10 days. Someone can make a new RFC in the future but this one is done.2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:54A4:5FFF:DCF1:B61B (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it was "no consensus". And it's not done which is self-evident or this discussion wouldn't exist. 2403:5804:3916:0:25F8:2EE9:A809:F807 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Click here to see the closer's comment 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with Toadspike closing the discussion. The discussion is open for a considerable amount of time (2 weeks), and it has no new response for nearly a week. The three editors who reverted (Wyll, BMWF, NutmegCoffeeTea), however, are definitely wrong, especially NutmegCoffeeTea who still insist on edit warring DESPITE being explictly told not to do so AND being pointed to the correct venue to overturn a RfC result. You have channels to reopen a closed discussion. Edit warring at a consensus-building process is 100% WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours, and you still do it despite being warned. Given the closer is already consulted here, those opposing should follow due process and go to WP:AN for closure review if they insist.

The three editors are currently participating in several ongoing RfCs (see the ones here and here). Their behaviours here (forcing open a closed RfC result that does not favour their viewpoint) is extremely concerning. Who knows what other excuses they will come up with to oppose the next RfC close? This is not the first time they disrupt/disrespect existing consensus-building mechanisms (they have forced their way through WP:BRD in another article to keep their desired version, accused editors of forumshopping when they merely try to consult the relevant WikiProject, and opened bad faith sockpuppet investigations on people who oppose them.) This is just the latest example of them WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously Toadspike's close was sound, and will stand, regardless of any deletion review. On the behavioral aspects, all three unhappy editors are relatively new and certainly inexperienced—BMVF 7 months, Wyll Ravengard 1 month, NutmegCoffeeTea 9 months, with 321, 38 and 286 edits respectively—as shown by the shifting arguments. But because of this, perhaps some trout apiece and a recommendation to read CLOSECHALLENGE. And also WP:EDITWAR. There has been a significant amount of logged-out editing on that article—obviously, we shouldn't speculate who that is—but some protection might help calm things down. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: striking my suggestion of trouting; I was unaware of the extensive background as provided by OceanHok. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, CIVPOV-pushing, tag-teaming and copious ABF. As such, I think the best way of preventing further disruption over multiple venues is to remove them from the topic. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now E/C protected, and I reverted to LCV. The behavioral problems are far worse than I thought; these three editors have edit-warred and weaponized several of our processes in an attempt to "Win". Starting SPIs is a new low. Re. the masses of logged-out editing, while CUs won't connect IPs to accounts, they can still look: {{Checkuser needed}}. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

OceanHok's battleground attempt to target his editing opponents has a grand total of 1 diff, and even that doesn't support any of the vague allegations. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Who are you requesting to be looked at? Izno (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I checked some of the accounts around that article per this ANI thread earlier today; I didn't see anything that suggested direct socking, although that doesn't rule out any potential coordination/meatpuppetry issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• This may be just me, but the more I read through this post and look at the information that’s being argued over the more I get the sense that this may be one of those undisclosed paid editing firms attempting to do PR work in hopes of improving product information. Numbers sold and income made, and the place at the top of the paragraph where would be most visible, seem to me to suggest PR editing. Anyone else get that vibe here, or is it just me? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, TomStar81; I mention 'almost-almost as certain conflcts of interest and promotionalsm in the actual editing area' below, but of course, an organised firm would make a lot of sense. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

While they don't particularly bother me, you should both strike these claims, because they're not true at all. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the overlap with Assassin's Creed Shadows and Dragon Age: The Veilguard, it is likely that they're driven more by culture-war stuff. All three games have been at the focus of culture wars related to representation in gaming, although with Forspoken it was a bit less prominent because the game just wasn't successful enough for people arguing over it on the internet to attract coverage - I don't think that aspect ever got serious coverage, so our article doesn't mention it. (though I haven't actually searched much to see what coverage exists - focusing on that might have been a better use of their time than arguing over sales.) But either way that culture-war stuff was definitely present in the corners of the internet that fixate on such things, so I wouldn't be surprised if their edits are somehow related to that, especially given the politics / Gamergate stuff below. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Broader pattern of poor conduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view, this RFC reversion is not a standalone issue and Sariel Xilo is being extraordinarily kind by only raising that issue. There is a chronic pattern of disruption from this group. They do not meaningfully engage in discussions: they have a suspiciously overlapping pattern of voting together on RFCs and supporting each other's edit warring. I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopaedia—their (very low) history of contributions clearly show they are here to argue about a very narrow set of topics, chiefly the inclusion of sales information on leads. If it is positive information (as in Forspoken), they want it included; if it is negative (as in Dragon Age: The Veilguard) they want it removed. This is all because they have no ability to assume good faith and would rather mudsling and cast aspersions.

BMWF has the most obvious pattern of poor behaviour; if they are socks of each other (as suggested above), I suspect this is the primary account. The other accounts only surfaced after BMWF was repeatedly warned for edit warring (see timeline by Fortuna above).

• BMWF received, and ignored, an admin warning from Sergecross73 about assuming bad faith at WT:VG over a Veilguard discussion.
• silviaASH said they were BLUDGEONING the WT:VG discussion on the topic.
• I posted a CTOP warning to BMWF's page regarding edit warring, which they ignored.
• BMWF's edit warring made a group of editors seek consensus at DNI, they did not participate in—instead, they argued over whether DNI was needed (otherwise they would lose the ability to edit war).
• They have a history of blanking their talk of editing warring notices (example 1, example 2,
• They were warned, and then blanked, a request not to edit war on Assassin's Creed Shadows.
• Three editors—OceanHok, Shooterwalker, and Masem—agreed what was the last stable version of Dragon Age: The Veilguard. BMWF reverted to their preferred version and accused the editor of being a sock, a reversion Masem described "a problem". User:Wyll Ravengard did exactly the same thing, which resulted in full page protection being applied again by Callanecc. Wyll then attempted to obfuscate this on the Talk.
• Despite saying there is persistent bad-faith edits, BMWF tried to reduce page protection for reasons that do not make sense unless they want to edit war anonymously.

Frankly, I am exhausted by this group. They do not want to reach consensus. They want their preferred version of articles to be maintained, to barely participate in discussions, and now clearly show they won't even accept RFC outcomes. They do absolutely nothing but assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with them, as I outlined here about BWMF.

 Looks like a duck to me. These accounts barely contribute beyond these trivial disputes about whether to include sales information in the lead, voting together, and restoring the version of the article they all prefer. I support topic bans for all of the subjects in this case, and strongly urge that they be checkusered. Edit: see my vote with the others. — '''ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This entire post is one giant bad faith assumption against one of your editing opponents, with little to no diffs that actually support the allegations. BMWF has taken positions against content in the Veilguard article that you authored. The only editor that has actually been blocked here is Vestigium Leonis, who is someone that agrees with you on these Gamergate issues and is entirely absent from your post. You selectively ignore the battleground rhetoric and edit warring from Oceanhok and Vestigium Leonis, as well as the broader tag team editing between them and Sariel Xilo, the misuse of processs for advantages in disputes, the POV push, and so on. I don't have much more to add as I don't have problems with any editors individually, and I'm not going to feed into your attempt to target your editing opponents. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What are these Gamergate issues that you accuse editors of, and where did I agree to clear Gamergate-related issues? Anyway, for completeness' sake, yes, I received a single topic block for Forspoken, as I was engaged in excessive reverts. I acknowledged this in an exchange with ToBeFree. I took this seriously and have since avoided excessive revert reactions, opting instead to reach out to other editors or administrators for assistance (unless you disagree, @ToBeFree). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I provided 13 diffs. Secondly, I don't have "editing opponents"—that's a battleground mentality we do not share. I have a record of producing featured content "anti-woke" editors would not like. In fact, I originally agreed with the position you share with BWMF... and changed my mind when the wider context was explained to me by Shooterwalker. Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is editing in bad faith—for example, as you did here at WT:VG and I recommended against—shows you can't focus on content. I don't know, but suspect, that you simply think any editor who disagrees with you is a bad-faith actor. Given your record of guessing (poorly) at my motivations, I find it hard to accept when you do it to others. With your persistent ABF attitude (as in the reply to me above) and tag-team editing (as in the reason this entire thread was made), I'm pretty convinced you should be topic-banned.

You opened a baseless Sockpuppet investigation on an editor for being a sock of someone they warned for edit warring. I've never seen a user get notified of a SPI by the investigator before (so that's an achievement). IMO this is enough to reasonably suggest you might be involved in that behaviour ("Every accusation's a confession" springs to mind. ). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of your links are links to discussions. The diffs you've provided don't substantiate nearly any of the claims you've made. Your post and this is an obvious case of ABF, and a battleground attempt to remove editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

When I am providing evidence of other editors highlighting a persistent pattern of bad behaviour, those are going to be on Talk and User talk pages. Those sort of discussions do not happen on article space.

For example, I cited your baseless SPI as evidence that you see editors who disagree with you as bad-faith actors. (You haven't responded to that (and didn't apologise to the editor you accused.) This is because you see them as an "opponent". I don't see you as an opponent. I see you as an editor like any other, but with behavioural patterns that are causing disruption—for example, when you reverted an RFC closure you didn't like.

There's an old phrase among lawyers: "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table". This is table pounding. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You're linking to user pages, talk pages, and things like warning template removals while not linking to anything actionable that supports the allegations you're making against editors here. The table is indeed pounding, and you should stop. Regardless of the word you want to use, you are very clearly fishing and using ANI to attempt to remove topic area editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Linking to discussions in which three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior is the usual method of demonstrating that three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior in discussions. Hope that clears things up. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the usual method. Diffs are the usual method and they are lacking here. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about user behaviour would include talk pages, I can't see why this is a problem. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Posts regarding problematic behaviour on user pages, talk pages, and warnings typically link to the problematic behaviour.

• For example, the CTOP warning I gave to BMWF links to this diff. I provided this warning because 3 users had agreed on the last stable version (as I outlined above). My warning both provides the evidence and explanation—what do you specifically need a diff for there?
• This Talk comment by an admin about BMWF's revert likewise links directly to the revert.
• The edit warring notice given by 1AmNobody24, which BMWF reverted, regarded a series of edits on AC Shadows. One diff for this is here. Another is this series of edits, which Masem said there was no consensus for during an ongoing dispute. At this point, Masem had already reverted and warned BMWF for removing 5000 bytes of content without discussion.

People are voting on on whether to topic ban you, but you're choosing to spend time arguing with me over the quality of my evidence... regarding another editor? No comments on the allegations I've made about your conduct (i.e., the time-wasting, baseless SPI as evidence of your inability to assume good faith)? Unusual, at the least. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The quality of your evidence is being called out because it is incredibly weak. Not coincidentally the three editors you are targeting voted against your position in the RfC in which you do have strong views. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You've addressed very few of the actual concerna about your behaviour being raised here, and quality of the evidence hasn't been "called out" by anyone other than the users it's targeting. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, NutmegCoffeeTea, here is the "usual method", diffs of you engaging in edit warring.

• 4 times on the same content on Forspoken: [95][96][97][98][99]. Once on Star Wars Outlaws: [100], and once in [101] Dragon Age. Given that that the nature of these edits are the same, you have reverted a grand total of more than 6 times. The situation with BMWF are way worse. 14 reverts on Forspoken starting from November 2024 (long-term WP:TE) [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115], and additional three times on Dragon Age: The Veilguard.[116][117][118]

I was actually surprised to see this edit summary from NutmegCoffeeTea and BMWF because they actually do know what's WP:BURDEN is, yet they completely forget about it in the next discussion when you pushed through BRD to keep your desired version of the article immediately after the protection period ends when it was your turn to justify inclusion. This simply suggest they are weaponizing our basic policies and gaming the process to achieve what they want, and that is a BIG NO. OceanHok (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is nonsense. You can't combine different edits from multiple articles to push your ABF agenda someone you disagree with. On Forspoken my edits were already looked at, and the only one who was blocked was Vestigium Leonis which is one of your editing buddies. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What you mean, he can't notice and cite an editing pattern across multiple articles? And BMWF's 14 revert edits to Forespoken in particular are absolutely worth noting here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not? The content issue and the editing pattern across these articles are the same. The editing and behavioral patterns demonstrated by all of you are also the same. I no longer need to "assume" bad faith when there is plenty of evidence to show that you are WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

User:PhilKnight has blocked the anon. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per OceanHok's message 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The response given by the editors in question are making me support an indef 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on all three editors. Extensive evidence has been supplied demonstrating persistent bad fath editing and comments, team teaming, cvility concerns, sealioning and general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. And that's notwithstanding almost certain logged out editing and almost-almost as certain conflcts of interest and promotionalsm in the actual editing area. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The evidence of OceanHok, below, also demonstrates severe problems with taking advice. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the continuing IDHT and re-entrenchment demonstrated in the (non)responses here, I'm also leaning towards an indef. Per Abo Yemen; ImaginesTigers; Kowal2701. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Obvious attempt to target editing opponents. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I dont think you get to !vote the proposal for topic banning you, mainly because it is assumed that you don't want yourself blocked anyways. If anything, you should properly respond to the "vague allegations" instead of lying about the existence of "one diff that doesn't even support any of the vague allegations." You also proved that you are engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND right here from this comment 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  You can vote. This is equivalent of saying that the plaintiff can't vote because "of course they support their own position". And this also involves other editors too. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Plaintiffs don't vote in court either. Just10A (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then you'd need to strike 80% of the thread for being deeply involved. BMWF (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• It is also worth mentioning that while the heated RfC debate on Forspoken is ongoing, they push the same across other articles (see Talk:Star Wars Outlaws and Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard) knowing very well that there will be opposition. They are never the first editor that perform the controversial edit [119][120](it was always IP/new editor), but they always participated in the edit war that directly follows it. They also never initiate discussion. Discussions were nearly always initiated by the other side, even when the WP:ONUS is on them (they are challenging the status quo both within and across articles).

My biggest problem with them is that their arguments are constantly shifting and contradicting, their interpretation of policies remained (very) wrong despite being corrected by experienced editors repeatedly, they have a tendency to not respond to very reasonable questions, and they just keep on regurgitating the same arguments again and again. It is like talking to a brick wall, so engaging with them has been difficult.

• My attempt at compromise was ignored (till this very day), yet they went to revive a very dead discussion about editor conduct.
• BMWF supported including only notable milestones yet supported the inclusion of a non-notable milestone in an article as recognized by the consensus.
• I provided counter-examples to show BMWF the other side, yet they were either ignored till this day/ dismissed with constantly moving goalposts while constantly regurgitating his own OTHERSTUFF that also makes no sense (Your examples are bad, but Forspoken is like Mario! and Star Wars!).
• NutmegCoffeeTea said that inclusion of publisher's statement should be based on a case-by-case basis, only to use OTHERSTUFF to support them.
• When I agreed with her in another article (calling her argument a possible consensus), she then said there is no consensus.

It is ok to make flawed argument (especially true for newbies). What's problematic is that when they are shown their arguments are flawed, they will not respond to any of that, but they will reuse that very same, flawed argument later (that's why this content dispute has gone through two very long local talk page discussion, nearly five RfCs, a lengthy WikiProject discussion, and now ANI).

I will have to say, the only thing consistent about them is them insinuating editors opposing them part of Gamergate, which is (1) baseless (2) is irrelevent to the actual discussion (3) is disruptive at this point when I have reminded the three of them to STOP bringing politics to these discussions as they lead us nowhere close to a consensus. I believe that's the problem. Their competence issue stems from them being WP:POV pushers. In conclusion, I absolutely support banning them. OceanHok (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the casting aspersions that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow supporting Gamergate or other culture war stuff is a recurring problem. They've baselessly insinuated that about myself as well, despite the fact that I 1) don't support it and 2) actively try to avoid the subject area because it always gets so messy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support strongly. Their number one function appears to be POV pushing, bad faith assumptions, and specifically BMWF has a bad habit of trying to create a chilling effect from any discussions that doesn't support their POV (as outlined above, I gave them a final warning to stop that because they kept disrupting a very basic WikiProject discussion on brainstorming how to handle article/lead writing.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I support any action being taken on any combination of them, TBAN, partial block, or full block. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose OceanHok, ImaginesTiger, and Sergecross73 etc have all taken strong content positions against me, Nutmeg, Wyll and others in a recent RfC. BMWF (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  same thing here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  On the claim that they are being targeted in revenge for a content dispute: a) the editors they are associated with have done precisely that, and b) making unevidenced assertions without actually trying to refute the evidence merely strengthens those allegations. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the "strong position" I took against you, I recommend others read their argument and my direct response.

  The Forspoken RFC reversions show you three can't accept when the community decides against you. On that Talk, I didn't even vote because I thought it was pointless BATTLEGROUND stuff. You do not engage in dispute resolution beyond insisting that you're right and others are bad. Robert even stated in his closing remarks at DRN that you didn't even show up to the noticeboard... and yet you continued to fight over the content when it was done. Because that's the point. You want to avoid consensus and fatigue editors to get your way.

  I've never seen so much disruption from one person (and over the most boring content imaginable)—multiple massive, circular Talk discussions, multiple page protections, two RFCs. And now you 3 are reverting an RFC closure... like c'mon. What a total waste of everyone's time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  • • Comment - I have been pinged about an alleged pattern of bad behavior including a dispute that I tried to mediate six months ago, and have not been following since then. I will not comment at this time until I have reread the dispute. I will reread the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per Fortuna and Imagines. The chronic edit warring, disregard of policy, and tag-teaming are becoming too apparent. I've interacted with them a limited number of times, but I've had similar experiences. (I wasn't involved in this most recent Japan RFC though.) Based on the readings of this thread however, these situations appear to be far too common. Behavior smacks of WP:NOTHERE. Just10A (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[121], from the person who started the Forspoken discussion. Just10A and OceanHok, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, ImaginesTigers, Sergecross73 all share deep content positions in The Veilguard and other political disputes like Assassin's Creed Shadows. BMWF (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  In my comment below, I referenced your habit of trying to link that TBANed editor (FMSky) to the comments made by other editors you disagree with to poison the well. FMSky did start a discussion back in March 2025 on Forspoken about the lead & stopped editing there before the RfCs (if I recall the timeline correctly, this overlapped with them getting that GENSEX TBAN & it was determined Forspoken fell within the TBAN but I didn't keep track of what user talk that occurred on). This was all around when I reported you, NTC, & Vestigium Leonis for 3RR at Forspoken; Just10A popped up in that AN discussion but I don't think has participated in any of the video game talks.

  This March 2025 discussion led to two RfCs - Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead in April 2025 (this is still open) & Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales in May 2025 (this is the closure that led to my ANI post). OceanHok participated in both (including starting the 1st RfC) as did Vestigium Leonis & Sergecross73 (the latter took a slightly different position than the other 2 in the second RfC), I only participated in the 1st RfC (& then implemented the consensus after the 2nd RfC was closed), & ImaginesTigers has not participated in either RfC. We've all had overlap in supporting similar content inclusions across various video game article but we've also had differences. While you keep saying we all must be pushing some political view that is the same, you haven't actually been able to provide examples outside of "FMSky got TBANed for behavior elsewhere". It is casting aspersions to keep implying that our editing is supporting something like gamergate especially if your only evidence is a tenuous connection to FMSky where some of us agreed with points they made in the initial March 2025 Forspoken discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  This again. I first met this group when they were having a dispute with @FMSky who ended up being GENSEX topic banned. I pointed out that I believed that discussion had some real procedural issues, and I still do. How that has any relevance to this discussion or "speaks to my bias" is beyond me. If anything, I hope that the community recognizing this groups behavior might lend FMSky some help in altering his Tban in the future, cause he was probably baited. However, that's a tangental subject.

  Also FYI, I have never interacted with the Veilguard or AC Shadows pages, including the talks, and I have never edited the Forespoken article. So there goes those "deep content positions." Just10A (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Similar to other commenters, I am also now leaning toward an indef for all (maybe not for Wyll). Just10A (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a TBAN (assuming video games but maybe it should be all media released since 2010 since their focus seems to be caught up in recentism). Along with a TBAN, I think they should all be limited to 1R instead of 3RR for 6-12 months because they often revert 2-3 times as a block to avoid going past 3RR. OceanHok & ImaginesTigers have pulled out some of the main diffs that show the larger pattern of bludgeoning behavior & POV pushing. I'm also concerned with how they don't assume good faith; their style of casting aspersions was also seen when I reported BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea (also reported Vestigium Leonis but isn't the focus here) for 3RR. During that discussion (& for a bit afterwards in other talks), they tried to say because some other editor was TBANed from GENSEX for their actions in non-video game articles, that editor's position in video game discussions is enough of a poison well that any editor who supported similar positions which opposed their arguments was clearly suspect and probably gamergate. (That report is also a good example of their "revert as a block" editing pattern). They've since simplified it to just implying the only reason people oppose their views is they must secretly support gamergate even though editors like myself & ImaginesTigers have repeatedly highlighted clear examples of our work on other GENSEX articles that show we don't have issues editing in this area.

Beyond their inability to assume a NPOV, they also seem to have decided any editing by "opposing" editors must be suspect & reverted rather than assuming good faith & evaluating things on a case by case basis. For example, I found an issue at Assassin's Creed Shadows (quotations were either incorrect paraphrases within quotation marks or direct quotes not within quotation marks) while working on the reception section which BMWF immediately reverted without doing any verification & it was only after other editors chimed in that they agreed that particular issue needed to be corrected. If they had assumed good faith instead of just jumping to reversion, they could have easily found the issue (it was pointed out in the edit summary) or pinged me on the talk to say "hey, I'm not seeing this issue. Can you elaborate with examples?". Another example of not assuming good faith & turning something into a BATTLEGROUND was NutmegCoffeeTea starting a SPI accusing me of using socks (such as the aforementioned Vestigium Leonis) in what felt like a retaliatory report because Vestigium Leonis & I were their "opponents". As outlined by other editors above, I feel like we've exhausted every dispute resolution process possible to deescalate & find consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support video game topic bans for all three based on my reasoning above. The behavioural patterns here – voting together on RFCs; accusing others of being sockpuppets; tag-teaming edit warring; constant aspersions – suggest strong impetus for CheckUser input. If the accounts are connected, I'd obviously support an indef instead. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Edit: I have altered my proposal to an indefinite. See reasoning here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not to derail things, there was a SPI report in March 2025 which accused NutmedCoffeeTea of using BMWF as a sock; when looking at it during my April 2025 3RR report, I assumed it was retaliatory since it was started by the TBANed editor (who I mentioned above) they were in conflict with. Here's what the conclusion states if someone else wants to do an updated investigation: "It is extremely common, in topic areas like this, for many distinct editors to make similar edits to the same small number of pages and have, in broad strokes, similar editing styles; this is something any SPI clerk learns very early on, and it's why we tend to look for narrow similarities like word choice, edit summary style, preferred talkpage arguments, etc. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of sockpuppetry here, but it would need to be based on a clear showing of behavioral similarities other than shared POV or common shared interest". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not derailing at all. I think there's enough to indicate a CU could be useful. The strongest evidence for all three being associated—not necessarily socks—is that all suddenly learned about the RFC, reverting and commenting, shortly after closure. Likewise, all share the "us–them", "everyone-is-a-GamerGater" battleground stuff (for example, Wyll here, BWMF here, and NutmegCoffeeTea calling people "opponents" all over this thread). I don't know the CU threshold so will leave it to others. In any case, IMO the conduct is poor and persistent enough that the TBAN is warranted even without a CU. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think BMWF and NCT are the same person, but some of the newer accounts that have !voted in RfCs might be socks. What's strange is that the IPs are editing without proxy (at least in the case I filed they weren't) and WHOIS doesn't line up, so either there's some social-media-driven meatpuppetry, they're using sophisticated proxies, or it's a massive coincidence. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support, credit to Ocean Hok and Sariel Xilo for putting up with this for so long, looked thoroughly unenjoyable. FWIW, in the previous SPI case I filed against NCT that was rejected, I think it’s much more likely BlackVulcanX is a sock of BMWF, and their !votes at the two RfCs reinforce this immensely. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The lack of any contrition or even acknowledgment of wrongndoing makes me lean towards indef Kowal2701 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all three and checkuser. Everything I have seen from these editors on talk pages strongly suggests to me that they are NOTHERE. I agree with ImaginesTigers that they should be checkusered; their behavior has looked too heavily coordinated for the possibility of sockpuppetry to be ignored. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as well as a CU. The constant aspersions about Gamergate strike me as projection. While it is true that these games have been the subject of agenda-pushing offwiki, they are the only ones pushing an agenda about them onwiki. I'm inclined to think that this is some kind of coordinated meat campaign rather than sockpuppetry, but there's certainly enough evidence for a CU anyway. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose So, uh, what exactly did I do? Sry if there is some unwritten rule I didn't know about. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - What I have concluded on reading this history (and reading the history was an unpleasant civic duty) is that this appears to be a continuing combined content and conduct dispute involving at least two video game articles, Forspoken and Dragon Age: The Veilguard and three editors, BMWF., NutmegCoffeeTea, and Wyll Ravengard. My initial involvement was with a DRN involving Sariel Xilo, Wikibenboy94, and BMWF. BMWF did not participate in the DRN. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but in this case the failure to participate appears to have been part of a pattern of stonewalling. I also see that the three editors took turns reverting the closure of the Forspoken RFC. On the one hand, even if an RFC has been closed prematurely, a close challenge is preferred over edit-warring. On the other hand, the pattern of one-two-three reopening of the RFC is one of the clearest cases of a tag team that I can recall seeing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I only reverted because I thought it was vandalism from an IP that didn't have any other edits. You can see that in my edit summary. You also didn't mention the other side of dispute Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis and some others present. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  A strange argument. "The last edit was by an unregistered editor, so I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it without reading it. " Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban on the three editors from video game articles for tag teaming and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't done those things. Please look the page statistics https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard

  I added 2052 bytes to talk Veilguard and 512 bytes to Forspoken talk. Sariel Xilo has added 74661 bytes making up 40% of all the talk text. ImaginesTigers and OceanHok added 22362 and 15070 making up the other 30%. If tag teaming and stonewalling are criteria then OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis are engaging in. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I really like how even in ANI, the arguments among you three are still the same. See this edit from NutmegCoffeeTea's comments. The way you are counting how many characters we have added to an article is oddly similar, don't you think? OceanHok (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I and others were already checked by MoneyTree, so you should strike these claims, which amount to personal attacks. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees' comment explicitly doesn't rule out potential coordination and meatpuppetry. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you as a SOCK. Also, now you think accusing others as SOCK a form of PA? Then why did you have the audacity to open a SPI on experienced editors in bad faith? OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Neither ImaginesTigers nor I even participated in Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales; I only implemented the consensus after it was closed. While I'm definitely a bit verbose, BMWF has nearly twice the number of edits to the Forspoken talk page than I have. In terms of the Veilguard, my edits go back to 2022 & it is one of articles I've edited the most (#8 on my top 10). On its talk page, I've sometimes copied over large chunks of the various iterations of article itself in hopes of having a more focused discussion (ex: December 2024, setting up the January 2025 RfC at 19234 bytes).

You're a new editor with under 50 edits total (32.5% Talk/User Talk vs 46.5% Main) & I'd request a more experienced editor to evaluate your editing pattern to determine if this WP:MEATPUPPET or not ("A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining"). In terms of total edits, both BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea spend a large amount of time on talk pages - 48.4% Talk/User Talk vs 41.9% Main for BMWF; 32.9% Talk/User Talk vs 50.8% Main for NCT; (for me, it is 9.9% Talk/User Talk vs 83.9% Main). Their main focus seems to be a mixture of bludgeoning/stonewalling on talk pages in order to preserve their preferred version of articles. I've consistently tried various dispute resolution options - on Veilguard, that Dec '24 conversation I started would lead to a DRN that BMWF refused to participate in & when they decided the DRN consensus couldn't be valid, I started the Jan '25 RfC; on Forspoken, I even started a discussion in April 2025 called "Dispute resolution options" in hopes we could find a way towards consensus & it led to a still open RfC (started by another editor). OceanHok highlighted above that neither editor starts discussions; they just revert as much as possible & stonewall discussions started by other editors. If they won't honor the results of an RfC and jump to reverting instead of following the first step of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (ie. contact the closing editor), then what else can we do besides some kind of ban? Most editors here have supported a TBAN over indef which would still allow them to participate in most of the project. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Text added is the metric for blugeoning because edits don't correspond to individual comments. Your chronic blugeoning is undeniable. You've written more text than the three of us combined to repeatedly argue your content points. BMWF (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming a reviewing editor will see my long comments on Veilguard are not bludgeoning & have involved a lot of different types of discussions on the page (ex: suggesting resources to a student editor, suggesting to DENY trolls who wanted to include social media "reviews", defending the inclusion of reviews by queer/trans writers). A process like DRN is great if you have bludgeoning/stonewalling concerns because it is a quite structured & moderated discussion which is why I suggested it back in December 2024 & you decided not to participate. My editing pattern shows a focus of trying various dispute resolution options to work towards consensus while yours shows a denial of accepting consensus if it doesn't match your original view. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"Excessive bludgeoning is okay because I think I'm right" isn't how it works. BMWF (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of time is spent on reminding BMWF about the importance of forming arguments based on policies, avoid argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the real meaning of policies/guidelines like WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT, which he does not understand till this day. We treated you as newbies and explained in detail how this site works and how you are expected to behave as an editor, but you have truly exhausted all of our patience. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeating flawed interpretations of policy to force your content views is bludgeoning[122], and you also mix it with battleground and civility issues toward editors who disagree with you.[123] BMWF (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point that you cannot take any advice (or any comments that don't fit your POV). OceanHok (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like one likeminded group of editors trying to get rid of the other side of editors. Koriodan (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Koriodan has 45 edits and has mostly edited Yasuke and Assassins Creed Shadows Kowal2701 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  And you have a pre-existing dispute with NutmegCoffeeTea and were called out by an admin for trying to get her banned over and over.[124] Why didn't you mention that? Koriodan (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Misrepresenting diffs, that’s a classic! Kowal2701 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support at least a topic ban of some kind, the case against them is clear enough from the evidence provided by OceanHok and other editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that Harryhenry1 was also in the thread linked above trying to get to NutmegCoffeeTea banned and defending the editor who started that thread and the Forspoken discussion, who got topic banned for discriminatory comments about editor identities.[125] BMWF (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  RE: Me "trying to get NutmegCoffeeTea banned", the comment you linked to is me just saying that the discussion there should be focusing on the veracity of FMSky's allegations, not his behaviour elsewhere. That's not the same thing as defending what he said. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, their inability to accept wrongdoing or responsibility and double-down habit of misrepresenting what others say make me lean towards indefs. It's such a polarised, immature view of the world: "everyone who disagrees with me is pro-GamerGate". It's impossible to tell if they know they're misrepresenting or if their mind is so warped that they think this is an actual conspiracy. Either way, competence is required, and there's no competence here indicating they should even be able to edit outside of the VG topic area. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It was in a retaliatory thread started by him, so it functions like excusing it. Kowal2701 did the same:

I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal2701[126]

This just seems like a continuation of his defense and a way to target editors with opposing views. BMWF (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"It functions like excusing it" Really? Communicating in a discussion does not equal endorsing everything that's being said by others in it. My message there also does not resemble Kowal's in any way, and this goalpost shifting is getting absurd. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support If this isn't a WP:TAGTEAM, then I'm not sure there's ever been one, and the related essay would best be deleted. This group is making the encylopedia worse and greatly more unpleasant for editors in this area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games for User:BMWF, User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea (if those are the 'three editors' referred to by other voters above). I'm not involved in this situation, however as an onlooker I've read through this thread (which seems to be getting a lot of traction) again and again, and what can I say, the amount of chaos that has occurred on not only the article but also its talk page is unlike anything I've seen before... (and it's all over a single sentence, am I right?) From reading through quite a number of their responses here, they don't seem to be recognising and/or working towards resolving the behavioural issues that led to this AN/I thread being created. Oh, and it looks like this has happened on other (video game) articles too and not just Forspoken, looking at some diffs above. Time for TBANs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The overlap with one side of the content dispute here is very high. The discussion starters and a lot of editors here are from one side of the content debate. The IP reverting, which it appears the other side participated in, stopped after semi-protection so I don't see what a topic ban would resolve. BlackVulcanX (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Which goes both ways. 'Clearly Gamergate-motivated', 'per BMWF'. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And that diff has no reference to gamer gate. Secretlondon (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The person he's quoting per concluded "clearly Gamergate-motivated." Just10A (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was confused too, so I went to go check. The diff is endorsing another editor [127] Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for video games but without prejudice toward an administrative review of other parties The evidence presented is sufficient grounds to observe these three editors engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment and it would be wise for them to find something other than video games. I think a topic ban is more appropriate than a block here. However I'm not sure that these three topic bans are sufficient. From the evidence and dispute presented here it does look like two relatively entrenched battleground playersparties. I am aware of political motivations for wanting to present the success or failure of certain media products (Go woke go broke is the term I believe), and it does look like there are people who may want to downplay the success of certain games to advance a political POV. Just because those people who opposed them behaved badly does not mean that they behaved above reproach nor that they should have free rein to maintain the POV on these articles without dissent. As such I'd say that there's sufficient evidence for these three topic bans and also possibly for topic bans for Vestigum Leonis and Sariel Xilo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, just hoping to understand your position. As the primary three under discussion are "anti-anti-woke" battlegrounders, if you are suggesting a possible TBAN for Sariel, I assume that would be because they are "anti-woke"? The positions are relatively easy to differentiate, but I can't see any pattern of that from Sariel. For example, in the Veilguard RFC they created (and voted for) a custom option to increase the lead's coverage of the game's positive reception (adding mention of representation & diversity) and earlier defended the inclusion of LGBT+ journalists. I'm never opposed to calling out bad behaviour... but if you want an admin to review, can you point to what they've done that might be advancing a political POV (and, if so, which political POV)? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

When I look at the edit history for Forspoken I see Sariel Xilo and Vestigum Leonis engaging in edit warring as much as the three original subjects of this thread. In WP:BATTLEGROUND situations it generally takes two to tangle and what is needed is for somebody, frankly anybody to say "while I disagree with the current state of this article I'll take it to talk," instead of edit warring. This is also why I didn't suggest you or OceanHok should receive any sanctions at all. You didn't engage in edit warring and were not being disruptive. The link to "Go woke go broke" was simply making sure to contextualize the "gamergate" accusations brought up in this thread. Much like I consider edit warring over box office estimates to be silly I think edit warring over video game returns is silly regardless of which side of the edit war one is on. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Got it, thank you for clarifying. Having a look, is that the edits from those two from June 1 and June 2? If yes, I think that was their attempt to enforce an RFC closure (which was then re-enforced by an admin)—it's what initiated the creation of this thread. I can't speak for Vestigum because I have not seen them around to the same extent, but I see extraordinary patience for Sariel in particular with this group—going to DRN with them (where BMWF didn't show up) and creating multiple RFCs. Sariel has almost 20,000 edits across the video game topic, so I wouldn't support a TBAN for them based on them attempting to enforce an RFC outcome (that's not edit warring). Sariel previously reported Vestigium for edit warring on the Forspoken article. I don't have strong views about Vestigium (if they broke a TBAN, block 'em), but Sariel's conduct has been really even-handed at every possible juncture here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In the edit summary, from 10000 feet, it did look like edit warring but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong here regarding Sariel based on your clarification. I don't support blocks for anyone here though. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

All good. I can see that a series of IPs have – quite straightforwardly – lied in their edit summaries about the situation (I suspect precisely to mislead people glancing over the dispute). Vestigium's response below indicates their restriction was a temporary 1-month TBAN from the article, so I rescind my previous suggestion of wrongdoing by them—as with Sariel, their attempt to enforce the RFC was justified and not further edit warring (for which they seem to show immense contrition both in the immediate aftermath and today). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• If some clarification is needed, I was not edit warring at Forspoken. From the breakdown of my 10 total edits, you'll see I did the initial expansion of the reception section with 7 edits, removed some nowikis in 1 edit, I removed the lead sentence to implement the RfC (stated as such in the edit summary), and I did a single revert after a 3rd editor reverted the RfC consensus. I did not participate in that RfC but did participate in the other still open Forspoken RfC. Before all that, I reported BMWF, Vestigium Leonis, & NTC for 3RR/edit war behavior at Forspoken. When the subsequent discussion following that 3RR report became a stonewall, I then started brainstorming potential dispute resolution options (this conversation would lead to 2 RfCs and the closure of one would then lead us my initial report here about edit warring over the closure...). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Since you have—very reasonably—now seen that the parties were edit warring against an RFC, perhaps consider striking but without prejudice toward an administrative review of other parties. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that my previous edit warring was a mistake and accepted a one-month topic block without contest. It was inappropriate behavior (partly influenced by a brief period of significant real-life stress, though I understand that this does not and should not excuse my actions at all). Since then, I have made only one revert, which was performed to restore consensus of the closed RfC and content that was unaffected by the RfC. I partially restored it once more, after which the IP edits left the sentence alone, which made it clear to me that it had been removed by mistake. If you review my editing history on Forspoken, you will see that I have included both aspects that could be deemed as "positive and negative" of the game's performance. If I had a particular agenda or bias, as some have suggested, I would not have improved articles targeted by so-called "anti-woke" editors. It would make more sense, in that case, to focus only on "negative" content, or not? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef proposal

I voted above for a topic-ban because of the long-standing tag teaming, stonewalling, edit warring, assuming bad faith etc. After reviewing their comments overnight, I doubt a topic ban is sufficient and Support Indefs. The three continue to misrepresent others' arguments and cast aspersions on their motivations. They argue on each others' behalf. They insist others are their "opponents" representing pro-Gamer Gate positions with no evidence other than "they disagreed with me". They seem to be learning terminology as others highlight it in their behaviour and then accuse others of it. They ignore clear, simple statements or questions because there's nothing to fight over. If diffs evidence poor conduct, it's not the right diffs. When clearly told they did something wrong, they actually didn't and it's suspicious you didn't mention they're being targeted? When their behavioural pattern is demonstrated across multiple articles, it's some innovative type of OR to "combine diffs". No acceptance of wrongdoing on the primary, initiating issue (tag-team reverting an RFC closure). Competence is required. This behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on the site. They want to scream and thrash until others get tired of them and deferring the problem to other editor groups—who may have less stamina than the reasonably admin-active video-game wikiproject—is not a good outcome. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above, definitely for BMWF. I think NCT might be able to contribute to the project in other areas, her comments tend to have more substance whereas BMWF is just non-stop sealioning. Would rather a tban for her conditional on some contrition, but there’s no indication of behavioural change as of now so indefs are necessary for preventative measures Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You could be right about NCT's ability to contribute beyond VG culture war stuff. I think her misrepresentations in this thread are actually the worst of the lot, which is why I included her. This is all a bit exhausting so I'm going to take a step back from here and let the community decide what should be done. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Also opposing. Way too harsh and seems motivated by opinion differences. BMWF is a little wordy but not as much as editors on the other side. NCT doesn't appear to have any behavior issues in particular and neither does Wyll Ravengard. BlackVulcanX (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that you are "also" opposing when Kowal7201 supported the BMWF ban; the only other person to oppose so far is BMWF (and they opposed after you). For context, this user has edited Wikipedia 81 times, including RFC voting with BMWF, and was suggested as a possible sock of BMWF by Kowal7201. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I oppose both so the 'also' was in reference to my earlier vote. BlackVulcanX (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose ImaginesTigers is continuing his battleground crusade as retaliation for my comment in the Veilguard RfC[128], which makes a case for removing some of the content he wrote. BMWF (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No real reply about their conduct—simply more "this is about a conduct dispute"... when I initially shared their position and changed my mind after the WT:VG discusion (that they bludgeoned). The "detail" was detailed aspersion-casting, using content nobody worked on as proof of a conspiracy... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support block on all three BWMF, The next bit applies to all, with the addition of stonewalling and sealioning, of course whose particular brand of aggression, bludgeoning and gaslighting—evidenced by their every reply to these threads—is unconducive to an atmosphere of collegiality. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Fortuna, piggybacking off your response as my final message to say that I agree BMWF is the primary problem (hence why so much of my earlier detail is about them). I proposed blocks for the entire group because of their conduct in this thread, of which BMWF and NMC are the worst offenders. Of less concern is Wyll, who genuinely does seem to only edit on these narrow disputes (and has barely commented here except to deny that the RFC close reversion was improper). Given Wyll's current editing activity, a video-game TBAN is, in practice, an indef. I'm quite frustrated by NMC's (condescending) distortions of others' messages. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Reading the newer responses, it is apparent that NutmegCoffeeTea and (especially) BMWF are here to cancel criticisms rather than addressing the issue, and make issues worse than they already are. I will support indefinitely blocking them for being WP:SPA who are a net negative for the entire project. And if you think you made a strong case for your POV and requires "retailation", you are absolutely misguided. OceanHok (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• reiterating my support for this here per my comment above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indefs, per Fortuna. This behavior is becoming quite severe. I leave it to admin's discretion about Wyll, I am not sure he is at the same level as the other two in terms of violations. Just10A (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite blocks. We don't need editors that consider Wikipedia a culture war WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that goes for whatever side of the specific culture war they're on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's clear that there is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here going on and while it's also clear that the hands of the original three editors are not fully clean it's also pretty clear that there is a concerted effort by others with a competing WP:BATTLEGROUND stance to remove some ideological opponents. I don't think anyone should be pulling blocks here also because I don't think any blocks are necessary in this circumstance where tbans would do. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Simonm223, why do you always go with the highest, most punitive sanction for anyone that appears to skew right, but wave away any wrongdoing by anyone who skews left? You’ve made 18,500 edits, 29% in project space and only 20% in mainspace. Your incentive to edit Wikipedia seems to be political, like that time you tried to extend WP:NONAZIS to the Trumpian right (I can’t find the link now). Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't. If you look above I supported a topic ban for all three I don't believe a block is the appropriate action here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, apologies if I’m way off the mark, even still I would consider you a big net positive. Just don’t see how someone could read this thread and come to the conclusion you did. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Because I read the thread carefully and all the diffs even more carefully and because, being honest, I think we've been generally too quick to block editors who have blind spots in specific areas but who are a net positive elsewhere. You'll note I don't pursue ANI or AE actions against people who I disagree with ideologically but who operate within the appropriate rules of engagement of the project and even with the small number of editors I have pretty serious concerns I'm far more likely to approach them at user talk than here unless things go thoroughly sideways.

  I do think that noticeboard participation is an important thing for highly engaged editors to do. Including this one. But the only thing I am a "hanging judge" over tends to be the source reliability of newspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, tbh my first run in with NCT harmed my ability to AGF a lot, was my first ANI report (and SPI), this more recently made me conscious of it. I'll stay away from CTs and noticeboards and work on it Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree with Simon, but this is a little strong and inappropriate @Kowal2701. Simon and I disagree on (almost) everything we ever interact on, but he does genuine, good work here and at times has actually illustrated great strength of character. Let's stick to the topic at hand. Just10A (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Indefs per Fortuna (or alternatively topic bans, as I haven't voted above). There have been so many attempts to find solutions, and reactions by experienced editors and admins, but none of them got us anywhere. I do think that the comments and diffs of ImaginesTigers, OceanHok and Sariel Xilo above provide enough insight into how bad and disruptive this has been across multiple articles for months. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - per my comments in the section above, I support any action taken against them. Its pretty clearly some sort of TAGTEAM/SOCK/MEAT situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef blocks Whatever this is, and it appears to be a wide open field (Sockpuppetry, undisclosed paid editing, meat puppetry, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, etc), it’s effectively undermining both the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and making trouble for the community by causing an apparent chilling effect with regards to editors and The article is in question. That’s absolutely unacceptable, and fortuitous it’s also absolutely blockable. Let’s drop the hammer and then clean up their mess, and after an appropriate period of absence (usually six months at the earliest) we can entertain any unblock requests that come up. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Appears to be retaliatory and ideologically motivated. Many participants above such as Kowal have previously tried to get some of these editors banned.[129] Koriodan (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

How come all things recently created accounts are suddenly appearing in this discussion? Four weeks old, ~40 edits. Update: Ah, I see it's because you edit- warred against multiple editors on Assassin's Creed Shadows, including an admin. Curious. Anyway, I've removed your WP:ASPERSION; please don't assume ideological motives to editors without very good proof. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not an aspiration to say that it "appears to be retaliatory and ideologically motivated" when editors have made ideological comments in this same case and were called out on retaliation[130]. If you remove that you must also remove all of the ridiculous paid editing, COI, group conspiracy aspersions and insults being thrown. Koriodan (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It is an aspersion if you do not support your claim with diffs as evidence. I know you think you did do so, but since that random diff from three months ago contains absolutely nothing relevant to this discussion, your aspersion remains unjustified. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if this is an incorrect assertion, but this continues to just be weird and suggest some sort of meatpuppeting/socking going on. An account with less than 50 total edits (a significant amount of which overlap with the accused group's pages) that hasn't been active in 2 weeks just suddenly becomes undormant, and goes directly to this thread, despite them having no way of otherwise knowing about it? Further this account pulls out a link to a sockpuppet investigation archive from nearly 3 months ago? That's a surprising amount of wikipedia adeptness for an account with less than 50 edits, all of which have been substantive (article space/talk page) and not procedurally involved.

Again, if this is unfounded I apologize. But zoinks, this gives me the creeps, gang. Just10A (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Occam's Razor would suggest Japan has something to do with it :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

What gives me the creeps is that you and Kowal2701, both voters above, defended the discriminatory comments about editor identities from the person who started the Forspoken discussion/edit war, and then Vestigium Leonis edit warred 8 edits to continue that dispute for him. Kowal's defense:

I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal271[131]

And here is you defending the same comment. BMWF (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is approaching don't feed the trolls territory. Repeatedly shouting your same argument with the same links is not helpful. I'm allowed to point out procedural issues on AN discussions I come across, sorry. Just10A (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't an AN discussion. It was the talk page of an Arbitrator after Arbitration Enforcement. And then you went to the RFC to vote mentioning the "opposition" so your interest wasn't just procedural.[132] BMWF (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll let other editors decide if Wyll Ravengard should receive the same sanctions as BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea but most of my comment is going to be directed at the latter editors. I think their comments here really stand in contrast to the comments made by Vestigium Leonis over the same Forspoken edit war behavior. Vestigium was quick to acknowledge that they made mistakes during the previous 3RR report & respected their 1 month TBAN. In regards to this latest edit war over the RfC closure, Vestigium went to the admin who was involved in that 3RR report to ask for advice & that admin said the closure occurred correctly & pinged BMWF/Wyll about it. I too have acknowledged things escalated a bit in late 2024 over at Veilguard and made a point to try and change my behavior (such as going to DRN, starting or contributing to RfCs, not participating in other RfCs, reducing the number of reverts I make, etc); I also asked for advice on how we could deescalate to have productive talk page discussions. I think this is all reflected in my recent engagement at Forspoken including going to the RfC closing editor after BMWF reverted the closure & saying essentially "I'm worried if I revert them, I'll trigger an edit war so what are the next steps so we can avoid that". BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea have not acknowledged the problematic aspects of their editing behavior – such as often reverting 2-3 times without starting a talk age discussion & continuing to revert even after other editors have said on the corresponding talk "hey, can we not edit war & discuss this instead". For me, the line between a limited TBAN & INDEF, is their ability to acknowledge those issues and commit to changing their behavior; this should include things like "I'll start talk page discussions" or "I'll follow WP:BRD & limit myself to 1R". It feels like all of this could have been avoided if they hadn't jumped to revert & edit war and instead taken the first step of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE ("contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion"). It is a really simple thing to do which is why I did it before opening the thread here asking for help in resolving this. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I previously asked what I did and no one told me. I only made one revert and I just did it because I thought it was strange the IP had no other edits. I didn't revert again when Leonis and Sariel reverted. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  From my POV, you’ve denied there was any issue with your RFC reversion, insinuated your own editorial negligence (reverting RfC enforcement because they were an IP? really?) and tenuously blamed a group of editors (the latter 2 in response to Robert’s follow up). You also accused me of tag-teaming and stonewalling—accusations that are currently unsubstantiated given your low participation. Robert has directly tagged you in the section he created below about it asking you about these, so that’s maybe one place to start. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting those diffs and assuming bad faith toward Wyll, and you linked the same diff twice in your second and third link. Wyll linking to page statistics to point out the bludgeoning of you, Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, and Vestigium Leonis is not unsubstantiated. BMWF (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

C'mon. You know what you're doing. Firstly, (as others have told you) it isn't assuming bad faith to say people are breaking the rules; it is having eyes. Secondly, I linked the same diffs twice? You mean, like where I wrote the latter 2 in response to Robert McClenonon? How are page statistics (representing additions I made to single article over 7 months age) evidence of bludgeoning? (Which is usually a Talk-page issue.) I see the same stuff from you over and over: restate your position, blame a cabal, and hope it tricks people. I didn't even asked you—I asked Wyll! He wanted to know what he did wrong. I told him. And here you are defending him without responding to anything I actually said... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefs per TomStar81 and others. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support site ban of BMWF. They have shown a consistent unwillingness to listen to others who criticize their editing for any reason, and their response to Robert McClenon below continues that pattern of casting aspersions on other editors and WP:RGW and WP:BATTLE behavior. I am not convinced that they will ever be able to collaborate productively in any topic area. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Simonm223. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia: Simon223 (courtesy ping) opposed on the grounds that there were attempts by "competing BATTLEGROUND opponents to remove ideological opponents". Simon struck the remarks about the "competing battleground opponents" in his support for TBANs but hasn't revisited the rationale for his opposition to indef. Consequently there is a bit of misalignment here and I'm not understanding the rationale of justifying "per Simon233". Extraordinarily bad conduct from the 3 subjects in this thread led me to propose the indef. If opposition is on the basis of my "ideology", it's reasonable for me to ask for some clarification given my track record of progressive content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I still feel a block should be avoided when a tban is enough. So I support tban, not a block. Simonm223 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary and retaliatory by ImaginesTigers. As a slight aside and for clarification, there was no nefarious intention with my edit. I saw that a new editor had his comment removed and I actually felt bad for him. New editors often don't understand why they're reverted on content, but for a new editor to have their good faith comments removed too is likely to be very disheartening. After seeing that a legitimate WP:RFCNEUTRAL claim was raised (the IP user completely misrepresented the existing state of the article to neutral editors) and looking at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which says the situation does not need a closure review to keep going if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion, I figured that was a legitimate reason to allow them to comment. The policy makes it obvious that it's customary to extend the discussion a bit in that situation, especially for an early closure without an admin. Though once I learned that it was normal to let the closer know I didn't make any further edits and wanted to let others handle it from there. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• But you (and the rest) did not hesitate to bring new editors who do not share your content position to SPI, and revert numerous IP editors for being "socks" or "IP hopper". Asking for a discussion to be reopened and edit warring are two different things. It is highly problematic that you still choose to click that undo button after (1) seeing Wyll/BMWF's attempts already failed and (2) reading my warnings, Sariel's comments on CLOSECHALLENGE, Toadspike's summary, and the bold red text from the archive template telling you not to modify the discussion. OceanHok (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - As I have noted elsewhere in this matter, I was not involved in this controversy until I was pinged in, and so have had to read the history in more depth than I would have liked to, and have not yet decided on the proposed indefinite block or site ban (and have never fully understood the difference if there is a difference) of these three editors. However, what I can see at this time is only complicating things is references to culture wars and to skewing left and skewing right. I live in a country that is deeply divided between people who skew right and people who skew left, and I would prefer to stay clear of the culture wars when I can. I think that I don't want to know what the culture wars background is. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  My comment referring to skew right and left wasn't to characterise the dispute, just that BMWF and NCT's POVs skew left, imo other participants are NPOV, but my comment was very ill-judged regardless Kowal2701 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban of BWMF for a combination of POV pushing, tag teaming the close of an RFC, and use of non-participation in a DRN as a device for stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of Wyll Ravengard for a combination of POV pushing, tag teaming the close of an RFC, a truly bizarre non-explanation for edit-warring, and trying to confuse the jury by alleging misconduct by other editors without providing details. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of BWMF. The misrepresentation of ImagineTiger's comments below shows that either they cannot understand that the diffs don't show what BWMF says or else are deliberate misrepresentation. Either way, a TBAN does not seem sufficient for this severe of a behavioral issue. Neural on CBANS for the other two; I hope the TBAN will be enough to prevent disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban of BWMF per their response below (thanks Robert McClenon for giving the opportunity), showing an undeniable commitment to weaponising PAGs to push a POV and Wyll Ravengard for pretty obvious reasons. Also support at least a TBAN for NutmegCoffeeTea, for their disingenous conduct visible in this ANI report alone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: NCT is already tbanned, per the section above this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Simonm223 has it right and these sorts of things aren't supposed to be punitive. Bladeandroid (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site bans / blocks on User:BMWF, User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea. I've been quite hesitant to support this proposal for a while, as the three editors have already received a topic ban from video games in the TBAN proposal above, which should ideally be taking care of much of the problems described here. I see good arguments both for and against site bans for these editors, the 'for' being the ongoing misrepresentation of diffs by the editors, and the 'against' being the "political nature" of the content dispute, as suggested by Simonm223 and Robert McClenon's comments/votes. It does seem as if this proposal is eliminating a viewpoint in the matter. Going back to the "for" argument, I had a look at some of the comments by the accused editors regarding diff misinterpretation, and indeed I can see that there's a bit of dishonesty going on, there. (Having the same opinion as another person is "defending" that person, really??)
  All in all: as much as I don't like harsher administrative action being taken against good-faith editors, as well as editors of a different viewpoint being banished, I think that the ongoing misconduct, combined with the "time sink" factor (the amount of time spent by the community in this thread as well as in trying to resolve the content dispute) warrants site bans being implemented on the three editors in my view. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to say that I can also see (and would principally support) separate cases being made for each of the three editors, as it has turned out thus far that there are varying levels of disruption between them. Looks like User:BMWF is indeed 'bludgeoning' in the next subsection below, while indef blocks / site bans may not be needed for User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea at this time. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The majority of the support votes belong to one side of an RFC which is a major conflict of interest. This looks like an editor clique trying to remove ideological opponents. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  IP that was tag-team edit warring at Forspoken which led to this report being made Kowal2701 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't tag team and no I shouldn't have edit warred. But edit warring is never justified regardless of which side and both sides did (me, Sariel Xilo, and other IPs). No one here deserves a ban. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  The issue isn't necessarily their behavior as much as really the Sock/Meatpuppeting problems. The community's pretty much already acknowledged there's some amount of puppeting/logged out editing going on, it's just to what extent. This equally applies to the BladeAndroid account vote (68 edit account, used to support NCT in an RFC in the past, has been completely dormant for 5 months, then suddenly just wakes up and comes directly to this thread, despite having no way of knowing about it. Sprinkled in some basic platitudes that take 5 seconds to write so it's a little less obvious [133] [134], and then went back down again.)

  Obviously IP editors are human too, but the issues are apparent. However, the broad consensus among actually established editors seems pretty clear here, so it's really nothing to worry about and can just be left up to the closer. Just10A (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  Completely untrue. Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[135], from the person who started the Forspoken discussion. He went as far to badger an Arbitrator to argue for removing the sanctions on that editor against the consensus of multiple admins.[136] Just10A and OceanHok, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, and so on all share a position that overlaps with the Gamergate POV on Forspoken, and voted together in the RFC. The fact that Just10A's vote was only after he defended the discriminatory comment suggests political interest. BMWF (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Accusing any concerned users of being part of Gamergate or sharing its POV is not helping your case here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have to accuse him when the diff evidence is there. BMWF (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  The diffs do not show any overlap with the "Gamergate POV on Forespoken", which itself is too vague of an accusation. Would that mean any of the users are harassing people involved with Forespoken? Are they calling Forespoken "woke"? This is veering into a weird kind of guilt by association. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just10A's initial engagement with this matter was downplaying the discriminatory comments from the starter of the Forspoken discussion, voting in a RFC to support that sanctioned editor, and going after editors who disagree with that sanctioned editor. I've always treated Just10A with good faith aside from responding to his allegations, which appear to be retaliatory and intended at removing the political opponents of the maker of the above comment. BMWF (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since when have you treat Just10A with good faith? You questioned his motive since the very first comment in the Forspoken talk page. You have linked FMSky's comments here for seven times every time Just10A/Kowal2701 commented to cancel their opinions. Your biggest problem is that you think every one is wrong except yourself. People who oppose you on content are gamergaters (baseless accusations till this day), people who point out your behavioral issues are "retailatory" and had stalked you. People who educated you on policies are pointy and their interpretations must be flawed. The person closing the RfC is not an admin so their judgement must not be right. Guidelines are not policies so whenever a person quotes them we should dismiss it. People who bring a discussion to WikiProject must have forumshopped and OWN issues. There are just so many excuses to cover up what is essentially WP:IDLI. OceanHok (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef/site ban of BMWF, whose continued bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in this discussion make it very clear that they are not compatible with a collaborative project. NCT and Wyll have not bludgeoned the process with assumptions of bad faith; while I don't strictly oppose the possible indef of them both, I don't outright support it either, however BMWF has, through their own actions here, evidenced why a ban is necessary for the protection of the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  It is not bludgeoning to respond to allegations that directly or indirectly concern you. And if assumptions of bad faith are criteria, then you will have to support site bans for the editors here that have continuously made them. BMWF (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  'It's not bludgeoning', says the editor proving my point with another, bludgeoning comment. If you feel the need to reply to every comment against you, you should take a step back and ask if maybe those comments have a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't bludgeoning per the link: when someone is the subject of an administrative board report, they may need to respond several times to questions, and others shouldn't be linking this essay to call out the numerous replies. BMWF (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef for BMWF unsure about the others. Of the three BMWF is by far the most disruptive, continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:ABF. (Note: BMWF you don't need to respond to EVERY support vote, that is what bludgeoning is and this continued IDHT is what is driving me and others to support an indef). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support the site ban of User:BMWF. I said, after having seen the case made by the three topic-banned editors against the 'other side' of four or five editors, that I didn't want to support bans without taking a deep dive, and that I didn't plan to take a deep dive. I haven't had to take a deep dive. I see bludgeoning after I struck my support, and bizarre accusations that I don't understand about a woke agenda or about opposing a woke agenda. I am not sure that I understand or care what the sides are about woke and anti-woke and the Trumpian right. (The Trumpian right is clearly anti-woke.) However, those allegations were made after I had struck my support. At that time, I saw a reasonable doubt. They have continued digging a hole. Leave them in the hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite blocks as punitive rather than preventative; the three editors in question are already topic banned from the area in which they were judged to have behaved problematically and I have not seen evidence of the behaviors which resulted in their topic bans occurring in other areas. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hatman. Since the TBAN went into effect, none of the editors have engaged in any of the problematic behaviors. BMWF and NMC in particular have only edited this conversation. I think for now we can consider the issue resolved. If in the future they go back to this pattern of behavior, though, I would support indefs. Thesixthstaff (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What's the Other Side?

As I noted above, I was pinged into this mess and spent more time reading about it than I wanted to spend. So I want to be sure that I understand at least as much of the dispute as is needed to assess what the problems are. So I want to follow up on a question that I was asked, although it may have been meant to be a throw-away question. User:Wyll Ravengard wrote: You also didn't mention the other side of dispute Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis and some others present. No. I would prefer not to think of content disputes as having sides, but it is clear that this is a conduct dispute with sides. I didn't mention "the other side" because I haven't seen a case presented that "the other side" was being disruptive. This section begins with a listing of editors on one "side" and is followed by a case of how three editors have interfered with collaborative editing of at least two articles. I think that I was reading the tedious history with an open mind, so that I think that I would have seen incoming boomerangs or disruption or misconduct by the other side. I didn't mention "the other side of the dispute" because I didn't see evidence of disruptive editing by another side of the dispute. Maybe I wasn't looking seriously enough, or maybe the case hasn't been presented yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

So, before the community decides whether to impose sanctions on BWMF, NutmegCoffeeTea, or Wyll Ravengard, I think that we should ask them to present a structured case (since BWMF says, reasonably, that DRN is for structured discussion) that the editors whom Wyll Ravengard listed have been disruptive. I think it is especially important to ask them to present the "other side" before considering any community bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a bit irrelevant by now, sorry Robert. They've had days and 1000s of bytes in which to do what you are now suggesting and at no point have they done so (or attempted to do so), merely sealioning and gaslighting in order—as someone puts it above—"to cancel criticisms rather than addressing the issue". I think we've established by now that their reasons are quite simple: to remove negative information about one game and restore positive information in another; I disagree that we should give such editing equal weight with that of editors attempting to follow policies. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Robert and suggest that evidence be presented on the other side as well. Vestigium Leonis has made many problematic reverts on Forspoken.[137][138][139][140] Koriodan (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that we should give equal weight to the editors who are likely to be sanctioned. I am saying that they should be given a clear opportunity to present their case concisely. If they do not present a case that neutral editors can understand, then we (neutral editors) may conclude that they have been sealioning and gaslighting. We should invite them to present a structured case so that we can decide how much weight to give to different editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth seeing if any case other than "we want to say good things about these games but not bad things" can possibly be made. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't primarily asking for the topic-banned editors to present a case about their own editing, although they can present such a case to argue against being site-banned. I was asking the now topic-banned editors to present the case that "the other side" was disruptive. In fact, if they don't present such a case, some editors may conclude that they were casting aspersions on "the other side" having the nature of personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Under 10 hours ago, Wyll asked what he had done, to which I responded and asked him to respond to you. No response from them, but BMWF dropped in with some responses that really don't make sense to me. Sorry to drag you into this Robert but hopefully you can decide whether "another side" of this dispute even exists from this as I don't think you're getting any statements from them. Their sole goal is to fatigue our content processes to get what they want, not to talk with us and form consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Robert and sorry for the delay (I was not pinged). I'm a little busy IRL, but I can update a brief summary here if someone doesn't beat me to it. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have problems personally and I don't care about this topic that much. It's not that serious and I'd just encourage everyone to go out and get some sun. I'm not interested in drama. But since Robert McClenon asked I can provide some details.

Vestigium Leonis, Sariel Xilo, and OceanHok repeatedly exhibit severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues over video game articles and tag team edit. The ownership issues mainly manifest through extensive talk bludgeoning and, from what I've seen, are primary articles involved in culture wars (On Forspoken's talk page these three editors alone are over half of the text and on The Veilguard's talk page they over 60%)

The way they go about it is that they will tag team edit to insert or elevate Gamergate-style commentary. That isn't to say that they're involved in gamergate, but at least that the POVs they push line up with it incidentally or not. It could be coincidence. But regardless I think the way they go about it pushes away new editors.

For background context these Gamergate POVs are:

• That Forspoken is a "flop" (for having a black female lead) which isn't actually true or supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources didn't cover this (good on them) but if you wanted direct sources you would see thousands of mentions on right-wing social media.
  • Vestigium Leonis made 10 reverts on Forspoken to imply it was a flop.[141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148] Sariel Xilo then filed an editing report that completely excused him while blaming the people he disagrees with.
  • This behavior by Vestigium Leonis was a continuation of the editor who started the Forspoken dispute, who made discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors. This editor frequently edits right-wing topics.
  • Kowal2701, who voted above, defended the discriminatory comments of the above editor with the justification I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs[149].
  • Just10A, who voted above, defending the same comment. Given that these two editors have no interest in games, this suggests political factionalization.
• That Veilguard is "woke" (slur) because it has LGBTQ representation. Also not true.[150]
  • Sariel wrote something like 4000 words to defend calling the game "woke" in the reception section even though it's WP:UCG from bigots that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. He claimed this was okay because sources covered the review bombing, but instead of just mentioning that it was review bombed he directly quoted "woke" from user reviews.
  • OceanHok even went as far to try and remove the "Critical Reception" header from the article so that they could make the reception to be entirely what online bigots think about the game instead of critics[151]
  • Sariel edit warred to make sure the reception mentioned that the game is "woke" and that it mentioned that MetaCritic had negative user reviews.[152][153]
  • An example of the tag team editing is here too. Sariel will revert[154], and then Vestigium Leonis will revert saying As Sariel said[155], and then OceanHok will revert.
• That it is "woke" that Assassin's Creed Shadows has a black protagonist.[156]
  • OceanHok edit warred to insert that a "conservative Youtuber called it pandering" and "online users attacked the option for LGBTQ relationships" which is obviously undue [157][158]
  • The editor who started the Forspoken dispute, who Vestigium Leonis edit warred to support, and who Vestigium Leonis/Sariel Xilo/OceanHok all heavily bludgeoned the talk page in support of, edit warred to add an attack section for the protagonist[159][160][161]
  • Also the way the above editor changed the header from Marketing and release to Delays and controversies matches how Sariel Xilo edit warred on Veilguard to change the headers from Early Development to Early Development and Controversies and Completion and release to Staff turnover.[162]

Sariel will often make the first edit, and then attempt to play admin while abusing procedural processes such as requesting protection in a way that will benefit his editing friends[163][164], or filing an editing report where he excuses his friends and attacks the people he disagrees with.

They also heavily bludgeon the talk pages of games in political controversies by repeating long arguments.

• They are over half of the Veilguard talk page. This includes ImaginesTigers who bludgeoned that page and this ANI with aggressive comments. Sariel alone is 40%.[165]
• These three editors are over half of all talk page text on Forspoken.[166]
• OceanHok is chronically aggressive and rude on talk pages such as saying that people he disagrees with are 'gaslighting' and 'not serious'
• Both OceanHok and ImaginesTigers are pointy and like to imply that new editors are not smart.[167]

The result of this that, even if new editors survive the tag teaming from these three, if they make it to the talk page they will get bludgeoned.

Something else they do while bludgeoning on talk pages is try to intimidate new editors in content disputes by implying that WikiProject VG probably won't allow the content of the edits they want to make, but I actually checked and this is forbidden by policy.

But anyway I don't care about this that much, and ANI probably isn't optimal. If it goes to AE or the Arbitration Committee though I'm sure they would want to clean house.

Also to clarify, I only had good intentions with my edit. I raised a WP:RFCNEUTRAL concern about 4 hours after the close and I thought it was okay. I didn't ask anyone else to edit. BMWF (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm about to start striking your comments for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. This is, I believe, the 3rd time in a row now that you've vaguely characterized my discussion (mind you, on an AE post that's totally tangential to this thread) as "defending discriminatory comments" in some effort to ad-hominem me as some political hack. I explicitly stated "I want to be clear. That is not acceptable." regarding those comments. Pointing out procedural issues in an AE case is not "defending discriminatory comments," and you've been explained this repeatedly. Instead, your refusal to admit any wrongdoing and your newfound cavalier attitude ("I don't care about this topic that much. It's not that serious and I'd just encourage everyone to go out and get some sun. I'm not interested in drama.") just cements your sanctions. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Why aren't you including the rest of the quote? But to say that warrants a GENSEX TBAN is crazy. and However the only "stance" FMSky expressed here was "people with progressive gender views are more likely to be left leaning indicate that you think his comments aren't worthy of sanction.

You're twisting what he was saying in a way that completely downplays it. What he actually was saying was "people with these identities are not worthy of having discussions with/cannot contribute". Your entire interest in this is political. BMWF (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not gonna feed the trolls/sea lions anymore. Explicitly said that exchange was worthy of timeouts and reprimand. Anyone can read my full comment if they wish on that issue (it's certainly been linked enough). Anyway, I think the lack of any admission of wrongdoing at all here is pretty indicative, and the constant WP:SEALIONING/WP:GASLIGHTING is just icing on the cake. Let's just drop the hammer and move on. Just10A (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Strange that you only recommend a 'reprimand' for someone who engaged in discrimination, and argued for his sanctions to be removed, but recommend full sanctions against his editing opponents. I've already made clear that I had no bad motive with my edit and had no intention to edit again which is why I haven't. Your political bandwagoning and retaliatory posturing is very obvious. BMWF (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

These are false accusations about me and Forspoken. I never called the game a flop, even though reliable sources actually have (and it only took me a minute to find them) [168][169][170]. My intention was to present the lead in a neutral manner. The bigger issue was your insistence on pushing a random chart statistic while trying to remove publisher information. If you review the provided diffs, you can see that a) I never called the game a flop and b) you contributed to the edit warring just as much, including fully reverting content that needs no consensus (like OpenCritic). The difference is that I acknowledged my mistake and took the punishment given by the involved admin to heart.

Additionally, you're now seemingly attempting to associate me with FMSky’s alleged discriminatory comments (I say 'alleged' because I haven’t reviewed that full history myself yet). The only connection is that FMSky and I happened to share the same view on what content belongs in the lead. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Re "discriminatory comments", he was in a discussion with multiple people who disagreed with him, he looked at their user pages which all had pronouns, and assumed they were pov pushers. Other than a major AGF issue, tbh I still don’t see what’s discriminatory about that, discriminatory would be casting aspersions against someone due to their specific identity/set of pronouns, no? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is, in fact, discriminatory to assume that a person indicating they prefer specific pronouns indicates their politics. It's also mistaken on Wikipedia where they/them is default. I am aware of some deeply conservative editors who indicate a self-disclosed he/him. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

But it isn't discriminatory against their identity, just their decision to highlight their preferred pronouns? I guess it could have a chilling effect and their absence leads to misgendering, being indirectly discriminatory. While it's something associated with left-wing politics, I agree the logic is faulty as well Kowal2701 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's a bad argument because it's basically the equivalent of saying that it's OK to discriminate against a person if they don't closet themselves online. It's also a distraction from WP:FOC and is the reason I personally deleted all my userboxes as I was very tired of people presupposing my positions on Wikipedia on the basis of my personal identity. I would suggest always pretending no editor has any infoboxes and ignoring them except to refer to editors by their disclosed pronouns. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I remember reading a great essay about an ideal on how people shouldn’t be able to discern your opinions from your editing, and userboxes sort of negate this, but can’t find it now as it’s not in Category:Wikipedia essays about neutrality Kowal2701 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what this was about. This appears to be a justified description then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:INSCRUTABLE! Kowal2701 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no point in me reading this because I have already demonstrated BMWF's habit of blatant misrepresentation. BMWF mentions me once in their response: Both OceanHok and ImaginesTigers are pointy and like to imply that new editors are not smart, providing this diff. This diff obviously doesn't include me. I'll generously concede I'm capable of being pointy (who can't?), but there's no evidence here of my "battleground crusade" aside from disagreeing with them in 1 RFC. I'm going back to writing an encyclopaedia. Cheers — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You insulted three editors above while simultaneously assuming extraordinary bad faith.[171] You were also wrong on your assumptions too.

You treated the Veilguard talk page as a battleground while tenaciously replying to almost every RfC position against yours.[172][173][174] You also bludgeoned that page.[175]

Your retaliatory proposal here, against editors who voted in the RfC to remove content you wrote, is a continuation of your feuding and bad faith assumptions. BMWF (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Any interested parties can review the comment BMWF is responding to and evaluate if this actually responds to it. Please apply its findings when reviewing BMWF’s diffs. I’m done engaging with them — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

To start with, I've asked you multiple times to not refer to me using he/him pronouns - I mentioned this at the 3RR April 2025 report & more directly on your talk page in May 2025 (the latter of which I received a thank notification from you indicating you read it). A few days ago, I also addressed above your poison well argument trying to connect editors to that TBANed editor so I'm not going to rehash why I think that's wrong. This is going to be a lengthy rebuttal (mostly focused on what occurred at Veilguard from Nov '24 to Jan '25 because that's what I was most involved in) so I'm also going to collapse some of it for readability.

• Going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is not " play admin while abusing procedural processes"; it is a suggested way to stop edit warring to allow discussion to occur and it also means an outside admin reviews if PP is needed. During one such discussion, I described it as stop gap measure & we needed to find a productive dispute resolution method.
• The tl'dr on Veilguard is that I was one of a number of editors who argued we needed to maintain a NPOV & stick with what RS had reported which includes both positive & negative commentary; I assume because it would show that I don't edit from gamergate POV or support that kind of biased editing, BMWF left out the times I argued to DENY trolls who wanted vandalism (ie. IPs wanting to include user generated reviews) or argued for the inclusion of reviews by queer/trans writers. I also argued for including a robust sentence in the lead which highlighted both positives & negatives from the reception section; there's no good faith read of me wanting to include this sentence (The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat.) that leads you to "must support gamergate".

Sariel Xilo's argument with diffs

Veilguard review bomb context - this is the sentence which was the main focus of the November 2024 discussions (the current iteration is slightly different): Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Breakdown (with diffs) from 11-17 Nov '24 focused on the review bomb discussion & BMWF's mischaracterization of calling it a defense of using the word "woke" On 11 November 2024, you removed it; OceanHok restored it, you removed it again, I reverted you (with an edit summary asking to discuss on talk). I then pinged you to open a discussion on the talk page. 11-17 November there was a discussion on including this sentence. I was not the only editor who argued for inclusion (non-exhaustive examples: OceanHok, LaffyTaffer, Harryhenry1, Ergzay, etc); the general gist of the arguments for inclusion was WP:UCG was not a concern because we were quoting RS discussing the events surrounding the review bombing, this followed the guidance from WP:VG/REC on including review bomb events, and we used a direct quote around the word "woke" to avoid SYNTH issues. During that discussion, on 15 November 2024, you removed part of the sentence again which I reverted. Over in the talk, I had argued that it was important to keep this part of the sentence ("reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" because outlets had pointed out it had contrasted with what occurred over on Steam). You were the only editor arguing for the removal of that sentence. I think my statement on 15 November 2024 is pretty good summary of the points I made throughout that discussion: "Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative" is a summary sourced by reliable secondary sources and is not violation of WP:UGC (again, self-published sources are not being cited and examples of negative reviews are not included); it also directly aligns with WP:VG/REC on including review bomb events. Please stop reverting (see WP:EDITWAR) to your preferred version when the consensus is to include these details. BMWF's above statement ("Sariel wrote something like 4000 words to defend calling the game "woke" in the reception section even though it's WP:UCG from bigots that doesn't belong on Wikipedia") is a total is mischaracterization of events. Even at the time, I said: "I don't agree with people who did the review bombing at Metacritic or made the arguments in the talk above that those self-published reviews should be included. I agree with Harryhenry1 that this is an accurate & limited summary of events which isn't undue & adheres to NPOV. At this point, you're just rehashing the same statement on WP:UGC and bludgeoning the process". December 2024 there was a discussion on other aspects of the article & return to discussing the review bomb sentence; this led to DRN and then a RfC in January 2025 Breakdown of what led to the DRN & briefly touching on the subsequent RfC that occurred after BMWF didn't participate in the DRN This started with Wikibenboy94 making changing to the lead which BMWF reverted twice (03:56, 3 December 2024 & 21:39, 3 December 2024); on 3/4 December, I partially reverted BMWF & Wikibenboy94 reverted the other part. When BMWF made partial reverts again on 4 Dec, they also removed part of the review bomb sentence which had been of that Nov 2024 discussion. I pinged both editors on the talk stating: "There's been some back & forth reverts for a few weeks on parts of the lead and now the reception section so we're firmly in the discuss part of WP:BRD. I'm going to take a stab at breaking down the areas of disagreement below & hope we can come to consensus on the exact prose" That discussion stalled out (see Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1#Prose for all of it) but I will note that Wikibenboy94 & I were not in total alignment of what we thought should be included. This led me to going to DRN - at the time, I said " My thought on this specific sentence was consensus was resolved during the Nov 11-19 discussion above & this was a backdoor restart of that. I think the next step is the dispute resolution noticeboard to get an outside view from someone who hasn't been working on this article for weeks" & I also said "Rather than explaining again why I don't think this is a case of SYNTH or editorializing, as I mentioned below, I've brought this conversation over to the dispute resolution noticeboard in hopes that a fresh set of eyes can evaluate. I hope you will participate in the discussion there so we can come to a consensus". Both Wikibenboy94 & I participated at DRN but BMWF did not. After that DRN finished, I implemented the changes and BMWF returned on 5 January 2025 to revert them saying there was no consensus. I did not revert BMWF but instead pinged them on the talk (see Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1#DRN followup). This led to an RfC; I believe this was when I started to interact with Vestigium Leonis as they participated in the RfC. It was also my first time starting an RfC & I've acknowledged that the set up was a bit of a mess; I thought it had a clear question ("should what occurred at DRN stand") & what I should have done was split it up into multiple RfCs & not assumed people would read the history of the DRN so definitely lessons learned. By 29 January 2024, I felt like BMWF was continuing to create a STONEWALL & said in the RfC to the two editors who seemed to want to work towards consensus: "@Shooterwalker and Vestigium Leonis: For the moment, we should set aside BMWF's repeated assertions that only their interpretation of policy is correct since it is once again creating a WP:STONEWALL situation (which is also why I went to DRN in the first place). Vestigium Leonis proposed resolving the questions I listed before addressing if the "Reception" is too long. So I think all of us would agree that the opening sentence for ¶3 is fine but could be improved by adding in-line citations. Vestigium Leonis also agreed with me on restoring the Metacritic details in ¶1 (question #3) - Shooterwalker do you have any thoughts about that?". Discussion died down basically after that; the RfC was not closed but bot moved to the archive after discussion ended. I have not reverted or attempted to implemented anything that was discussed in the RfC. I reported BMWF & Vestigium Leonis (and mentioned NTC) for 3RR at Forspoken (see report) in April 2025 → I was upfront in my report that BMWF & I had past disagreements. I standby my characterization that it was indicative of BMWF's tendency to edit war while it was the first time I had seen Vestigium Leonis escalate like that. I also addressed this a bit above where I highlighted the key outcome was that Vestigium Leonis acknowledged the mistake they made & has tried to correct that behavior whereas BMWF continues to edit war & even after being TBANed has not acknowledged they made mistakes with their editing behavior. BMWF continues to mischaracterize by trying to link edits by other editors at Assassin's Creed Shadows to my edits at Veilguard; they even misquoted what I suggested as seen in the diff they included above (I did not suggest using the word "Controversies" in a section heading but instead argued for maintaining the word "Challenges" which had been the heading for months & reverted exactly 1 time) → in the current RfC on this, I even voted for 2 options which would removed the word "challenges"...

There's probably more ways I could argue that BMWF is mischaracterizing events but I think I've said a lot. Mostly, I would really like them to stop accusing me of leading some kind of gamergate cabal & get my pronouns right. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon thanks for writing this. I previously explained some of the bludgeoning and other behaviors above but I think BMWF has done a better job than me. I also want to add that ImaginesTigers misrepresented my explanation above. I didn't think it was a vandal just because it was an IP, but because it was an IP with zero other edits. I wasn't misleading you or anyone else when I mentioned the other side. I think it's a messy political debate and I hope everyone will get along. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Respondong to these "allegations"

• On AC Shadows, BMWF displayed their typical behaviours (pushing content despite being objected and bypassing BRD). I was the one who took the steps to resolve the conflict. On Veilguard, my edit summary itself was pretty self-explanatory.
• I do not believe I was rude when they did all the things I mention (gaslighting), and took contradicting positions which were difficult to follow (moving goalpost to a point where he was essentially denying his own examples; the same who goes for NCT who denies her own argument as a possible consensus of a discussion).
• I merely suggested editors should consult the WikiProject when they push for systematic changes. I never said that the WikiProject will reject it. Maybe you get your way. Maybe you don't. Maybe you get half of it. That's how consensus-building works (which BWMF still doesn't understand till this day).

BMWF still do not understand we never said any game is "woke". Our secondary reliable source do, and we cover them in due weight. On Forspoken, BMWF's relentless attempt at policing whatever an editor want to call a product is absurd. I am within my rights to call it a massive flop in the talk page, but that doesn't mean that is the content position I take for the mainspace. The idea that someone is a racist bigot for calling Forspoken a "flop" contains numerous logical fallcies. Also, you are assuming we and FMSky share similar ideology while we only shared the same content position. OceanHok (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have read the post by BWMF and the responses to it. I have one opinion on which I expect to be in the minority, and am taking one action. It appears that we have another Gamergate or Yasuke case involving conflict over representation of minority characters in video games. I haven't taken a deep dive into this mess and don't plan to take a deep dive into this ugly mess. So I don't know whether BWMF's characterization of the dispute is at least partly correct that the conduct of the other four editors, Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis, and others is as bad as that of the three topic-banned editors.
  • ArbCom has been elected to take deep dives into ugly messes. I think that it is time for the community to ask ArbCom to conduct what may turn into Gamergate 2, and that it is time for ArbCom to take the deep dive. Maybe I am in the minority. Maybe some of the other participating editors here think that they have already taken the deep dive and are prepared to take action. If ArbCom takes a case, maybe they will conclude that one, two, or three of the topic-banned editors are disrupting the encyclopedia to the point where bans are needed. On the other hand, if ArbCom takes a case, maybe they will conclude that there have been conduct violations on both "sides", and decide what level of sanctions are needed. That is my opinion at this point.
  • I will be striking my recommendations to site ban two of the three topic-banned editors, because I no longer am confident that I can assess responsibility without taking a deep dive that I don't plan to take. That does not mean that I oppose indefinite blocks or site bans, but I don't know enough to support bans against one "side". Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - If other members of the community have taken the deep dive into the ugly mess, then the community can deal with this dispute and does not need to ask ArbCom to address it. If there is a conclusion to block or ban the three topic-banned editors, I will infer that the community has decided that some editors are sufficiently knowledgable about the ugly details to take action. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• I probably should have raised this earlier, but back in March NCT called me a white supremacist without evidence [176], and then after a general warning from @Tamzin: about personal attacks bizzarely doubled down on it, catching a final warning which read If you accuse FMSky or Kowal (or anyone else) again of the kinds of things you're saying, without clear evidence of that thing—and I mean exactly that thing, not "someone once said he did something like this", but rather cold hard diffs—you can expect a lengthy or indefinite block. [177]. In my comment above I tried to leave the door open for NCT because I felt guilty for biting her initially [178] (which I later apologised for), but frankly given the above thread, I think we're all out of WP:ROPE. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  You edit warred to push a biased colonialist POV on African articles[179] and defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors, from the editor who started the Forspoken dispute.

  I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal271[180]

  Above you made some weird defense of the Trumpian right and criticism of WP:NONAZIS by attacking Simonm223.[181]

  You filed two spurious reports against NCT and Tamzin warned you about that, and said they would block you if you did not stop[182]. You've stalked her to an AE thread that had nothing to do with you, two talk pages, a RFC, and now this thread. Your participation here is both political and retaliatory. BMWF (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm only commenting here because you brough up my exchange with Kowal2701.

  While I'm not really sure what Kowal2701 meant regarding WP:NONAZI (I looked over my edit history on that page and didn't see anything about Trumpism on that page) I would say that you should probably look at WP:NOTTHEM a bit. I've had my conflicts with Kowal2701 but they're not the ones who appear to have been edit warring here. And edit warring is something I do take a very dim view on. It's an unproductive way to correct errors on the encyclopedia and leads to unnecessary friction. Frankly: there are very good reasons for our policies on edit warring. In fact my stance on that is part of the reason that my main space edits are outnumbered by my project space edits: I think that edit conflicts should be removed from main space and to article talk as fast as possible and should be discussed thoroughly at article talk prior to resumption of mainspace edits. I've opposed blocks here largely because I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with indef blocks as methods of remedy when other remedies will work but the balance of the evidence is that you were doing quite a bit of edit warring on these pages. And that is on you. Please believe me that Wikipedia is much more lenient on people who recognize their mistakes and commit to not repeat them than it is on people who try to deflect to others when their mistakes are identified. I do hope you listen to me on this because it does look like my opposition to a block is in the minority here. You would be well-advised to change approaches while you still have the chance to, if it's not already too late. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Meatpuppetry is the main issue for me, and it doesn’t seem to have been talked about much. What BMWF references in their first sentence is a long term on-and-off edit war between me vs NCT, a bunch of IPs, and BlackVulcanX over section titles at History of Africa. I’m pretty sure it was the first (and only) edit war I’d been in and had no clue how to handle it, but BlackVulcanX kept making some banal WP:ICHY comment and then reverted back each time. Frankly, idk how BMWF would know about that unless a) they’re in touch with them off-wiki, or b) they are BlackVulcanX. I did not stalk anyone, I became aware of FMSky’s AE thread when he filed an SPI against NCT and BMWF because I had created that page and had it on my watchlist.

  (Btw have we had conflicts? I only remember disagreeing w you in a couple ANI threads, mostly because I didn’t know the context) Kowal2701 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your history of stalking NCT and your previous disputes were made obvious after your second spurious SPI report. BMWF (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Re NONAZIS, what I was referencing was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 216#Upgrade WP:NONAZIS to policy. I seem to have misremembered and conflated Trumpists with the far-far-right, but tbf they’re pretty indistinguishable Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I was pretty upset over politically motivated attacks on Wikipedia when I posted that suggestion and abandoned it when I calmed down. Simonm223 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD disruptive editing

• OCDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If I am in the wrong place, please let me know where I should be instead, but on to the point. User:OCDD is persistently making major Cricket InfoBox changes without proper discussion or providing a valid reason for doing so. Many contributions have been reverted. They were previously blocked for edit warring. They do not seem to be interesting in collaboration. They also told this editor they would be blocked over a dispute of what host (Pakistan or UAE) should be listed in India Cricket Team InfoBoxes rather than collaborating: [183]. Also replied to me No template was removed here: [184] when I was mentioning content and not just templates. If I am not in the right place, please let me know. It is just a concern about editing behaviour I have. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For context, there's been some back and forth editing of Template:Infobox cricket team without any prior discussion on the template talk. I've reverted everything in the short term and asked for a pause and some proper discussion at the template talk. There has been some discussion of the related issue at WT:CRIC#Old style Test Championship / Test Rankings. I've been slightly involved there and generally feel that OCDD is trying to push a very specific view on a very minor and not very important point. It's gotten a little unpleasant perhaps, and I've not been struck by OCDD's ability to compromise on other issues either (Virat Kohli and the issue of colourful tables, for example) and iirc there was an issue with edit warring a little while ago? This diff from the template edits today seemed quite intemperate in that context and I felt that this diff demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise that I find a little unhelpful. But we all do that at times of course. e2a: I should probably also mention that I've had need today to twice revert a bunch of edits which ended up introducing invalid infobox parameters into the cricket team infobox. It's probably connected with the back and forth editing of the template, but I didn't get a response to my initial note on OCDD's talk page, simply a reversion of my edit on one of the pages Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, the invalid parameter was fixed which is why the edits were reverted. Probably the other user that had an issue with the parameter reverted the edits which is why it ended up showing as invalid yet again. OCDD (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As for the user above, I don't need to remind you many times you have reverted correct edits because you simply thought they weren't. And then you had to self-revert after realizing. And your insistence to work the way you personally do seems very forced and not how everyone prefers to function. OCDD (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure which of us you're responding to here. Perhaps you could clarify? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a significant concern about this diff from just now. It seems to suggest an unwillingness fo compromise and that there's a battleground type of mentality being adopted at times. I'm sure this comes out of frustration, but, as I pointed out on the user's talk page, simply reverting reasoned edits without any kind of explanation would seem to be lacking in consideration for other viewpoints Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted. I'm not the one reverting any of your edits in the first place. So the unwillingness to compromise and "I know best" mentality is yours. Self reflection maybe? And the "As for the user above" message is not for you. It's for "Servite et contribuere" who has repeatedly made mistakes during their everyday reverting sprees. OCDD (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Well if you wouldn't make these changes without explaining why, I wouldn't need to revert them. I honestly find these unexplained changes a waste of time so I just use the simple full revert and let other users restore stuff that should be there so I can get on with my day. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Claiming you just revert changes randomly because you don't think the editor explained them no matter how right they are shows exactly how irresponsibly you act. No wonder many of your reverts are wrong. OCDD (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please try and make things clear so that people can understand what you're suggesting is happening. Diffs would help. I've provided diffs of where you've reverted edits where there are concerns. I might point at this diff from five minutes before you left the note above where you reverted my removal of obvious original research that you had reinstated. One minute after, in this diff you removed the OR that I was concerned about. You could, of course, just have done that in the first place Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Nonito Donaire article

• Songsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nonito Donaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been edit warring in the Nonito Donaire article since February 2025, reverting the subject's height and reach in the infobox using BoxRec as a source when Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines prefers the "tale of the tape" of the boxer's recent bout (diff); to wit: If their height is disputed, BoxRec is usually a sufficient source, but a tale of the tape from recent fights (always specify the network) may be better: Showtime Championship Boxing tale of the tape prior to the Opponent fight. I tried to resolve the issue in the article's talk page but they just keep on making unsubstantiated claims about Showtime Championship Boxing not being a reliable source for height and reach to justify their edits:

• "Reverted back to boxrec because pbc is known to provide false information about fighter's height and reach during tale of tape (March 5, 2025)",
• "PBC is not accurate (April 5, 2025)"

The user reverted the height again on June 5 with the summary "Updated", which I undid as it's not what the source says. Recommending a topic ban from the Nonito Donaire article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I too have been in an editing war with said user. He seems to be changing the height and reach of a lot of boxers like Ramon Cardenas, Sam Goodman, and Junto Nakatani without adding any reliable references to back up his changes. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD disruptive editing

• OCDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If I am in the wrong place, please let me know where I should be instead, but on to the point. User:OCDD is persistently making major Cricket InfoBox changes without proper discussion or providing a valid reason for doing so. Many contributions have been reverted. They were previously blocked for edit warring. They do not seem to be interesting in collaboration. They also told this editor they would be blocked over a dispute of what host (Pakistan or UAE) should be listed in India Cricket Team InfoBoxes rather than collaborating: [185]. Also replied to me No template was removed here: [186] when I was mentioning content and not just templates. If I am not in the right place, please let me know. It is just a concern about editing behaviour I have. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For context, there's been some back and forth editing of Template:Infobox cricket team without any prior discussion on the template talk. I've reverted everything in the short term and asked for a pause and some proper discussion at the template talk. There has been some discussion of the related issue at WT:CRIC#Old style Test Championship / Test Rankings. I've been slightly involved there and generally feel that OCDD is trying to push a very specific view on a very minor and not very important point. It's gotten a little unpleasant perhaps, and I've not been struck by OCDD's ability to compromise on other issues either (Virat Kohli and the issue of colourful tables, for example) and iirc there was an issue with edit warring a little while ago? This diff from the template edits today seemed quite intemperate in that context and I felt that this diff demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise that I find a little unhelpful. But we all do that at times of course. e2a: I should probably also mention that I've had need today to twice revert a bunch of edits which ended up introducing invalid infobox parameters into the cricket team infobox. It's probably connected with the back and forth editing of the template, but I didn't get a response to my initial note on OCDD's talk page, simply a reversion of my edit on one of the pages Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, the invalid parameter was fixed which is why the edits were reverted. Probably the other user that had an issue with the parameter reverted the edits which is why it ended up showing as invalid yet again. OCDD (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As for the user above, I don't need to remind you many times you have reverted correct edits because you simply thought they weren't. And then you had to self-revert after realizing. And your insistence to work the way you personally do seems very forced and not how everyone prefers to function. OCDD (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure which of us you're responding to here. Perhaps you could clarify? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a significant concern about this diff from just now. It seems to suggest an unwillingness fo compromise and that there's a battleground type of mentality being adopted at times. I'm sure this comes out of frustration, but, as I pointed out on the user's talk page, simply reverting reasoned edits without any kind of explanation would seem to be lacking in consideration for other viewpoints Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted. I'm not the one reverting any of your edits in the first place. So the unwillingness to compromise and "I know best" mentality is yours. Self reflection maybe? And the "As for the user above" message is not for you. It's for "Servite et contribuere" who has repeatedly made mistakes during their everyday reverting sprees. OCDD (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OCDD Well if you wouldn't make these changes without explaining why, I wouldn't need to revert them. I honestly find these unexplained changes a waste of time so I just use the simple full revert and let other users restore stuff that should be there so I can get on with my day. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Claiming you just revert changes randomly because you don't think the editor explained them no matter how right they are shows exactly how irresponsibly you act. No wonder many of your reverts are wrong. OCDD (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please try and make things clear so that people can understand what you're suggesting is happening. Diffs would help. I've provided diffs of where you've reverted edits where there are concerns. I might point at this diff from five minutes before you left the note above where you reverted my removal of obvious original research that you had reinstated. One minute after, in this diff you removed the OR that I was concerned about. You could, of course, just have done that in the first place Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Nonito Donaire article

• Songsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nonito Donaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been edit warring in the Nonito Donaire article since February 2025, reverting the subject's height and reach in the infobox using BoxRec as a source when Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines prefers the "tale of the tape" of the boxer's recent bout (diff); to wit: If their height is disputed, BoxRec is usually a sufficient source, but a tale of the tape from recent fights (always specify the network) may be better: Showtime Championship Boxing tale of the tape prior to the Opponent fight. I tried to resolve the issue in the article's talk page but they just keep on making unsubstantiated claims about Showtime Championship Boxing not being a reliable source for height and reach to justify their edits:

• "Reverted back to boxrec because pbc is known to provide false information about fighter's height and reach during tale of tape (March 5, 2025)",
• "PBC is not accurate (April 5, 2025)"

The user reverted the height again on June 5 with the summary "Updated", which I undid as it's not what the source says. Recommending a topic ban from the Nonito Donaire article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I too have been in an editing war with said user. He seems to be changing the height and reach of a lot of boxers like Ramon Cardenas, Sam Goodman, and Junto Nakatani without adding any reliable references to back up his changes. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:ValerieCherishBerman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user seems to have strong WP:IDHT problems, since they don't use talk pages of articles. And accuse a lot of people of vandalism, while most of the time it is not vandalism. This diff also contains WP:IDHT, and an unfounded allegation of vandalism: [187]. The same allegations of vandalism, with shouting: [188]. And revenge warnings, with the same accusations of vandalism: [189]. [190] Telling others to take it to the talk page, without actually going to the talk page.

This user seems to be unable to cooperate with other editors with WP:Civility. A pblock from articlespace to make them use the talk page is warranted. They also assume they can skip the establishment of consensus, and edit war their version through, which is very problematic. Codename AD ^talk 16:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the incorrect edits to the page and you’re complaining about me? I think it’s laughable you think I care. Go ahead and ban my account, I’ll make another in ten seconds to fix any incorrect errors because I actually care about Wikipedia being accurate. Your behavior is smarmy, arrogant, and apparently in the best interest of leaving wrong information on pages that need to be cleaned. Multiple times you have argued in favor of incorrect information staying on the page - ergo, you’re the one with the problematic behavior. ValerieCherishBerman (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No to mention that you lied about my making personal attacks. Removing incorrect information is not an attack, but nice try! Can’t wait to be banned so I can make a new account to do the exact same thing :) ValerieCherishBerman (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

An explicit threat of WP:SOCKing "ten seconds" after any potential block? Departure– (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Calling someone's edits "vandalism" when they're not actually vandalism is considering a personal attack. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding incorrect information to a page when the correct information is vandalism. Nothing personal about it, no name calling, nothing. But keep on making yourself the hero! ValerieCherishBerman (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also going to add to this copying over their warning to Drmies' page (with the wrong signature), and for Bgsu's above comment, a level 4 NPA warning on Codename AD's page - There was literally NO personal attack, I repeated their message VERBATIM after they participated in vandalization of a Wikipedia page, reverting correct information to incorrect information. Please do not make up FALSE information, such as a personal attack, when one never occurred. If false accusations of vandalism is a personal attack, note that this final diff came after ValerieCherishBerman's final warning for NPA. Departure– (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

So they can warn me for FIXING bad edits but I can’t warn them for leaving the bad edits in? Makes total sense…. I did their exact behavior back to them but I’m in violation. Uh huh. Sure. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:AF (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say they're WP:NOTHERE by now. The stated explicit intention to sock and obvious LOUT in this thread means we may need a checkuser. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy attacking me, just because I give him/her a warning Sparkschu Itai (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Anther admin has blocked. Thank you for the report.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sutyarashi repeatedly reverting sourced content on Heera Mandi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m reporting User:Sutyarashi for edit warring on the Heera Mandi article. I added well-sourced content about Heera Mandi’s historical existence during the Mughal, Durrani, and Sikh periods. My edits included references and I opened a discussion on the article's Talk page.

Despite this, the user keeps reverting the content without proper explanation or participating in the Talk page.

Here are diffs of the reverts: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heera_Mandi&diff=1295575638&oldid=1295574905 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heera_Mandi&diff=prev&oldid=1295574905 (add more if available)

Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heera_Mandi#Durrani,_Sikh,_Mughal_History

Please assist in stopping the disruption. Thank you.

@P1ckm33: A few things.

1. Please go to User talk:Sutyarashi, edit it to add "{{subst:ANI-notice}}", and sign your message by typing four tildes (~~~~). This is you informing them that they're being discussed here, which you always have to do whenever you make a report to this page.
2. Your link to a discussion at Talk:Heera Mandi doesn't work. As it stands right now that page hasn't been edited in months.
3. At that user's talk page, you asked them to "avoid using such platform for ethnic agenda". Are you saying Sutyarashi is editing inappropriately because of their ethnicity? City of Silver 19:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:P1ckm33, you are the one being disruptive by carelessly adding raw AI-generated garbage and insisting that there's nothing wrong with using AI. Your references included two books with wrong ISBNs that do not verify the content, as LLMs cannot easily read books. The links in this post are all broken. (courtesy diffs by User:Sutyarashi: [191], [192])

P1ckm33 is continuing to disrupt Wikipedia with LLM garbage after making this post, see [193], [194] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify — I’m not accusing the user because of their ethnicity, but because of how they’re editing.

It really feels like they’re pushing an ethnic agenda through their edits. For example, they used a Bollywood article to add biased claims against Pashtuns, which don’t belong in an encyclopedic article. I tried to fix it multiple times with better sources, but they kept reverting and then accused me of using AI-generated content instead of addressing the facts.

It’s not just that article either. They’ve been going through my edit history and reverting other unrelated pages I’ve worked on — almost like they’re targeting me personally. I don’t understand why, but it’s becoming disruptive.

I’m raising this because it’s affecting multiple pages and feels like they’re using Wikipedia to push a specific ethnic narrative. P1ckm33 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@P1ckm33: Sutyarashi isn't the only person who thinks you're using ChatGPT or another artificial intelligence service to edit Wikipedia. Do you? City of Silver 19:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I told him/her very respectfully that they should discuss with me before reverting my edits so we could figure things out together. I also pointed out that using a Bollywood article, which was about the Heeramandi movie and had nothing to do with historical facts, is not appropriate. But he/she still kept reverting my edits across multiple articles. P1ckm33 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@P1ckm33: Sorry but again: Sutyarashi isn't the only person who thinks you're using ChatGPT or another artificial intelligence service to edit Wikipedia. Do you? City of Silver 19:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m new to Wikipedia and I’ve been trying to contribute in good faith. I did not use ChatGPT or any kind of AI to make my edits. The accusation that I did is completely false.

Even if someone thought I used AI, the respectful and appropriate thing would’ve been to discuss it with me first rather than instantly revert my work or accuse me publicly.

What’s also troubling is that this user seems to have friends or allies who are grouping up and targeting me across different articles. That’s intimidating for a new user like me, especially when I’m just trying to improve the content based on reliable sources.

I’m doing my best to follow the rules and edit constructively, and I’d appreciate being treated fairly and respectfully like anyone else. P1ckm33 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Putting potential LLM use to one side, you did not start an article talk page discussion, as seen here. If an editor reverts your edit then the correct thing to do is to discuss at the article talk page, not to edit-war by reinstating the edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is a comment where you left in the LLM reply at the top and a suggestion for a further prompt at the bottom. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

P1ckm33 is very obviously lying about using ChatGPT or something similar to edit. They've had wild, completely unnatural swings in grammar, many sources they use aren't accessible online because they're probably AI inventions (as User:Helpful Raccoon pointed out with the mismatched ISBNs), and, well, see Draft:Punjabization of Pakistan for dozens of uses of the notorious em dash. This discussion now needs a response from an admin. City of Silver 20:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I just thought of something else per Phil Bridger's message here. In P1ckm33's original report they claimed to have "opened a discussion on the article's Talk page", linked to a "Talk page discussion" that still doesn't exist more than three hours later, and failed to respond when asked about it. How did P1ckm33 write a very distinct, substantial subject line ("Durrani, Sikh, Mughal History") for a discussion edit but forget to actually make that edit? Well, clearly, they didn't and that link is also AI-generated fiction. City of Silver 20:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have now definitively determined that OP was lying about LLM use. Special:Diff/1295429770 includes the LLM reply at the top of the text. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more prompts left in some edit summaries. E.g., Special:Permalink/1295419809. I'd assume that any substantive text addition by this user is LLM-generated and should be challenged for accuracy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aeontamaraw

• Aeontamaraw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm here to report User:Aeontamaraw for continuous posting of unreferenced edits and no communication. Throughout their years in Wikipedia, they've been told many times to post references. Their talkpage is full of warnings and they don't ever respond to any talk page messages.[195][196] When they get reverted for posting unreferenced edits, they simply restore their edits without no explanation.[197] The editor doesn't use the edit summary. For an account that was created back in 2008, their behavior has lasted way too long for them to still not cooperate/communicate with other editors in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Aeontamaraw was notified about this ANI report through their talkpage[198]. Based from their contribution page, they have already posted 7 times in Wikipedia since then, and just completely ignored about this ANI report towards them. They also continue to make unreferenced edits (with no explanation through their edit summary) after being warned yesterday regarding unreferenced edits.[199][200][201] Hotwiki (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

In most cases, adding material without adding sources is allowed, even if it isn't the best thing an editor can do. According to the relevant policy, a citation is mandatory for direct quotations, contentious BLP material, and material likely to be challenged. Otherwise, unless the factual accuracy of the material actually is challenged by another editor (usually by adding a citation needed tag), it's not mandatory to include a citation with it, though uncited material can be removed by any editor. To quote from the same policy:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it.

This is separate to any communication issue, of course, and I make no judgement on whether that belongs here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution page, Aeontamaraw have completely ignored this ANI report. They also continue to make unreferenced edits, removing/changing content in several articles without references and no explanation.[202][203][204] Hotwiki (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fan of wiki223344

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Fan of wiki223344 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The only purpose for this account seems to be adding the same paragraph of negative, unsourced, opinion-based content over and over to the article Gregg Ritchie, which is about a living person. They have now gone past the final warning after having been reverted 5 times this month and once last month. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV. For clear-cut cases like this one you should feel free to request blocks there in the future. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I regularly report users there, but as the page says it is for "obvious vandalism or obvious spam", which this is not. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pages related to Panathinaikos B.C. and Greek professional basketball being chronically disruptively edited by IP hopper

I am reporting anonymous editor 2a02 for introducing deliberate factual misinformation, or at minimum unsourced information, on articles of basketball player pages; particularly articles concerning players who have been on the Panathinaikos roster. 2a02 has been warned multitudinously against this editing behavior, and has been reverted by multiple editors including myself.

2a02 states that players on the Panathinaikos roster have left the team, while never introducing sources backing these claims up. (An example of a typical edit.) (S)he pairs the edits with nonsensical edit summaries, such as "Hhh", "Jkj", or "Nnn". The editor has been warned against this as well. Other than these dumb edit summaries, I am not aware of any meaningful communication offered by 2a02.

A few hours ago, I was able to successfully petition for the Tibor Pleiß page to be semi-protected: an otherwise nondescript page which consistently falls short of 20 edits per year, and the only page listed below which is on my watchlist. 2a02 has bothered the page ten times in the last four months, totaling 24 edits, including information that Pleiß was a free agent who had "left" the team in 2026. However, after the semi-protection, 2a02 then likewise edited the Lorenzo Brown page. With the Tyler Dorsey page, I have also observed disquieting changes to personal life details. It is clear that semi-protecting one page isn't good enough to combat this IP hopper, hence why I am bringing the situation here.

Affected pages (sample list):
Tibor Pleiß (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lorenzo Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moses Wright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nick Weiler-Babb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nikola Milutinov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Panathinaikos B.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nikos Chougkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Naz Mitrou-Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Saben Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tyler Dorsey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Panathinaikos B.C. current roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moustapha Fall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs used (sample list):
2a02:587:a69:100:9483:608d:2469:2485 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (most recent as of this post)
2a02:85f:e06f:a413:26a0:c600:9c98:a4fd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:85f:fc59:8501:f117:28d9:c42a:d7b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:1388:2147:dc1::ae2a:df60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:587:a67:e800:8592:6b76:aa77:c1a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:85f:e0b1:9f84:e696:c43b:3330:e6e2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:587:a6d:b100:fcda:5d3f:e06e:fedd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:85f:fd12:7254:7d9e:62de:56b7:1218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:85f:e0b1:9f84:dcea:908b:13b4:9b9c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a06:c701:9936:b800:faa8:bc1e:f2b7:ba3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2a02:85f:e06f:a413:a5bd:b7a6:5b8b:4e1c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

After the above post, 2a02 unconstructively edited the pages of Lorenzo Brown (again), Nikola Milutinov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) three times (most recent edit), and Filip Petrušev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Also, 2A02:587:8D08:7909:3197:6DAC:AA9A:FC96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a relevant address not listed above. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted constant unsourced edits by some of these IPs on the Tyson Ward and Filip Petrušev articles, trying to change them into Olympiacos B.C. players. The Tyson Ward article was semi-protected upon my request a few weeks ago, which seemed to stop the edits. The user or users behind these IPs seem to base themselves off rumors of alleged transfers to justify their edits. An IP that made some of the Tyson Ward edits (94.65.157.5) did write 'His transfer to oly' in some edit summaries. Similar edits have been made to the T. J. Shorts article, trying to change his current team to Panathinaikos B.C.. As you suggest, the edits not only target basic information on the player but sometimes seem to vandalize random elements of the article. Other articles attacked include Panathinaikos women's basketball and Olympiacos women's basketball.

Other IPs used:

2a02:1388:408a:ba04:f88f:97ff:febc:539e

2a02:587:a61:cc00:3585:641a:ecd1:aeb4

2a02:1388:157:1698::8449:fbb2

2a02:1388:214a:fdb2::a7f1:ad61 ArnauC37 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Not much to add, except that I've noticed the same pattern of nonconstructive edits. I've reverted many since mid-May. Here's one additional IP which isn't listed above:

2A02:587:A61:CC00:9483:608D:2469:2485 Jessicapierce (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

These seem to be the offending ranges in question:

• 2a02:1388:2140::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2a02:587:a60::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2a02:85f:e000::/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2a02:85f:fc00::/39 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

They look to be quite wide, but not really that active aside from the vandal in question. wizzito | say hello! 03:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the volume of those ranges that seem to be the same vandal, I’d recommend range blocks for some period of time. I have also been cleaning up this person’s vandalism and would love for it to stop. Rikster2 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Rikster2 that a rangeblock should be in store to combat the situation. I hope that 3-6 months would be sufficient. Less time than that is less likely to deter the vandal. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Title modify error

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I do have a problem regarding this article https://w.wiki/EVGs

cause when I first started it I could nou set a proper title for it ('Code for Romania') and after that I couldn't change it anymore. I checked out on procedures and how to articles, but I just don't have the buttons necessary in order to modify the title.

Please help up with a solution, either modifying the title directly or the right steps, in case I have not accessed the right guide.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Paulexandru (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The link you provided appears to be a page in your userspace on Romanian Wikipedia, so you will need to ask for help there. People here can only assist in matters dealing with the English Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of unsourced and unreliable sources in a BLP artcle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suspected Sockpuppetry / Disruptive Editing

I previously warned user User:Bluishebrye for repeatedly adding unreliable sources to the Ashley Sarmiento article. Despite the warning, they continued. Shortly after, an IP user posted on my talk page asking me to stop editing the same article. I suspect the registered account and the IP are operated by the same person to evade accountability. Additionally, the IP address has also contributed to the sandbox of that registered user, further suggesting they are the same individual. Please investigate for possible sockpuppetry and continued disruptive editing. - Arćrèv1 • talk 00:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Arcrev1, you didn't identify the editor you are talking about. Without knowing who the editor is, not much action can happen. If you want there to be an investigation for sockpuppetry, file a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: User:Bluishebrye, she just removed her name. - Arćrèv1 • talk 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, Arcrev1, I didn't realize that you initially included their name and the editor later removed it from this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Arcrev1, you also forgot to notify them about this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. I don't want to file a sockpuppetry case since I don’t have enough proof, but I’m requesting action regarding this user's behavior. They continue adding unsourced or unreliable content to the Ashley Sarmiento article despite warnings. An IP user also messaged me, falsely accusing me of being disruptive and even claiming to be the subject’s manager or representative. - Arćrèv1 • talk 01:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that Bluishebrye is editing while logged out. I did not use the CheckUser tool to find this out, so this isn't "confirmed" just because a CheckUser said it. I'll block a few of the IPs for inappropriately editing while logged out and semi-protect the article in question. I don't really know what to do about Bluishebrye, but I'm not listening to heavy metal any more, so I guess maybe a warning will suffice? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact they came here to remove their name from this report is...let's go with 'troubling'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any follow-up on WP:PAID or WP:COIDISCLOSE. No comment in this thread, either. I think an indefinite block is starting to look good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I've partially blocked Bluish from their most active namespaces, for one week, as they continued editing without engaging here. Hoping to see a comment here soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Since they've continued to respond only with nonsense, I changed it to an indefinite site block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peru history vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1388:1B8E:4D5B:C47A:164C:D15A:19DC

They are reverting articles that were previously reverted by an admin.

The edits to the Peruvian war of Independence too are just so strange too, adding an antisemitism infobox when its never mentioned in the text? and uncited numbers? When the User Eddu16 was reported and found to be a sockpuppet? (I think). This is the third at least time I think there has been some vandalism on these pages at least from the same person?

Would it be possible to get some longer-term protection on these pages?

Perhaps targeting everything that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eddu16 and the previous account edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeChatiliers Pupper (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

2001:1388:1B8E:4D5B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

The /64 range pulls up a bit more edits in a similar vein. I'm not sure that they really match Eddu16's MO, the obsession with fanciful claims of antisemitic purges seems new. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: by some miracle I remembered to check back on this. Mobile range looks to be 2001:1388:1B8E:0:0:0:0:0/47. Some very recent edits including today. They restored quite a few obscure pages originally authored by Eddu16. Perhaps they rubbed themselves in something new, but the overall scent match is still quite strong.

Anyway I've been idly reverting most of it while I tidied up IRL, actually quite a bit of it had already been reverted as random disruption and AlejandroFC took care of the one case that was not a recreation. Possible I've missed a bit, if someone else wants to double check. They'll be back so I suggest watching those redirects, because I certainly won't have time to. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we've seen enough from the IP to justify a block, but I chose to get involved by reverting their edits and thus will not do so myself. I don't think that there's enough disruption at any one page to justify page protection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill I don't see any edits from that range after your warning, so this may be stale by now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their edits, except to the template which is worthless, but I'll nominate that for deletion in a bit if no one else has gotten around to it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Protect No Kings protests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• No Kings protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced info is being added constantly, included by just recently a source in the lede that uses a non-reliable Bluesky page. Semi-protect the page please. Des Vallee (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Des Vallee (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

For info, WP:RPP is thataway. Danners430 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Legal Threat in Deletion Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Marziabiblio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is was a poorly formatted Deletion Review request made by Marziabiblio at the top of Deletion Review which says:

This is a formal appeal to review the deletion of the article “Lorenzo Muscoso”, which has been removed despite the presence of extensive and verifiable national and international sources.

Among the key sources: – ANSA, Italy’s national press agency – RAI Cultura, state broadcaster (including today’s feature on the subject, June 15, 2025) – La Repubblica, Famiglia Cristiana, RAI News, DVIDS (U.S. Dept. of Defense), RTS Serbia – Numerous references to public education, diplomacy, literature, and cultural programs Despite this, the deletion discussion included expressions of open hostility, with contributors using phrases like: > “made up awards,” “run-of-the-mill filmmaker,” “spam from LinkedIn,” “non-notable productions”

These are not editorial assessments — they are derogatory and defamatory remarks that violate Wikipedia’s core policies:

and

Moreover, numerous Wikipedia pages exist on lesser-known figures, with far less reliable sourcing. The double standard suggests an environment of personal bias and hostility, not one of editorial neutrality.

This is not simply a content dispute — it raises serious ethical concerns. Under Italian law, such public remarks may fall under Article 595 of the Penal Code (defamation). This should not be ignored simply because it occurred in a community discussion. I request that this page be reinstated or at least relisted for a balanced and neutral discussion, free from personal resentment or ideological filters.

Thank you for your attention.

This request was added by this edit [205], but it appears that it was then removed by a bot (because it wasn't added properly). Although the request has been removed, the reference to Italian law appeared to be a legal threat, and in any case intended to have a chilling effect. When the single-purpose account realizes that the malformed request was removed, they are likely to make either another malformed request or a properly formatted request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Saying that content might be defamatory is not a legal threat. A legal threat is "I'm going to sue you." Saying "this might be illegal" is not a legal threat. This point has been made so many times that it's literally part of the WP:No legal threats policy, which has a whole section called "What is not a legal threat," which has a subsection specifically on defamation, which says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." I'm not sure how much clearer the policy could possibly be, and I don't understand why anyone would take "Under Italian law, such public remarks may fall under Article 595 of the Penal Code (defamation)" as a legal threat. Also, saying "in any case intended to have a chilling effect" is baseless and violates WP:AGF. This ANI complaint was not cool, Robert. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of complaints get posted here because an editor has used vaguely legal language. But a "threat", at least to me, shows an intent by the editor to take action which this doesn't. But I agree with Levivich that simply saying content may be illegal or dematory isn't a threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is, as noted, not a legal threat. It is, or could reasonably be taken to be, implied as intending a chilling effect though - AGF is not a suicide pact. I don't think there's anything blockable here yet but the user mentioned by the OP may need cautioning as to what is and is not good faith themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If I say something is a BLP violation, that doesn't mean I intend a chilling effect. If I say something is copyvio, also doesn't mean I intend a chilling effect. If I say something is defamation, also doesn't mean I intend a chilling effect. People who raise concerns that content is defamatory, or a BLP violation, or copyvio, or not supported by the sources, or not neutral, or whatever, they are not intending a chilling effect. People are not doing anything wrong by raising concerns about content. Raising concerns about content--editing content--is kind of what this whole website is for. Disagreement and criticism are not against policy. There is nothing in this user's message that makes it any different than any of the other thousands of similar messages that are posted on this website about problems with some content somewhere, and so there is no reason whatsoever to bring this person to ANI or remind them of anything, or do anything at all other than apologize for wasting their time. This person did nothing wrong. Levivich (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think they did do something wrong, and I think we should caution editors that behave this way to change up their approach.

"People are not doing anything wrong by raising concerns about content." Yes, and I think that applies to the person at AfD who said that the article subject was in "non-notable roles". To respond to that by calling the statement "derogatory and defamatory" is to do wrong. So is "This is not simply a content dispute — it raises serious ethical concerns. Under Italian law, such public remarks may fall under Article 595 of the Penal Code (defamation)." So is the aspersion about "personal resentment or ideological filters". If we're guessing about motivations, I think it's a better guess that these remarks are intended to have a chilling effect than that the AfD participants were motivated by personal resentment.

I don't think ANI was the right first stop for this, but I'd have cautioned them against this conduct. I think it's fair to criticize RMC for bringing this here and fair to apologize to a new user for rough treatment, but I think "not doing anything wrong" is leading them astray. We could instead point them to WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats:

Always choose your words carefully when starting or responding to any discussions or disputes, as well as with any messages or communication with other users; you must refrain from making any comments that other editors may translate or interpret (even incorrectly) as legal threats. For example, if you assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret your communication as implying such a threat. Use less charged wording, such as "that statement about me is not true, and I ask that it be corrected."

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point, I struck my comment above. Those are not OK things to say about other editors' comments. (Sorry, Robert and The Bushranger!) Levivich (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

No apology is required, User:Levivich. This is an edge case in which neither of us was completely right at first. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all good. Sometimes making mistakes is the best way to learn! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, since I have been corrected, ANI may not be the best forum for this question, but you all are here to answer it. Should someone do the new user a favor by properly entering their Deletion Review request that was removed by a bot because it was incorrectly entered, or should we just let it pass as a DRV request that fell into a bit bucket? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO if a deletion needs review, more than one person will think so, so someone else will probably request a deletion review. If no one else requests it, then the deletion probably didn't need review. YMMV. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And the request is clearly frivolous because it consists only of AfD-round-2 arguments. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oilcocaine all over again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Primohare (talk · contribs) keeps making hundreds of edits like Oilcocaine (talk · contribs) did before being blocked as a sock. Can an admin please roll back the recent edits (not including Talk posts)? A history of this LTA can be seen at User talk:Oilcocaine, and the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is Nittin Das. Confirmed to each other and likely to historicals.

• Primohare (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Turkchin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cetmex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Izno (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

They've been blocked since (thanks Izno). Is a rollback possible? _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Willondon: Could you please list the specific articles needing a rollback? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

All living edits (and for the ambitious sorts, all less current edits) are subject to WP:BANREVERT. Just walk down the list of contribs, and if you see edits with a current tag or without a reverted tag, those are the edits to revert. IznoPublic (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say the disruption began with this edit [206] at 04:35, 12 June 2025. If possible, the edits to talk pages should be kept, I would think. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I did a manual sweep, and I think I got most/all of the troublesome edits. You will see a few current edits in the recent history. Those were ones that I didn't see as a problem. Thanks, all. I expect this can be closed now. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TP Abuse and canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Baratiiman (talk · contribs), who had been TBANned for WP:NPA on a CTOPS article [207] [208] and indeffed for doubling down and conducting another WP:NPA on another user within 24 hours [209], has now tripled down on yet another user who reverted another of their unencyclopedic edits and is now attempting to canvass support from Jimmy Wales of all people [210]. This, along with making another NPA and immediately lying that they had done so [211] [212] [213] in response to their block, demonstrates the user’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for WP:NOTHERE behavior and instead make scapegoats of other decent editors for their own failings. Borgenland (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

As the banning and blocking admin, I’ll just add that Baratiiman’s behavior both before and after the sanctions is quite possibly the least clue from an editor with so many edits that I’ve seen. I expect better from editors with 1,000 edits to their name, let alone 10k. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked user talk access for 6 months, to run concurrently with the existing indef block. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I initially got confused with the duration when reading their contribs page but I think I get the gist of it now. Borgenland (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Yeah, the concurrent blocking thing is brand new, and the UI isn't the best at showing it right now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ScythianR1b

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ScythianR1b (talk · contribs)

I believe this editor is WP:NOTHERE. They made an unexplained removal to Primary Chronicle and reverted me without explanation. When they decided to appear again, they decided to go on a reverting spree out of spite, which included restoring BLP violations.[214] Of course, no explanation as to why they reverted me. They already have a wall of warnings due to disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You reverted me twice without explanation. I was only returning the favor. You deleted a lot of well-sourced material added by another new user, with the edit summary "more garbage". If you want to be treated with civility, you should afford civility to new users. ScythianR1b (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You were already warned repeatedly on your talk page to not remove content without giving a valid reason. You have not once responded to me on a talk page or joined the talk page discussion where this has been discussed in the past. You say I removed a lot of "well-sourced" material, except this was already discussed at the BLP noticeboard and other editors agreed that this should be removed from the article due to the sourcing being poor. If you do not think that this is a garbage source, then I don't know what to tell you. Mellk (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:rsjaffe issued a time-limited block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LarienXiao

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LarienXiao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user makes legal threats on Xiao Zhan by removing most of the content without proper consensus on the talk page. This user also removes content that this user thinks this content is censored. Migfab008 (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The legal threats are unambiguous which is unfortunate since the editor actually kind of has a point and should have presented it much better. A lot of the removed material looks an awful lot like WP:BLPGOSSIP and should probably be removed for BLP policy reasons. Edit warring is rife as editors on both ends of this conflict have created a very unstable page. Suggest deleting the queationable BLP material and then going to talk to discuss compliance with policy. As for the rest... WP:NLT is quite clear. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the language in the edit summaries is ambiguous. They aren't threatening to pursue legal action themselves they are saying that the content defames the subject and states they think the subject of the article should consider getting legal representation. That doesn't meet my understanding of an editor making a legal threat. I mean, all of the trigger words are there but no intent on their part of the editor to pursue a course of legal action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I sympathize with them regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just making sure everyone is aware that the page is protected now thanks to @Yamaguchi先生. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That seems to have helped a lot. I started a talk page discussion about low quality and UGC sources in BLP and, although nobody's replying, the lock has meant the edit war is, at least, over. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battleground editing in Polish elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:2025 Polish presidential election#Polish kurd is vandalizing again and the mother page is seeing subtle, sometimes overboard EW for quite some time, with the talk page section I highlighted being one of the latest episodes in uncollegial behavior by some editors. Note that the page had been under varying levels of protection in the past few months. I am not pointing fingers here but I have pinged some of the deeply-involved users. Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Well no amount of trying to solve disputes via the talk page worked neither did sourcing my info. I have nothing to be sorry for.

The “other side” has been biasing the article for a while now whether it be language that leans pro-Nawrocki (Mentzen nor NN didn’t endorse Nawrocki yet they make it sound that way as in the ref when I added that he doubts his credibility that part got removed even tho it was in the interview). Or when it comes to irregularities, they wanted to remove any reference of them and if not for my fight to include it there would be none at all. Now we are at a point in which the irregularities I so fought for to include in the article were taken into account by the Supreme Court and there is now a recount in 13 polling stations. I therefore deleted the current results as they’re not final and sourced the ruling. What did the other side do? Scream at me that waaaah official PKW results. The editor that I EW with and can’t resolve the dispute has an I am a Nawrocki voter reference in his user talk page so nice Octilllion (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking Octilllion for both the screed above and the rants on the aforementioned talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

What is Octilllion's prior warning and block history that justifies indef block without a community discussion? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

With remarks such as Octillion made on that talk page, a responsible admin shouldn't need a "Mother may I" from a drama board before acting to prevent further disruption. Ravenswing 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Except there's a difference between a block for few days for someone to cool down and insta-indeffing someone after a few heated comments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite certainly isn't infinite in this case, and should Octilllion agree to tone it down I'm fine with unblocking. What I've seen from Octilllian since the block has been the exact opposite of that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Never mind that going back through Octilllion's edit history, his outbursts, insults and aspersions weren't a matter of them having a single pissed off hour, but stretch well back. It's not remotely the pattern of a normally civil editor having a bad day ... and we'd expect a normally civil editor who had a bad day to own up and apologize. Octilllion's shown no inclination to do so. Ravenswing 01:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've reviewed their behavior and they are not polite, to say the least, and I agree they need to admit what they did wrong, apologize and promise to be more WP:CIVIL, which they have not done in their unblock. My concern, however, is that I believe that escalating warning and blocks exist for a reason, and jumping from nothing to indef is less than ideal. I'd prefer to see a def-duration block, at least one, before an indef. But it's not like I am going to die on the hill defending someone who so grossly violated WP:NPA (I did not realize how much he did so when I posted here first - I missed the hatted rant). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I see Octilllion has posted an unblock request, if another admin wants to take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:YellowFlag

• YellowFlag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect User:YellowFlag of serial use of WP:LLM. Evidence: their posts at WP:DRN. They have been warned before. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, I honestly didn't realise using a tool to help me phrase things more clearly, better understand how to follow Wikipedia policies and systems, efficiently research, and navigate contentious discussions were against any rules.

I've always made sure to read, edit, and reword everything before posting. I'm just trying to contribute to Wikipedia and to make this particular contentious article better reflect the human knowledge that's out there.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm here in good faith and to collaborate, if there's any specific concerns about phrasing or tone that I need to adjust, I'm happy to. YellowFlag (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@YellowFlag: LLMs produce rhetorically powerful but hollow phrases. LLMs can't reason. LLMs don't understand WP:PAGs. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Technically, they claim to understand them as they will try to offer an explanation for policies when you ask them to, and they're not terrible at that (since they rip off the information straight from the policy page). The main issue is that when you prompt them to directly generate texts for Wikipedia, their writing breaks several policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V by generating puffery and making up nonexistent sources. This is basically why it is said that LLMs can't understand policies and guidelines, as they'll ignore them when it needs to be aware of them the most. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Having read many LLM posts it's clear they don't understand PAGs. Maybe when you ask them to explain the policies directly it might work, but they appear unable to create arguments based on them. Instead they seem to generate banal statements loosely based on the subject of the policy without any understanding of the actually details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a terrible use of the word "technically". Technically, LLMs do not engage in any process that is recognizable as "understanding" anything in the sense that we mean when we apply this phrase to human beings. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This issue may be better suited to WP:AE, because there are multiple issues with this user and, understanding or not, they are "aware" and it's a CTOP. There has also been a lot of forum-shopping and WP:IDHT. For now, since YellowFlag acknowledges the LLM problem, perhaps this should be closed, and watched for what happens next. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't going to close a DRN request based on a claim by one of the editors that it was LLM-generated, but I did close it based on the admission by the originator that it was generated by a large language model. Maybe we need clearer guidelines that the use of large language models is not permitted, but maybe this is a case that should be obvious in advance. As I said in closing the DRN, Wikipedia is a two-decade-plus experiment in crowd-sourcing an encyclopedia, and the crowd is a crowd of humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, could some guidance on LLM usage possibly be added to DRN Rule A? Such an addition would be consistent with the January village pump RfC (which showed consensus for allowing closers to discount obviously LLM-generated comments) and the resulting WP:AITALK guideline (which enables editors to collapse obviously LLM-generated comments). — Newslinger talk 16:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary, but yes, it is unfortunately a good addition. I will add a statement that LLM text is not permitted to all of the DRN rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User incorrectly closing dozens of discussions.

User:Thomasfan1916 has over the past few days incorrectly closed literally dozens of deletion discussions across AfD, CfD, XfD, and more. Multiple users have commented on their talk page but they have not responded; I feel that the only course of action that makes sense is a mass-revert of all of their closures to allow more experienced editors to perform the closes, and a TBAN from closing discussions.

Some diffs are below; this is obviously nowhere near all of them as there are simply too many to list, but their contribs page is linked here for easy access.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3 CoconutOctopus talk 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I see from one of their userboxes that that editor hopes to be an admin one day. One of the first steps in that direction should be to follow WP:ADMINACCT when performing admin-style functions. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

They have edited since this was posted, closing/relisting 10 AfDs between 14:57 and 15:01 UTC. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked given the continuing editing since the note about this discussion. Izno (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And have now reverted the disruption at TFD (mostly). Have other things to do else I'd sort out AFD. Izno (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted a few more of the closures (although I left some where the outcome was obvious). More, especially the move requests, still remain. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I would point to this discussion at their TP regarding an RM where no response has been given. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Izno and Pppery for handling some of these closure reversions already. I found this ANI thread when I came to ask Thomasfan1916 about their closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ledbetter before bringing it to WP:deletion review. It has been relisted twice, but further discussions is needed because the only two responses are the article creator making no rebuttal to it failing WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH and another remarking "Keep but only once WP:RS are found", which was rightfully criticized by Geschichte as pointless. Would appreciate if this could be reverted too, but let me know if it requires enough discretion to need listing at WP:deletion review instead. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Stale hoaxes in userspace drafts

• Cunnakc20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I came across User:Cunnakc20/sandbox. This is a hoax that says Tony Quinn is a professional wrestler and director for the Halloween movies. Searching through userspace, I found a lot more in the following searches: Tony Quinn WWE Tony AKC, Tony Michael Quinn. Please note that this and this were made a by different user than who the sandbox belongs to..

This userspace draft originally incorporated hoaxes characters into the Halloween movies before changing them into professional wrestlers. Searching Halloween Tony Quinn brings up a few more. I was going to report this at SPI. However, these accounts are all inactive and there's at least 50 of them.. Oldest one I found was from 2019. Newest one is from 2024. I'm not sure if these accounts should be blocked or just have their userspace drafts speedy deleted for hoaxes. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I support a block per the history laid out above. Promotional and hoaxing content + a history of this behavior dating back years across potentially multiple accounts = WP:NOTHERE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, @MrLinkinPark333:, please remember to notify users involved in an ANI report. I have done so at User talk:Cunnakc20 -- I ask that you remember to do this with ANI threads going forward. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgot about that step. Thank you for the reminder. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I found some more: 8 4 and this one. Didn't find them earlier cause the last name Quinn isn't in the prose. I think it's the same person because almost all of them talk about the former members of the The Shield (professional wrestling). The only one that Im not 100% sure of is this. Should i leave a talk page message on all 80+ users? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, please don't go leave all these accounts messages. I've tagged them all for speedy deletion, but I think waiting to see what an admin has to say is good before proceeding at this point. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the advice. If anything should be done, User:Mister.terrible is the earliest account I found (April 2019). MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocking accounts that have not been used for years is usually wasted time yes there are some exceptions but usually that involves LTAs. As for the drafts, if they are blatant hoaxes you can tag for deletion as such, but I wouldn't recommend taking up your time hunting for them either. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment the user sandbox was deleted by Nabla under G3. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 04:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User repeatedly removing sourced content and committing WP:COPYVIO on Golla (caste)

Despite two warnings on their talk page (User:Sathyanarayana naidu), the user continues this behavior on Golla (caste) without engaging in discussion. Attempts to initiate dialogue on the user’s talk page have not stopped the behavior.

Here are the diffs: Removal of sourced content: [215] [216] [217] - Here they removed Dhangar, though it is present in the sources [218] [219].

Copyvio additions: [220] [221] Comparison with original source: [222] - Page 402 First Paragraph. This is a word to word copy from the source.

Warnings issued: [[223]] [224]

This is the most recent revert they made that includes removing Dhangar as well as reinstating word to word copy [225]

This is disruptive editing and undermines content integrity. Requesting admin intervention. Happy to provide more diffs if needed. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sharkslayer87, this editor hasn't been active on the project for several days but you still should have notified them of this discussion when you opened it. That's a mandatory step for anyone opening a complaint on a noticeboard and reminders are placed in several prominent places so you don't miss them. Please do so as soon as possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Liz, User has been notified. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Samlernerdreamer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Samlernerdreamer (talk · contribs) keeps spamming articles about rock climbing with a link to a website which, I have to assume, they are connected with. They have made one such edit today, but I reverted about 50 of their edits of a similar nature yesterday. Ignoring talk-page warning I left yesterdaay. Seasider53 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA/block evasion by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure how to file an LTA case, so I'm doing it here instead. 2A01:CB01:1071:F5EA:AC53:9497:FCC3:A971 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s edits seem to be exactly the same as those of blocked IP 213.254.176.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They also tried to submit two false vandal reports for @JamesEMonroe at AIV.

Diffs:

A971's edits: [226] [227]

Blocked IP's edits: [228] [229] [230]

Tagging @Untamed1910 as well since they were the first person to report them to AIV. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Update - I just notified them of this discussion despite their block so they have the opportunity to weigh in. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paid editing accusation blocking my article: related to historical Jewish research published and referenced in national media - Antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m an independent non-fiction author with three published books. Two of them are held in the Princeton University Library and the New York Public Library. I have contributed opinion pieces and cultural articles to respected media such as La Libre Belgique, L’Unione Sarda, and Arianna Editrice. My recent research focuses on Jewish heritage in Brussels, including the “Escalier des Juifs,” and has been cited by institutions such as the Institut Jonathas and featured on the independent blog Textes & Prétextes.

I recently submitted a draft biography via the Articles for Creation process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simone_Falanca

Without warning, User:Theroadislong accused me of undisclosed paid advocacy and placed a warning on my talk page suggesting I might be violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I have no financial or professional affiliation with any group, publisher, or employer. I disclosed nothing because there is nothing to disclose.

I have publicly responded and clarified this in full, but have received no reply. I believe this accusation is not only unfounded but possibly connected to the content of my work — historical Jewish memory and political corruption — which may have made my draft a target.

I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review this situation. I submitted my draft in good faith, followed editorial feedback, used reliable and independent sources, and now face an escalating issue with no justification or channel for resolution. Let me highlight that antisemitism is not freedom of speech but it is a crime. Hate crime, with serious legal consequences.

Thank you for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmarketinsider (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Per the big notice at the beginning of this page, you are required to notify other editors when you open ANI requests about them. I have now done this for you.

You have stated that you are the subject of Draft:Simone Falanca (Special:Diff/1296051298)--this is in fact a conflict of interest that you are expected to disclose up front. See WP:AUTOBIO.

The notice you received on your talk page is standard practice for potential cases of UPE/COI. Further, your username, "Artmarketinsider", is suggestive of a PR firm. You have since clarified the actual nature of your conflict of interest, but I can definitely see why Theroadislong chose to use the talk page notice that they did; I would have done the same.

The accusations of ulterior motive or antisemitism seems to be entirely spurious and I would suggest that you either retract it or provide actual evidence to substantiate it. See WP:ASPERSION, WP:AGF. Further, take care not to make legal threats, as they are immediate grounds for loss of editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The only thing blocking acceptance of your autobiography is independent sources which are woefully absent. Accusations of being antisemitic are a personal attack please retract. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Artmarketinsider, by the decline of your draft and the notice of a paid warning, you have determined another editor is therefore biased against you and then make gross personal attacks about them on a public board. Shame on you. Huge failure to assume good faith! That reviewer has committed a hate crime, because they didn't approve your autobiographical draft? This is a personal attack! You should retract and strikethrough these accusations before some reasonable admin blocks you. No, this stomping of feet is clearly intended to intimidate your next reviewer. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Artmarketinsider: no one has "accused" you of anything, without notice or with one. A standard (templated) query was posted on your talk page asking you to disclose any conflict of interest you may have, or else to state that you have none. There is no reason to read anything accusatory into that, and there certainly is absolutely no need to interpret that as anti-semitic or 'hate crime' related – accusing anyone of the latter without substantive grounds is in itself offensive, and I would strongly advise you to withdraw those remarks at once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Artmarketinsider (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Artmarketinsider (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Artmarketinsider while autobiography is not entirely against policy WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is a good essay for explaining the issues you are facing. It is strongly discouraged because it, on its face, represents a conflict of interest. You have a vested interest in yourself. As such the COI notice was very appropriate and had nothing to do with your religio-ethnic identity. It had to do with you writing an article about yourself. At minimum you will need reliable independent sources that demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Don't feel bad if you don't - most of us do not. You would probably want to look at WP:NAUTHOR for guidance on the notability standards for authors.

Finally please assume good faith. This is a core pillar of this project - we are civil to each other and do not immediately jump to the assumption of bigotry. You may want to apologize to the editor you implied was acting antisemitically. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As a further note, the entirety of Draft:Simone Falanca has exactly one sentence about work relating to Jews/Judaism. There's zero reason to assume that this at all played into Theroadislong's decision as an AfC reviewer. (It would still have been an inappropriate assumption to presume antisemitism even if the article were more substantially about Jewish topics, but in this case your assumption was not merely inappropriate but prima facie absurd). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I see he says he published a book through Goff books, looks like a self-published.[231] Not sure what Frilli is. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's entirely appropriate to consider the possibility that a new biographical article about someone whose "Guide to Online Art Buying" is due to be released on 1 October 2025 might be promotional, and to ask the editor whether they have a conflict of interest. NebY (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• User blocked by Rosguill for repeating legal threats on talk. Probably going to be in his book reviews... BusterD (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• He's been blocked for making legal threats, might as well close this as no further action is needed at this time. And it is also clear their draft was declined (twice) for the appropriate reasons. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banned user abusing the request for page protection page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes

Beginning on July last year (I believe), there seems to have been a sockpuppeteer (using multiple IPs and registered accounts like this one and this one) who constantly abuses the request for page protection page by requesting for protections (often indefinite semi) or replying under an already pending request. As a result, those articles were either:

• actually semi-protected indefinitely
• protected with a shorter-term duration
• protected with a lower-level protection
• or the requests were simply declined

These are all the requests I could find which seemed to have be affected by that sockpuppeteer from July to November 2024:

• July 2024: [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238]
• August 2024: [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245][246], [247], [248]
• September 2024: [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281]
• October 2024: [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329]
• November 2024: [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336]

By the looks of this behavior, I believe this is the banned user CalebHughes, whose main goal is to cause articles to be indefinitely protected. Do you think anyone could file a sockpuppet investigation on this issue? BriDash9000 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There's already been an investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes/Archive. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2011 Tucson shootings and Jared Lee Loughner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2011 Tucson shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jared Lee Loughner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a series of reversions of my good-faith edits to both these articles, and to their Talk pages, claiming that I'm posting "disinformation" when reporting that Loughner was obsessed by the film Zeitgeist. I've posted a total of not one, not two, but three reliable sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzqS-AK9YoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obbbnhf03FY

https://spectator.org/jared-loughners-zeitgeist-obsession/

I'm still getting reverted. How in the hell are we, as editors, supposed to determine whether it's true or false, or that the sources are reliable, if we can't even discuss them on the Talk pages? Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Flavor of the Month (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, but this isn't about your sources. This is about a diatribe you posted that started "Jared Loughner is a left-winger. Jared Lee Loughner was, and remains, radically left-wing. There's a campaign by allegedly unbiased "journalists" in what was once known as the "news media" to immediately describe each and every mass shooter as a conservative, even before any evidence is found regarding the shooter's politics. That's exactly what happened with Loughner." See WP:NOTFORUM ("article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else."). Such material will be removed whether it is disinformation or not. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• And as I see you've posted it five times in the last couple of days, including on an editor's talk page, here's your warning - do it again and I will block you. You may want to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW while you're considering that. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• User:Black Kite Are you actually endorsing the summary deletion of well-sourced material in an article mainspace, because the deletion was followed by a "diatribe" on one or more Talk pages? Warning heeded, but this is outrageous. I repeat: How in the hell are we, as editors, supposed to determine whether it's true or false, or that the sources are reliable, if we can't even discuss them on the Talk pages? Essentially, what you are saying is that deletion of this well-sourced material from these two articles' mainspaces was justified by the way I responded to its deletion. Flavor of the Month (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Absolutely zero policies were cited by either one of the two editors who did these deletions. Nobody even claimed that the sources I linked were unreliable. They simply claimed it was false when in fact, I proved it was true with three different sources. The original material contained a link to one of those sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient for the deletion of reliably sourced material. And while you object to the manner in which I offered to discuss it on the Talk pages, simply deleting my Talk page responses without even replying is, in effect, a death sentence for that material without a trial. Flavor of the Month (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am talking about the behaviour on talk pages here, not the articles, which I haven't looked at. Seriously - no-one cares about your theories, they only care what reliable sources think, so if you can explain how these are reliable sources and how they support whatever it is you want to insert into the article, then fine. But leave the diatribe and invective at home, please. And WP:NOTFORUM is a policy. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  • I see. So you haven't even looked at the articles. This is a bit like an innocent black man getting lynched, the leaders of the lynch mob getting hauled into court, then the judge saying, "I'm not even going to bother looking into the propriety of all that. The father of the man who was lynched started ranting, so he's getting a first and final warning." Really? Flavor of the Month (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    Oh yes good lynching analogies, always a sign of someone trying to make a reasonable point in a clear and non-inflammatory way. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    Good lord, you should really consider the propriety of claiming that someone politely disagreeing with you on a forum is the equivalent of a disfavored minority being murdered.

    There's still time to strike that comment. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• As the person who initially reverted the addition of this content, I would have thought it appropriate to have been notified of this thread. As for the article reverts, the first I made with an explanation, and a suggestion to start a discussion on the article talk page. [337]. The second revert was brief, but I assumed that Flavor of the Month would likewise consider starting a discussion. Instead, we got obnoxious rants, conspiracy theories, and demands for personal information. As It happens, I think that one of the edit summaries given for removing the rant from Talk:Jared Lee Loughner was suboptimal, and could have been better actually citing policy grounds to do so, but regardless, if Flavor of the Month wants to discuss content, they need to do so in something at least approximating to a civil manner, and without abusing the talk page to promote their own partisan and clearly off-topic theories regarding US mass killers in general and whatever. To be blunt, if you want to present an argument, try not coming across like a complete asshole, and maybe you'll get somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Agreed 100%. Flavor, this is not a matter of your sources or whether or not you are right or wrong, but rather a matter of being civil. It's really important on Wikipedia that people know when they need to take a breather and not let their emotions get the best of them. If you get too worked up when you're discussing something, it can show and makes you look unprofessional no matter what point you're trying to make. Take it from someone who's had to go through something similar before. Additionally, tagging @Viriditas and @Ianmacm as they are the other editors who reverted Flavor's comments and would probably like to know about this discussion.

  » Gommeh (he/him) 14:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ, sir. That is a collateral issue and it's already been thoroughly addressed. This is a matter of whether I am right, or wrong, in complaining about the reversion of reliably sourced material from the mainspace of two related articles, without even a challenge to the reliability of the source, which is American Spectator. The reverter, User:AndyTheGrump, just claimed it was false and deleted it. Flavor of the Month (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The reverter, User:AndyTheGrump, just claimed it was false and deleted it. That is demonstrably untrue. I reverted the edits as WP:UNDUE, and advised discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see. Then why didn't you cite WP:UNDUE, or even use the word "weight"? I've started civil, very restrained discussions on both articles' Talk pages and await your reply. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  "this seems undue" [338] "undue" [339] And regardless of my wording, it was always open to you to ask for further explanation. This is a collaborative project. Edits get reverted, all the time. When they are, they can be discussed in the appropriate place, in an appropriate manner. Had you done that, none of this need have happened at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Then you need to debate it with him and other editors on the appropriate talk pages respectfully and abide by whatever consensus is reached. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    This is a matter of whether I am right, or wrong, in complaining about the reversion of reliably sourced material from the mainspace of two related articles, without even a challenge to the reliability of the source, which is American Spectator. The reverter, User:AndyTheGrump, just claimed it was false and deleted it.

    That's an article talk page affair/matter, not WP:ANI stuff. As an editor who wants to include something, all ownership/duty is on you to sell your idea by consensus/debate backed by your ownly allowed weapons: WP:RS, WP:Rules, and command of language, in descending order (last one way last). -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    Stumbled upon their talk page and took the time to read this wall of text that further suggests some sort of WP:NOTHERE behavior [340]. 15:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Borgenland (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    @Flavor of the Month:, the above link's a good example. Your only purpose with that account is to improve articles, like mentioned. Not this:

    It seems you're carefully protecting Judge Boasberg from any exposure of his obvious conflict of interest. (Do you have any conflicts of interest you'd care to disclose?) He went way, way beyond his judicial powers when he ordered that flight of brutal TdA gangsters to be flown back to the United STates, after they were far out over international waters (close to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.

    None of that has anything to do with improving the article under Wikipedia's rules. Our outside of Wikipedia personas, beliefs, including religious and moral, are required to be wholly deferential and subservient to Wikipedia customs and rules. When you're using this site as an editor, your outside "rules" are supposed to drop dead at our event horizon. If that's incompatible with your morals, for instance, you may not be compatible with being a Wikipedia editor. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

    120 edits, of which 25 reverted, essentially all of them either POV-pushing in AMPOL CT or arguing after being reverted; this person needs a blog, not to be editing Wikipedia. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not still being reverted and you have not replied to the extensive reply to you explaining this issues with the edit you want to make.

This is not an issue for ANI, it is a content dispute. If you maintain that you are still unable to understand why your talk page comments were reverted after receiving several clear explanations, please remember that competence with the language is required. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted this because it was something of a NOTAFORUM outburst. It needs to be expressed more carefully and in line with talk page guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a lot of NOTAFORUM stuff, mostly WP:RGW-type railing about supposed left-wing cabals in the media. Nothing we haven't seen before, but civility needs to be maintained. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, see WP:CIVILITY. Also, being right isn't enough, @Flavor of the Month. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lots of moves by TotalTruthTeller

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Special:Contributions/Kitty Kenarban and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24. If someone has the bot muscle to undo these moves, that might be cool. Izno (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radicuil reverting in bad faith and violating WP:OWN on Independent Together page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

’m reporting repeated disruptive editing from User:Radicuil on the article Independent Together.

They reverted my good-faith, well-sourced edit without discussion or engagement, and reinstated misleading or less-neutral content. This behaviour appears to violate WP:OWN and shows a lack of WP:AGF. • ✅ My version (before revert): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Together&diff=1295949463&oldid=1295811806 • ❌ Their revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Together&diff=prev&oldid=1295949463

I’ve issued a {{uw-ownership1}} warning on their talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmilward (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is both an overreaction and a mischaracterisation of the revert that I made to the Independent Together page.

Firstly, I only made a single reversion of the edits that you made to that page, so the accusation that I have been engaging in "repeated disruptive editing" is blatantly not true.

Secondly, as a candidate running under the political ticket that is the subject of that article you have a clear conflict of interest. Further, the edits that you made were clearly not neutral as they replaced the content of the page with content from press releases from said ticket, and removed cited material regarding criticism of the ticket. Hence why I reverted the page.-Radicuil (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting admin intervention to stop further disruption and protect constructive contributors from gatekeeping behaviour.

Please include your signature so we know who has opened this complaint. Also, you need to post notifications about this discussion on the User talk pages of all editors mentioned in your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's hours later, Danmilward, and you still haven't notified Radicuil so I have done so on your behalf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute above all. It could be ideal to discuss it on the article's talk page, or, at least, give them some time to respond to the message you left on their talk page before moving to ANI. You opened this section only 3 minutes after leaving them a message, and 6 minutes after reverting their edit, which might not leave a lot of time for discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that, if you are the same Dan Milward who is listed as the party's candidate for Pukehīnau/Lambton Ward, you have a conflict of interest and should refrain from making edits to the article directly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Danmilward, you have now been edit-warring against three different editors on that page. While starting a talk page section was good (and would've been better if you wrote it yourself instead of ChatGPT), your reverts are already breaching the "bright line" of WP:3RR, and you should be careful about reinstating content when consensus is not on your side. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Given Danmilward has breached WP:3RR on Independent Together, and contuines to edit-war there, along with - possibly unintentionally, but - editing while logged out on their talk page - I've blocked them for 31 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CNMall41

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See discussion at Talk:Disney Star. Accused me of being disruptive and asked for an RM to be speedy closed without considering any of the evidence provided. When asked to explain their stance, they replied by assuming bad faith. I admit I have been uncivil with the user after that because they have refused to explain after multiple requests, and for that I apologise. They seem to be WP:Status quo stonewalling. They have also previously accused editors of being part of a campaign to rebrand the company, without providing any evidence, and have reverted their edits on these grounds, including mine, even when properly sourced. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't going to response but let's be clear about the civility. You posted the original discussion on June 13, 2025. Two others opposed your recommendation to which you started to become condescending ("Really? 12 different popular news websites are insufficient? What will you take? 100 websites?"). After my vote you were warned by another editor not to bludgeon comments. You continued to do so in a condescending tone. The last one where you accuse editors of stonewalling was what caused the discussion on your talk page. So, please see WP:CLEANHANDS.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that my first response to trailblazer was not civil, but they had looked at my table, which was a count of sources that were written after the last RM, and said nothing had changed since the last RM. However, after that I have been, in my opinion, civil with them after that apart from "It seems you seriously want 100 news websites". Also, I have already admitted to being uncivil with you, but that was after you had been condescending and uncivil with me, accusing me of not getting it. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You said CNMall41 voted "without considering any of the evidence provided". That's a very serious accusation but you didn't provide any evidence proving it. Got a link or anything? City of Silver 18:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See their refusal to state any objection to my sources at this time too [341]. I had originally only assumed that they failed to include their arguments against the sources, see my comment there, but they have repeated refused to do it. See their reply to my comment, linking to RMs that closed before the sources I compiled even existed. If that was their argument, it is clear they have not considered the table. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:SATISFY. I realize you are not happy with others not agreeing with your contention, but the condescension and bludgeoning is why you were warned in the first place. Now we are here and on the border of WP:BOOMERANG. The content is not the reason we are here, conduct is.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I understand you're under no obligation to consider the new evidence Arnav Bhate presented in that request. That said, did you? City of Silver 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I did. I felt no need to rehash anything that had taken place over several months and even the last discussion about one week prior started by a different user. This is why I stated it had been discussed. I could have (and in hindsight should have) pointed out that my search today still even shows the social media channels of the network as Disney Star but that can be discussed on that talk page as opposed to here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You considered it? Then you could have told me what was wrong with it when I asked you, couldn't you have? I specifically asked you to. Then everything after that could be avoided. You still haven't stated what is wrong with it. In fact this evidence was not provided in the discussion one week prior at all, that argument was WP:OFFICIALNAME. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, see WP:SATISFY. I have stated my position about the move (on that talk page) and conduct (here). Either move for sanctions against me for my behavior or close the thread but please stop trying to bait me with your continued condescending tone.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean to say users are not obligated to consider the contents of a proposal before voting on it? I can't seem to get any other meaning from your statement, so I would like to ask you to clarify, cause I don't think that's good. The evidence was literally my entire proposal. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You've already been asked twice but maybe a third time will work. Could you please read WP:SATISFY? City of Silver 19:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already read it each time it was linked. It does not exactly apply here because they have not stated a viewpoint at all. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you have decided not to clarify, or even state my reading of your statement as wrong, am I to assume that you agree with it? Just say one word, yes or no. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Even though SATISFY says nobody is obligated to fulfill any expectation you have of them at all in any way in a discussion, you believe CNMall41 is obligated to state a viewpoint and you believe you can order me to give you a one-word answer. If you understood SATISFY, you wouldn't even need to ask me that; if you still feel the need to ask, it's because you've been completely misreading it all along. City of Silver 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not supposed to vote in a proposal without rationale, WP:RMCOMMENT. Also WP:Status quo stonewalling#Improper Tactics is literally what they are doing. Since you refused to say no, I am perfectly justified in assuming yes. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Arnav Bhate, this continued badgering is not helping your case. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind and don't consider this badgering. I know that if you and/or others believe that this behavior is problematic, me saying otherwise isn't necessarily exculpatory. City of Silver 21:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SATISFY says in a discussion, you can't obligate anyone to do anything with no exceptions. Your interpretation of it somehow found exceptions ("does not exactly apply here because they have not stated a viewpoint at all," "you are not supposed to vote in a proposal without rationale" which was also a lie because CNMall41 did consider your rationale and did explain their stance more than once, etc.) that don't exist. City of Silver 20:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so." "When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful." is all that I originally did, then the user got uncivil with me. Please remove that second line from WP:RM if you don't want people to follow it, like I did. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I am now WP:DTS since clearly you people think I am in the wrong. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. CNMall41 is allowed to object to a change on the basis of prior discussions, even if you believe that you have provided new, relevant evidence. Other editors have further fleshed out why they believe that your new evidence does not change the situation. These arguments are not a priori unassailable, but neither are they illegitimate. What's more, the structure of an RM is such that it invites additional editors to participate by being listed at WP:RM#C. If CNMall41 had unilaterally actually closed the discussion, you would have some basis for your complaint. But simply stating their opinion that they believe that the discussion should be speedily closed is not stonewalling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that he is allowed to oppose based on past RMs. But that is not what he did in the first comment. He accused me of being disruptive. He opposes changes on that article claiming consensus (see the section directly above the RM, where he argued with another editor), but then accuses any attempt at building consensus as being disruptive. When he was specifically asked about objections to the new evidence provided, how could he accuse me of not getting it or link to past RMs that happened when it didn't even exist, let alone was under consideration. He could have remained quiet instead, couldn't he have? Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, I was the second editor who called for a speedy close. It was not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say that hauling someone to ANI for asserting that repeated discussions on the same topic are disruptive is excessive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Tomorrow someone could create a absolutely bad proposal to move, which was not even an RM, and then one week later someone could genuinely come and make an RM. Then should it be opposed simply because of the past discussion? They could call it disruptive, sure, but opposing because it is disruptive isn't a good vote. And so isn't opposing without explaining. They have absolutely not explained their oppose, unlike the other 2 editors in that discussion. One of them wanted additional sources, I didn't argue with them, I provided additional sources, as you can see. Also see them casting aspersions on other people, accusing them of being part of a campaign to rebrand a company on wikipedia without providing any evidence. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have diffs of problematic aspersions, please provide them. Otherwise you're just casting aspersions yourself. Overall, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Even if we accept your premise in toto that CNMall14's objections were baseless, expressing a single baseless argument in a talk page discussion is not cause for sanctions. Nothing good is going to come from you continuing to argue this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

here and here. Also the first statement is simply assuming bad faith on the part of everyone supporting the move. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also this edit summary. this one is bad for different reasons. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

On another article. This is even worse, cause according to WP:LOGOS you should use the new logo unless there is a good reason. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

How wide are you going to move the goalposts here? Either request specific sanctions for my actions or I will do so for yours. If my conduct is wrong, state so with evidence and ask for sanctions; but, I do not have to put up with the continued bludgeoning as it take away from the enjoyment of editing Wikipedia.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• As an fyi the last time this page and this issue came here it was with the account User:AngadSingh2004 who ended up being blocked as a sock puppet. I think this page needs a disclaimer notifying people that rm’s are not to be requested for at least 6 months. Also, in lie of the sock puppetry, it may be a good idea to look under the hood just to be sure this isn’t more of the same from whatever farm this is. 2600:1011:B335:D5C4:3C4B:F78C:F135:CC00 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:私の少年

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

私の少年 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding LLM-generated plot summaries in a rapid succession. They have also removed a speedy deletion notice [342]. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am currently using a robot program to translate my words into English and make my sentences longer in order to help me summarize more effectively. 私の少年 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You are editing at about 1,000 characters per minute sustained speed. Are you able to type that quickly, translate, and then edit Wikipedia? Is all the text your words? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have seven different tabs open, search for synopses for pages that don't have synopses, copy and paste the synopsis, translate it, remove the copyrighted content myself, make it longer with a robot program, then publish it and move on. I can type that quickly but with the robot program don’t have to. 私の少年 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please copy here one of the prompts you used to generate one of the plot summaries so we can see what you are inputting. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Please summarise this and make it longer."

"In "Cross-Dressing Villainess Cecilia Sylvie," the protagonist Hiyori is reincarnated as Cecilia Sylvie, a villainess from an otome game she played in her previous life. To avoid the bad ending she remembers from the game, Cecilia disguises herself as a boy named Cecil with a wig and bib and distances herself from the romance plot. While aiming for the "good ending" by bringing together the protagonists Leanne and Jade, she also deals with the conflict of her dual personalities and approaches from other characters such as Oscar and Gilbert."

私の少年 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Making it longer" is a bad move. All the information given to the LLM is in your prompt. Anything making it longer is susceptible to subtle errors by the LLM. It also doesn't add any information, just guesswork. Your brief description is better than inflating it with LLM hallucinations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand. 私の少年 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The copyvio tool clearly shows that these are not your own words, but rather summaries generated by an LLM paraphrasing potentially copyrighted content. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I copy summary, rewrite myself as not copyright, then use LLM to make three times as long. 私の少年 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah: close paraphrasing. Running text back and forth through translation steps is one way to obscure copyright violations, though from the description by 私の少年 of the process used, I presume they didn't realize that close paraphrasing is not allowed: it is copyright violation. I suggest 私の少年 read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA and I would presume that all the contributions so far are probably copyright violations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I will read it. Can my edits be reviewed one by one? 私の少年 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unavailable for a few hours. Someone else can review this issue and make a determination. @ChildrenWillListen, if you're up to it, you could do us a great favor by identifying the copyvios.

@私の少年, I'm very pleased at your intention to fix things. Please go slowly now. Part of the problem was that you worked so quickly that you created a huge problem before we could intervene. Also, have more faith in your own ability to write in English. The prompt you wrote above about Sylvie was a pretty good plot summary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 私の少年 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think reverting all the changes is the best way to handle this, since most, if not all of the LLM-generated summaries do not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen, welcome back! If you believe these violate WP:MOS, feel free to revert them. However, please explain either here or on @私の少年‘s talk page the mos issue so they can improve. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reverting several of this user's edits. Also, I have a slight suspicion that this is another sockpuppet account of TotalTruthTeller24 (talk · contribs), but these are just hunches. Xexerss (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

SPI closed with no action needed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24#14 June 2025 2 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and then I re-looked and discovered #Lots of moves by TotalTruthTeller. Izno (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Wikipedia page of over 15 years is Suddenly Gone and I have no clue as to why despite checking deletion logs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi- My Wikipedia page of over 15 years is Suddenly Gone and I have no clue as to why despite checking deletion logs. This used to be my page: Mark Haapala. Please advise, I am in the middle of promoting a Hallmark Christmas Movie I wrote that is airing this december and this is a huge point of validating my legitimacy to others in the industry. Thank you in advance and can you please let me know who removed the page? Best- Mark Haapala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:0:B780:0:0:0:F297 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not your wikipedia page, per WP:OWN nobody owns any wikipedia page Untamed1910 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article about you was deleted after an unchallenged proposed deletion with the reason "concern was: Non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of IMDB, primary sources and listings but nothing with any real independent coverage about him. Awards are not major.)" 331dot (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you are a notable creative professional. IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award. You can challenge the deletion at this linked page. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm not savvy with any of this stuff and despite clicking on the linked page you were kind enough to provide, I'm having a super difficult time deciphering exactly how to appeal this decision. I hate to ask you to hold my hand here, but this is like reading greek to me. Thanks in advance Thehaaps (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is of any comfort, there is still an article on Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. There is also a Mark Haapala (Q24088824) item on Wikidata. Peaceray (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also archive versions of the enwiki article, such as web.archive.org/web/20250524021518/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Haapala. Peaceray (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I certainly don't hate that! Thehaaps (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 2603:8001:0:B780:0:0:0:F297,

If you look at the deleted page, Mark Haapala, you can see up at the top of the page the pink deletion notice that states which administrator deleted the article and the reasons for the deletion. I don't know why you are interested in who deleted the article, it was a Proposed deletion and a variety of different admins could have been the one to take care of this article deletion. But 331dot is correct, no one "owns" a Wikipedia article, not the article subject, nor the article creator.

If you have questions about Wikipedia's deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, wrong terminology. I meant the wikipedia page that references me. The citations were all legitimate and I will be challenging. Thank you 2603:8001:0:B780:0:0:0:F297 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You can put in a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Another point that hasn't been raised yet in responding to you; Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Your having an article here so as to "validating [your] legitimacy" is of no concern to us and has no impact of any kind on whether to retain an article here. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Sir, I urge you to think twice, then thrice before challenging the deletion -- and then don't do it. First read WP:FILMMAKER, and ask yourself whether there are multiple, independent, reliable sources supporting your qualification under those criteria. (To be clear, none, or almost none, of the sources in the archived article are reliable and independent.) Then read WP:YOURSELF, and note especially the bit reading Self-created articles are often nominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. I'm sure you're a nice guy, so don't put yourself though that. It will only bring you grief, frustration, and embarrassment. EEng 01:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow, User:EEng#s, that's brutal! I think that is overstating the case. Are you anticipating an AFD discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In all serious, Liz (and look me in the eye: there's no irony or double meaning here) I was trying to spare the OP exactly what WP:YOURSELF warns about: comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary, exactly because he seems sincere and a nice guy, who just happens to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. EEng 04:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to look you in the eye but unless you want to leap over to Zoom, that's impossible. I didn't think my comment was a big deal, you just painted a picture of a horrible experience for our inexperienced IP account. A lot has happened since you posted your initial comment so my protest no longer makes sense and I don't want to redirect this discussion to a debate about our difference of opinions. That's the drama boards for you, always ready to take a small side comment and turn it into a tangential dispute.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's prudent to do so, Liz (and demonstrably, anticipating an AfD discussion was spot on). I just went over things myself, and while I don't have access to the archived article, there's no way I'd vote Keep at AfD. (I won't belabor the reasons.) For a veteran AfD closer such as yourself, EEng was a fair bit less "brutal" than AfDs often get. Never mind that the subject's resume was damn thin on the ground fifteen years ago, and an AfD then would've been pretty caustic indeed. Ravenswing 02:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

AFDs, especially when the article subject is participating in the discussion, can be rough. Editors might abide by BLP policy but they can often be harsh with living persons who want to participate in a discussion of an article where they are the subject.

But when EEng posted their message, the article hadn't been restored and having an AFD deletion discussion wasn't a foregone conclusion. This brief discussion has quickly evolved over the past two hours from an initial inquiry from an IP account to now a retored article and subsequent AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources on the now deleted article:

1. [343] Dead link, but it went to an interview (see WP:INTERVIEW) on a user generated content site with no editorial oversight. Such sites are generally not considered reliable. See WP:USERGENERATED.
2. [344] Another dead link; this time a dead server. The entry on the site was merely a listing, and does nothing to sustain notability [345].
3. [346] Another dead link. This one is to a film festival site, and doesn't do much to sustain notability.
4. [347] This link is to a minor film festival site that mentions a movie Haapala directed, spending two sentences discussing it.
5. [348] This link is to television festival. The article mentions Haapala in a single bullet point.
6. [349] This link is to another site that does the same thing (same information) as the prior entry.
7. [350] This link is to another site that does the same thing as the prior two links; same information.
8. [351] This link is an entry on a site that appears to possible be user generated content. Even if it's not, it's just a listing; no discussion.
9. [352] Web Archive link pointing to some pictures. Again, no discussion.
10. [353] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
11. [354] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
12. [355] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
13. [356] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
14. [357] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
15. [358] An IMDB link. Not usable to sustain notability. See WP:IMDB.
16. [359] Trailer for a film made by the subject. WP:PRIMARY source. Not usable to sustain notability.

There simply isn't any useful depth of coverage here to support notability. See WP:INDEPTH. Per WP:CREATIVE, I'm not seeing anything that supports an article among these citations. That the citations were "legitimate" doesn't say anything. Per our standards, as I've linked here, there just isn't anything to support notability sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE. That's the criteria. Is there something more we don't know about? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

IP 2603, I have restored the article about Mark Haapala because our guidelines around the PROD, or proposed deletion process require that they be uncontroversial. You have contested it so it is not uncontroversial. However, as has been noted above by @Hammersoft et al, your goals are not in alignment with an encyclopedia article. it is also exceedingly unlikely that this article will remain following a deletion discussion so I recommend you copying it to your own drive if you need it, and incorporate it off site. Please let me know any questions, and log into your account if you are indeed Mr. Haapla. Star Mississippi 02:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll give it the night for someone to make substantial substantive improvements, but failing those, I'll take it to AfD myself tomorrow if no one else has, honestly. Ravenswing 02:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I just did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing of interest, mainly social media accounts. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Owing to the user's politeness and good faith engagement here, I have reached out to him on User talk:Thehaaps with an effort to summarize the relevant policies and an offer to go over any sources he may have, including any other than those already in the article that he may have access to, and to provide him with an honest assessment as to which sources are RS and whether they collectively will meet the notability threshold. I rather expect not, but worst case scenario, he gets a clear explanation for why we can't permit an article at this time--and I think his tone and manner of outreach here justifies a little bit of effort to provide that. RW, it's your call, but you might consider waiting a day or two on that AfD just in case he surprises us with something that is not easily findable in a standard WP:BEFORE effort. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm so dismayed that so many veteran editors won't even try to be this decent to the guy that I just dropped a wheelbarrow full of manure onto that disgrace of an AFD. I hope that guy's prepared to be treated exactly the opposite of how User:Snow Rise thinks he should be. City of Silver 03:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Haapala has indeed been polite -- which is more than can be said for that heap of invective you dropped -- but since when do we award Wikipedia articles as a door prize for courteous editors, let alone so that they can promote themselves? That AfD is only "disgraceful" if you genuinely believe that Haapala meets notability standards/the GNG. If you do, advocate for that, and present your evidence for the same. If you don't, then you're just spouting off in bad faith. Ravenswing 04:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Had you read my message, you wouldn't have replied with platonic proof that I'm right when I said people like you would blatantly violate WP:CIVIL to treat this person with wholly undeserved, totally inexplicable cruelty. I mean, "when do we award Wikipedia articles as a door prize for courteous editors"? What is wrong with you? Who talks like this? That veteran editors like you are permitted to violate the civility policy is the only reason shit like that doesn't get you blocked. City of Silver 06:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

My friends and colleagues, I believe there is a happy medium here between extending every reasonable courtesy to a new/SPA user and also showing them the respect of candor. From my discussions with the OP, even they understand that, despite their limited experience with our procedures. We each strike that balance in our own way in various circumstances, and I don't think anyone here has stepped outside the realm of reasonable decorum with respect to how the OP was directly handled. And we have enough challenges in figuring out how to deal with situations that arise from outsiders who don't approach us with courtesy: we certainly don't need to get this worked up with one-another over one of the well-mannered ones!

Now, I won't patronize you two by asking you to use the same phrase that Thehaaps has used several times today (to wit, 'I appreciate you'), but I would ask you, in the spirit of collegiality, to at least show as much good will to eachother as a newcomer brought, despite not knowing one syllable of WP:CIV or WP:AGF. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to AFD now or tomorrow @Ravenswing. I just hate the bureaucracy of sending editors to REFUND when there was at least one admin here (me) willing to restore. It can now be discussed and almost certainly deleted with community consensus Star Mississippi 02:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not objecting to that at all, not to worry. As you say, no need to run this through the bureaucracy, especially since the PROD was relatively recent, and it would've been restored on request. Ravenswing 02:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have sent it to AFD. Had I been the one to get it at RFU, I would have restored it to draftspace where it could have incubated. In its current state and given its sources, I see no other path for it now. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Haapala - UtherSRG (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I have no objection to draft space. I contemplated same when I restored it, but didn't see the sourcing as sufficiently bad (BLP wise, not notability) to defend it if someone else preferred mainspace. I see they've responded positively to @Snow Rise's outreach too. Star Mississippi 03:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For most PROD and soft deletion restorations, I strongly prefer draftification. It gives the requestor time to address the issues that caused the article to be deleted in the first place, free from the concerns of impending deletion, and with the aid of the AFC reviewers to guide. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi for your help regardless Thehaaps (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You might've at least given the guy a chance to respond to EEng's "Are you sure?". Yes, we have to restore prodded articles on request if there's no other reason for deletion, but that doesn't mean we can't try to talk their subjects out of it first if the restoration seems likely to be futile. —Cryptic 02:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it might be futile, but temporarily having the article active again isn't causing harm. I think we can go with Snow Rise's efforts here. Maybe there is something more to go on, maybe not. I don't think there's any harm in trying. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Temporarily having the article isn't. The AFD likely will. See EEng's brutality warning above, not to mention the source assessment list - it looks anodyne to us because we're used to them and we know what the jargon means, but I guarantee you it'll read as "1. you're not notable, 2. you're not notable, ... 16. you're not notable" to Mr. Haapala. —Cryptic 02:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a strict adherence to process that seems likely to feel a bit demeaning. Given a web.archive link had already been provided, a live version was not needed to copy it off the site. CMD (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

City of Silver's AfD !vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

City of Silver made a !vote at AfD that is both off-topic (consisting entirely of complaints about participants in the above thread, the undeleting admin, and the AfD nominator) and incivil (the dumb discussion at ANI where a bunch of veteran editors, in an apparent effort to prepare this article's creator User:Thehaaps for what will be reams of blatant WP:CIVIL policy violations from unconscionably cruel assholes here, swarmed him with new and unique and verbose ways of telling him he's a fucking idiot). As I've done before when I've encountered AfD !votes that are unrelated to the merits of the article, I hatted the comment and invited City of Silver to re-!vote on the article's merits. He has instead reverted that action twice. In general I would say that if a user repeatedly reverts the hatting of an inappropriate comment, the next step is a partial block, but I would appreciate another uninvolved admin's input here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't provide you the more valuable input of a colleague admin, Tamzin, but as a community member, I'd urge we not take this further. We are going to quickly pass a threshold of immensely poor returns on community time if we allow this recursive vortex of recriminations to continue its exponential growth. I wish CoS's commentary had been a bit less strident, but let's remember that their motivation here extends from a respect for WP:BITE. And as I alluded to above, it would be a truly abysmal outcome if the rare occurrence of a COI SPA acting entirely courteously and reasonably still somehow led to community furor.

So, can I perhaps convince you to self-close this subsection and just let everyone cool down? The AfD's outcome isn't going to hinge on whether that comment is hatted. In fact, I think I've already succeeded in explaining to even Thehaaps why his BLP is unlikely to survive deletion at the present time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

One should not CHOMP a WP:BITE. CoS's !vote was out of line. And invective-filled spewing about the behavior of editors here at ANI should, at best, be here at ANI. A !vote should be about the notability of the article's subject in question. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I would support sanctioning of CoS on this. UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Please leave it alone. The way the OP was treated here was unconscionable and although I would have used different words, it is completely appropriate to say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I disagree that AfD is the venue to say that. That's just shitty to other would-be AfD participants and the unlucky eventual closer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm grateful that Tamzin finally, after I made several requests that they step out of the edit summaries and actually interact with me, chose to stop edit warring although they might have finally did the right thing because their reverts of my good-faith efforts to improve this website, messages I'm still not sure they read, might have been running up against WP:3RR.

Speaking of "messages I'm still not sure they read," Tamzin claimed my vote "[consisted] entirely of complaints about participants in the above thread, the undeleting admin, and the AfD nominator". This, particularly the word "entirely", is not based in reality at all. I encourage anyone to read what I actually said, where I stated twice in plain language that I believe the article in question needs to be deleted.

"I...invited City of Silver to re-!vote on the article's merits." There was no need because I voted, based on the article's merits, that the article needs to be deleted.

"In general I would say that if a user repeatedly reverts the hatting of an inappropriate comment, the next step is a partial block." This is so goddamn unfair because it leaves out an extremely important part of this. They should have said, "In general I would say that if a user repeatedly reverts an administrator's hatting of an inappropriate comment, the next step is a partial block." Leaving aside the fact that my message was based entirely on the merits which means I made no "inappropriate comment", let's be honest about the threat here. Had it been levied by a peer, I could have wiped with it but since Tamzin is an adminstrator, their misinterpretation of what I said has me in peril.

(Adding: I'm furious that two editors have edit conflicted my efforts to leave this reply! Now I'm reading what they said aaaaaand never mind, they're the greatest people this site has ever known and they should be allowed to do whatever they want.) City of Silver 07:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You made no comment on the article's merits except to say that deletion was a foregone conclusion. You were bold enough when you posted that comment (which you self-described above as a a wheelbarrow full of manure, so why are you being coy now and claiming my message was based entirely on the merits? From my perspective, your comment looks like nothing more than an opportunistic attack on a bunch of veteran editors. You have previously been formally warned for very similar behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@City of Silver you've made your point. I think it's time for everyone to move on. I don't think we need sanctions now, but if CoS continues to restore it they need to be partially blocked from the AfD because now it's purely to be disruptive. FWIW, I take zero offense to their comment as admin who undeleted, but once is fine. Repeated restoration to have their point visible is disruptive. Star Mississippi 13:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

CoS did restore it more than once. Twice after the two times Tamzin hatted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the edit warring and the previous warning for incivility that Lepricavark posted, I think a block is warranted here. Turns out City of Silver has a history of doing this sort of thing. Blocked 31 hours. I'm tired of admins handing out "final final warnings". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Good block. I declined to reply to their screed above out of respect for WP:CIVIL. Ravenswing 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I see that this was escalated to a block and closed before I came back online today, but noting for what it's worth that I am not convinced there was a need for this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• I missed this discussion today. Odd to see City of Silver, after 14 years as an editor, receive their first block. If a block was called for, it should have only been for the AFD page, not the entire site. Glad it's only for 31 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued belligerence by Livingbeta

• Livingbeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since this contributor has begun editing on the English Wikipedia this May 2025, Livingbeta has introduced various contributions to Oriental Orthodoxy-related articles which have been continually reverted by other Wikipedian contributors, citing WP:ADVOCACY and WP:POV pushing surrounding some Oriental Orthodox organizations. Those edits have been made at the following articles:

1. Oriental Orthodox Churches
2. Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
3. Syriac Orthodox Church

In these articles, for instance, the contributor in question has repeatedly altered information on the Oriental Orthodox Churches article, by pushing their belief that the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is not of the Oriental Orthodox churches or denominations under the historic body of Oriental Orthodoxy. This has been reflected on Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches. For the Jacobsite Syrian Christian Church, they have also introduced many fact-based issues which can be alleged as easily mistaking the identity of one religious body with another. Then, for the Syriac Orthodox Church, other apparent NPOV issues attempting to link the autonomous Syriac institution as the only existing body under that church were discovered alongside with the unfortunate addition of poorly-implemented citations. There are some other articles with which they have also participated in removing verifiable information, to push their initial apparent bias against the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, such as the Oriental Orthodox churches in India article. Some edits made also seem written like an advertisement (one primary example). Ironically, Halershes has made somewhat similar contributions too. It is ironic how all of this happens after the recent Malankara Church fiasco dispute continuing to reverberate in the Indian news and its diasporas. Nota bene: I want to add that some of the conversation on the many associated talk-page articles, and running to other contributors' on Wikipedia such as my own talk page to seek allies for their (Livingbeta's) own apparent desires, looks really bad. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TheLionHasSeen, you are more likely to get a response to opening a complaint at ANI if you supply multiple diffs/edits that are examples of the disruptive editing you claim is occuring rather than just listing articles (but thank you for the link to Mor Gabriel Monastery). Editors and admins have lots of things they can do with their time on Wikipedia and they are likely to skip commenting here if you are asking them to search for evidence rather than making it simple for them to see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Liz, thank you for the kind recommendation! I will do that, and also, I want to add 93.200.9.121 for similar contributions to the Oriental Orthodox Churches article. Some examples regarding the Oriental Orthodox Churches article surrounding the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church's identity are here (example 1), (example 2), (example 3), and (example 4). Examples for the Jacobsite Syrian Christian Church include: (example 1) and (example 2). Examples with the Syriac Orthodox Church are (example 1), (example 2), (example 3), and (example 4). The talk page discussions for those articles mentioned are very self-explanatory, at least I hope. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

On my talk page, and then on the Syriac Orthodox Church's talk page, it was demanded that I do certain things or face punishment. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:TheLionHasSeen - I made the mistake of looking at your talk page and at Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church. I saw a demand that you explain a change that you made. I did not see any reference to punishment or sanctions. Is there a reason why you don't want to explain a change? Is there a reason why you view the demand as a threat of sanctions? Any editor can demand that you do anything. Any editor can threaten to ask for sanctions against you for any reason or no reason, but an unreasonable request for sanctions will either be ignored or result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Could you please specifically point out the posts that you considered problematic? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The lack of civility was my issue with the demand, and the belligerence beforehand at others so I assumed (which can be a bad thing); and I have had issues responding because I am trying to juggle this and a major project. So, sorry about that. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

the editor @TheLionHasSeen along with another new editor sodacyanide has been constantly targeting my edits pretty much in all the articles i edit and has been constantly reverting all the new changes without giving any explanation or having a discussion, the editor TheLionHasSeen has also been issuing warnings in my talk pages without any discussions. ( as an editor i ought to know specifically why such a warning is given and not just a one word reason

this editor is also evading from answering questions asked in the talk pages for reverts he has done and for his accusations in the edit summaries, but he resorted to bad mouthing me instead of giving reasons, references are below

1) Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church#The Logo & classification

2) Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy in Saudi Arabia#Church jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia

3) User talk:Livingbeta#June 2025 (this was his one worded reply to my one para argument for his final level-4 warning i believe)

the editor TheLionHasSeen has been doing everything to get me banned from Wikipedia by constantly reverting me edits and giving wiki norms as edit summaries like NPOV and ADVOCACY but when asked to substantiate these accusation the editor resorts to badmouth me and make me look bad based on things like "i am pushing my belief that Malankara Orthodox church is not part of oriental orthodox church", this statement of him is based on discussions that happened between me and another editor @Pbritti i believe [Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#MOSC as an Oriental Orthodox church] if you wish you can go through the discussions that happened here through this link

To summarize the editor TheLionHasSeen has accused me of many things but never cared to explain or substantiate on his accusations based on what has been done and pin point what exactly was related to NPOV or Advocacy (references for my edits have been given to the examples given by the editor above and can be viewed when you check through the sane link, all i did was update the article based on what happened recently). To me this looks like a targeted attack to get me banned from wiki and feels like the editor just doesn't want me to edit and instead reverts to his preferred version of the article. There is more illogical reversions he has made on the edits i have made, if anyone wants it i can link them here

Extra- [360], here this editor reverted another users edit and has given Indian court rulings as edit summaries for a position that is held by a church whose members are concentrated not only in India, here too the reason is very broad and not specific at all and will always confuse those who read(i believe this his one of his tactics by not giving specific sources/ reasons and just sticking with broader terms which can be interpreted differently by different users Livingbeta (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Those warnings were given because of your constant reverts of other contributors before I became involved, and then also after I became involved. Why? Those constant reverts and continued disputes; and then going to others' talk pages at random such as mine to try and gain some support; alerted me of some troubling issues that happened before between other contributors with which I had no involvement whatsoever. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Confusing edits by IP range

Resolved

 – Pblocked by User:rsjaffe for one month

• 2A02:C7C:D2D7:2A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP seems to be making changes to various historical Association football player articles, making changes that seem to confuse us, i.e. claiming someone is the "greatest of all time", or changing positions, or even changing wording without discussing when opposed (recent examples here, here and here). Most of the time, these changes are made without sources. I doubt discussion will work as this appears to be a dynamic range that always changes the user's IP address within the range provided. Maybe an administrator or neutral party can step in and try to reason with the user behind these changes? Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

97% reversion rate is pretty impressive. I’m going to pblock from article space for one month and invite to discuss here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Paradoctor & DISPLAYTITLE

Further information: User talk:Paradoctor § DISPLAYTITLE

See also: Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications

Paradoctor (talk · contribs) launched a crusade against userpages with "disallowed" DISPLAYTITLE modifications, editing en masse other users' userpages. I assumed good faith and pointed out that rules on WP:DISPLAYTITLE explicitly only apply to the article space (as it explicitly stated This page is about changing the displayed title at the top of an article), asking him to stop altering other users' userpages in the friendliest way I could (Hi, Please, I get your good faith, Cheers). Instead of taking that into consideration, he decided to directly change the text at WP:DISPLAYTITLE and be openly unfriendly, answering me You have misunderstood the purpose and the effect of my edit. [...] Next time, please WP:AGF and ask for the reason, instead of framing an edit you don't understand as an attack on your happiness, ok? and We'll revisit this issue at a later date, but for now: You are banned from my userspace. I will not hear anything more from you about this issue unless it is at AN/I. So here I am. What's the guideline/consensus on this? — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: WP:DISPLAYTITLE is an information page, not a policy or a guideline. You shouldn't read too much into particular wording because the exact language used hasn't been vetted to the same level of scrutiny as a policy or guidelines page. As to the changes made by Paradoctor, they seem appropriate as that section is describing a technical feature that applies to all pages, not just articles, even if the second sentence (This should be done only...) only applies to articles. I also have a tough time squaring your claims of taking the moral high ground with your comments such as I understood your bad edit very well, darling.

@Paradoctor: The relevant guideline that applies here is WP:UOWN and Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages. In general, don't edit another user's pages without their consent, and in the limited cases where you do edit another user's page without asking first (urgent issue, user is inactive) you should notify them and explain what you have done and why. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

only applies to articles That's correct, but it's not the issue. I wasn't contesting, or impinging on, Est. 2021's right to style his user page as he sees fit. Which I explained to him on my talk: The only effect of my edit was that it removed User:Est. 2021/tidEtnoDesaelP from Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications. Didn't seem to take. It was clear that further discussion wasn't going to be productive, so I tabled the issue. Well, I tried to. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

There are over 4400 pages in that category and 99% of them are in the User namespace. The category links to a search filter to mainspace, so why are you messing with user pages just to remove a few out of those thousands? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It used to be close to 6k. Ask yourself: Why was that filter link added? Paradoctor (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite: why was that filter link added and structured so that it searches only for articles? --JBL (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Because it looks to me from the edit summary of the edit where it was added that the point was explicitly about article-space only. Maybe PrimeHunter can provide some illumination on this point. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

There were originally more than 1000 articles in the category. Pages are added automatically by MediaWiki and not sorted by namespace so articles were hard to spot among all the other pages. My search link has helped me and others to identify and fix the articles. Many of them need more than removing an invalid DISPLAYTITLE code, e.g. moving the article to a better name which was attempted with DISPLAYTITLE, or correcting the DISPLAYTITLE to get wanted italics. If users make invalid DISPLAYTITLE in their userspace then I see it as their own problem which doesn't need fixing by others when we have a search to find the articles. In the case which brought us here, the invalid DISPLAYTITLE does work as intended. The code is on User:Est. 2021/x but transcluded on User:Est. 2021 where it styles the username as the user wants. Est. 2021 had placed the code in includeonly tags so it doesn't cause a DISPLAYTITLE error on User:Est. 2021/x, but it's also transcluded on User:Est. 2021/tidEtnoDesaelP where it does cause an error. Paradoctor saw that error in the tracking category and tried to fix it but the fix accidentally removed the wanted styling from User:Est. 2021. Unfortunately things quickly escalated between the users who misunderstood eachother. @Est. 2021: Will you fix the DISPLAYTITLE error on User:Est. 2021/tidEtnoDesaelP, e.g. by wrapping the code in {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|User:Est. 2021|...}} @Paradoctor: Will you apologize for accidentally breaking the styling on User:Est. 2021? And can we then just forget about things said in anger? For the record, my opinion on the general issue is that DISPLAYTITLE fixes in userspace should neither be required nor banned. Most users would probably either appreciate a correct fix or not care, and it does make the maintenance category a little easier to use. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

the fix accidentally removed the wanted styling from User:Est. 2021

That is what Est. 2021 claims. It is not what happened.

Here is the code I added:

{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|tidEtnoDesaelP|/tidEtnoDesaelP}}

This has no effect anywhere but at User:Est. 2021/tidEtnoDesaelP.

Most users would probably either appreciate a correct fix or not care Until now, this has been my experience, without exception. Paradoctor (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Right, your second edit [361] fixed it. It also added styling to User:Est. 2021/tidEtnoDesaelP instead of a DISPLAYTITLE error. Maybe Est. 2021 would prefer to have neither but that's not what he complained about, and the complaint [362] was 7 hours after your second edit. I suppose it's possible that he saw a cached version of his user page between your edits but they were only 3 minutes apart. By the way, I use User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js to preview the effect of edits on transcluded pages which are not templates. You may like it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, might just do that. Meanwhile, I'll try to remember to use an extended edit summary when this situation comes up again, could save time going forward. Paradoctor (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by MarcRai

MarcRai (talk · contribs) made uncivil comments at me twice at their talk page [363] [364]. I realised about the older one today when warning them. Their response to it was the same.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Warned by myself and another. I also requested they stop using planespotters.net as a source, per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

CNMall41, again

CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really apologise for starting another discussion about this user after having one just yesterday, but it seems our uncivil argument here and on Talk:Disney Star has soured this user's opinion on me. I have not interacted with this user about the RM since ANI. See [365] [366] [367] [368] on my talk page. These seem to be in response to my edit here, which they reverted civilly. Everything was fine until this point. When I opened a talk page discussion about it according to their request in their edit summary, civilly here, they made some pretty uncivil remarks about me in the edit summary of their reply. They then accused me of being WP:NOTHERE, see the previous diffs on my talk page. I am clearly here to build an encyclopedia, as can be seen from my contributions. They seem to be showing ownership of articles, asking me not to edit any articles they have edited, even if I have also edited them in the past. They also accuse me of bludgeoning on Talk:Disney Star after the previous ANI, without providing any evidence. I was discussing with another user on how to resolve dispute on a point about the subject of the article, and we both agreed to wait until the RM is over before seeking dispute resolution. We seemed to misunderstand what each other was saying, drawing the discussion out. Now, they seem to be WP:BLUDGEONing me on the Zee page, see here, since I have suggested alternatives to their preferred version of the logo. I have been nothing but civil with CNMall41 since the ANI. I would like the user to stop, or a two-way interaction ban with the user. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, again. This and this sum it up. Not sure why user cannot heed the numerous WP:DTS warnings. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You can simply disengage from the subject and move on, no interaction ban needed. We have been more than patient and as Liz advised you yesterday, drop the stick. Getting wound up over irrelevant corporate naming, which literally affects not one person outside their stock trading application and ticker symbol, when we are not here to help Jio's ad agency and PR department, is very, very pointless. There are more than enough topics here to contribute to. Forget about Jio Disney Star and just find something else. The sources that don't scream in 132 point font will eventually abide and make clear what name they stick with. We have no deadlines. Nathannah • 📮 20:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have moved on from the RM, there is no stick in my hand to drop. Why am I being dragged back again and again to that? This dispute is not about that page at all. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Restored immediately above comment that was deleted in an edit conflict. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Whichever page, Disney, Jio, Zee, Viacom18, doesn't matter. Take a couple days to breathe and disengage entirely. The conversation isn't going anywhere, nor are those companies. 21:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 21:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I will point out that I have moved on from the RM is a bit disingenous, when the previous ANI was about Disney Star, and directly above: They also accuse me of bludgeoning on Talk:Disney Star. As advised: move on completely. Take a deep breath. Realise that Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. Have a nice cup of tea, and reconsider things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to let another admin handle this repeat complaint. I'll just say that, unfortunately, over the 12 years I have been an editor on this project, I have seen too many talented editors leave or be indefinitely blocked because they couldn't let a dispute go and move on. Sometimes it's about another editor, or a particular source or even the title of an article/page move. They were warned, they may have even had short-term blocks but they came back to the source of their disagreement one too many times and the community finally lost patience. I'd recommend you withdrawing this complaint while you can and both of you keep your distance from each other and this Disney article and its talk page. Go explore some of the 7M+ other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I did move on, and why did you delete my comment saying so? Zee is a completely different page that CNMall41 decided to get into an argument with me about. I will not withdraw this complaint, but I will not interact with CNMall41, because of their behaviour. like a self-imposed ban. I still ask for there to be a two-way interaction ban. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I am tired so will not reply here again unless an admin requests it. A 2-way ban is not needed. Maybe a one-way. I have not followed you to any page on Wikipedia because I am bitter about not getting my way in a talk page discussion. You have and were warned repeatedly not to prior to bringing your concerns here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Liz accidentally removed it as part of an edit conflict, Arnav Bhate. I've restored it above in what I believe was its original location. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I had an edit conflict when leaving my message. I double-checked after it happened and didn't see that I had done any damage but I guess I did. My apologies for inadvertently removing any content from the discussion, Arnav Bhate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Jmkrangers resuming personal attacks and edit warring after a previous block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jmkrangers was blocked [369] for making personal attacks, which stemmed from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Extreme_uncivil_behaviour_and_personal_attacks_by_Jmkrangers, and discussions at Talk:List of Stanley Cup champions. Since the block expired, the user resumed personal attacks here [370], and has violated 3RR at List of Stanley Cup champions. The user has also repeatedly spammed my talk page, as seen here [371], and vandalized my user page, here [372] Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Indef block. Edit warring, personal attacks, blanking this ANI topic, interfering with another user’s user page, etc. I had hoped that an editor with 16+ years’ experience would be better than that. Note that the user has deleted the block notice, which is allowed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hemiauchenia, repeated PA/Aspersions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pretty cut-and-dry. User has been making repeated, personal attacks against multiple editors, even after being warned multiple times. Shows clear contempt and disregard when warned.

Originally occured when he made ad-hominem attacks against editors on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory (I believe he was concerned with SPAs) about 2 weeks ago, [373]. Upon being replied to calmly by the accused editor [374] and warned on his talk, he doubled down, blanked the warning, and said he did not care [375]. Wrote it off as a drive-by one-off that stopped with a warning (be it a deleted one).

He returned today with the same behavior, only much more egregious. [376], and capped it off with telling the editor to stop editing all altogether. [377]. He was warned that this is again unacceptable and becoming a chronic issue, which he again blanked and then accused me of being another SPA part of the cabal, I guess [378].

Keep in mind that Hem does not edit or contribute on this talk page, so this isn't a content dispute boiling over or anything. His only edits have been these PA/Aspersions. He shows up, does them, gets warned, tells them to screw off, then leaves. I was going to consider letting him go again until another user warned him on his talk page and he essentially acknowledged (again) that he was aware his behavior was against policy and worthy of a boomerang if he reported someone, he just didn't care. [379]

Nothing crazy, just particularly blatant and premeditated violations of policy. Doesn't need to be drawn and quartered or anything, but a pretty serious warning logged and maybe a time-out with a reminder that WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA are not cute suggestions might be appropriate. Just10A (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Both editors I commented on in the talkpage discussions have almost no contributions to mainspace over the past few years [380] [381] [382] [383], and have less than the 500 edits required to actually edit the main article page, which is under ECP. For both users, edit to the lab leak talkpage makes up a large proportion of their total edits, despite not having enough edits to even edit the article in the first place. People who comment on contentious topics on talk pages, especially those who are not extended-confirmed, should reasonably be expected to actually show meaningful interest in editing mainspace encyclopedia content. See also this quotation from WP:NOTHERE Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia: Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to use editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... when their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia").

I note the user who brought this complaint has a strong POV in this topic area (which is shared with the editors I was commenting on), and this talkpage is their #1 edited talkpage with over 190 edits since the end of last year, with only 38% of their contributions being to mainspace, with most of their talkpage edits arguing about contentious American political topics. [384] I have been a long term watcher and infrequent contributor the lab leak talkpage (having made about 20 edits to the talkpage since 2021), but I haven't really edited the page much over the past year, and I have not been involved in any recent edit warring regarding the COVID-19 topic area. It's getting really hot where I live which is causing me to become more agitated than normal. I have not restored any of the comments that the filer has redacted, and have no plans to make further comments to the lab leak talkpage for the near future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at my edit history can―definitively—vouch that it is absolutely all over the place in terms of subject matter lol. Yes, one of those subjects is CTOPs, which are prone to long talk discussions. I edit a lot of legal/political issues because I'm an expert in the subject matter. I'm a lawyer. Go figure. (Not that that matters at all, just to be clear.) That applies to many editors, and certainly isn't an issue. How that relates to justifying personal attacks is beyond me however. And I think the complete lack of any admission of guilt is relevant. Regardless, I think the admins can sort this out. Just10A (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hem, please do not edit your comments after they've been replied to, and correctly follow WP:REDACT if you wish to do so. As for your question @Liz, they seem to still be editing despite you asking it, so you may have your answer right there. Just10A (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm highly skeptical when someone says "Doesn't need to be drawn and quartered or anything" but then opens ANI thread on something which if it really was so simple, could easily be handled on ARE with much less fuss or involvement of the wider community. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If ARE was the more proper place for this, I apologize. I saw that similar PA/Aspersion threads had been directed here by admins so I thought this was the appropriate place. [385] Just10A (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The thread was moved from AN to ANI which was clearly correct. ARE never came up. I mean the subject matters also seems to be clearly CTOP, so ARE likely would have been a better venue too except that it looks like a boomerang or no action is the most likely outcome of that thread so the actual best venue for that complaint is the void i.e. not opening a thread. The ultimate point is that ANI discussions are by nature generally a lot more drama filled than ARE ones so if it's really something simple and covered by CTOP, ARE often makes the most sense. ANI discussions can still be needed e.g. where it's not a CTOP area, the editor is was not aware for most of the behaviour but action is already needed or those odd cases where it's complicated enough that more input from the community is needed. But any editor experienced enough to open a complaint really should know all that. Although it's not like this should be news, the boomerang talk was about opening an ARE thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed to see this. Hemiauchenia, you are an experienced editor. WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA cover all editors, not just those whose contributions you value. Granted that editors who are blocked as socks or vandals are often the target of barbs and slights at noticeboards like ANI, that lapse in civility doesn't include legitimate editors participating in article talk page discussions.

I'm sorry you are uncomfortable by the weather where you live but if you find yourself in a bad mood, it's time to stay away from editing on the project, it doesn't make it open season on less experienced editors. Can you at least state that you will try to be more civil? I think that if you are not contributing as an editor to an article on a contentious subject, it would be best for you to just keep your distance from the article talk page since you are not offering comments about the subject of the article but comments on the contributors. In fact, I think that is generally good advice for all of us. There is no point visiting the talk pages of contentious articles just to judge the editors who post at them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casting aspersions by another editor

Moved from WP:AN § Casting aspersions by another editor

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I am involved in a content dispute on an article for Ilhan Omar's talk page (specifically this discussion). That discussion is unfolding as any discussion might, and consensus is building, though slowly. Though at the same time, there is another editor, User:JayBeeEll who has now pretty directly accused me of being a sockpuppet of a blocked account, User:Jagged 85.

I can say without hesitation that this allegation is totally false, but I believe it falls under the definition of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and borders on a personal attack. I believe that I have been WP:CIVIL in my interactions and comments, and if any of my actions have fallen short, then I am open to receiving corrective guidance, but I simply would like for the other editor to Wikipedia:FOC and stop making what appear to me to be personal attacks on my character. I rarely engage with the ANI noticeboard, so I am not sure if this is a poorly formatted or incorrectly formatted comment, so I apologize if so, but please let me know how we can best proceed from here. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that this will not come out as polished as I'd like but, in my experience here, I think accusing another editor of perhaps being a sockpuppet is both casting aspersions but also very common, even among experienced editors. So, yes, it was not right to say and, if an editor has suspicions, they should take them to WP:SPI, not drop the comment into a talk page discussion BUT it's also very common to see. I see sock allusions quite frequently in AFD discussions.

So, no it shouldn't have happened but if it is just an isolated comment and not followed up by other aspersions or insults, generally nothing happens beyond other editors reminding the offender that they just cast aspersions and to watch their language. I don't know if this is what you were expecting but if you are worried that this will color other editor's opinion of you, I wouldn't be concerned with that. Most editors are, at some point, accused of being sockpuppets, I know that I was, and I still passed my RFA a year later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Liz is right, lljhgtn: it may be the most frequently flouted rule on the project. The one time I was accused was by a former arb and admin, who surely should have known better. But the plus side is that it is so commonplace that, unless there are strong WP:DUCK indicators, most experienced editors just tune out the accusations, and if they are made on skimpy evidence, the accuser ends up looking worse to most the surrounding contributors than does the accused. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Is there any recourse then to ensure it does not continue? I'd really rather not have any interaction with this editor ever again. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the sockpuppet accusation, I sighed deeply when I saw that this dispute was, again, about editors trying to shoehorn Ilhan Omar's supposed Somali name into her article in a prominent position. I thought we'd got past this nonsense years ago. Quite apart from the fact that there doesn't appear to be any reliable source for this name apart from using transliteration, there is also no evidence that she has ever used it, if it exists. I'd remind the people trying to do this that this article is a BLP, and inserting your own WP:OR into it for what are clearly quite transparent reasons will not fly. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

To be pedantic, what JayBeeEll wrote was "I've spent some time in the past convincing myself that they're probably not a sock-puppet of User:Jagged 85". This is an accusation of acting similarly to a blocked editor but not an accusation of actually being the blocked editor. Zero^talk 11:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As the subject of this report, I do not find it to be mere pedantry that the premise of the report is completely false. --JBL (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and in full And Iljhgtn in particular also makes a habit of going around to articles inventing Hebrew names for people in a way that (to me) closely resembles hoaxing (to the extent that I've spent some time in the past convincing myself that they're probably not a sock-puppet of User:Jagged 85). I'm struck that the only aspersion Iljhgtn finds in that is socking, which isn't there. NebY (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I find many aspersions. I was not sure if I need to list them all out of if I need to go through each one item-by-item. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The socking claim is only one. Beyond that, the editor is generally crass and quite rude and continued to disparage both my character as well as editing style. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well as I mentioned above, stop trying to insert original research into a BLP and this issue will simply go away. Your choice. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Omar is a US Congressperson. If you look at[386], you will find 13 paragraphs of the death threats, comparisons to 9/11, physical attack, mentions of terrorism, slanderous lies by Trump, etc. with which she has had to deal. Some of us are less than enjoying yet another attempt to place an Arabic spelling of her name at the start of the article which would tend to make her sound un-American to some folk. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Arabic should not be included! I am not advocating for that and have said as much several times! Though the Somali language mention was cited to a reliable source and that is not original research! As the editor @Marquardtika found, there was this source which uses the Somali (Ilhaan Cumar, or Ilhaan Cabdullaahi Cumar as a full name), similar to how Ayaan Hirsi Ali's article does for naturalized American citizens of Somali birth. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You began the section with There was an arabic spelling of her name that was removed, can that be added back for muslim readers and arabic speakers/readers? You continued along this line until you met heavy resistence, and then switched to just Somali. It still uses a different alphabet. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's a transliteration in a BBC Somali language page. Find a single reliable source that says that Omar has, or especially uses, a Somali name, and we can talk again. Because frankly, at the moment I'm wondering if we don't need to stop you wasting a lot of people's time here for reasons that are seriously starting to look problematic. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I also have to ask why we need hundreds of Hebrew redirects to the names of illegal Israeli settlements [387] given that this is the English Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn has a long and disruptive history of trying to insert Hebrew-language names into infoboxes of Israeli footballers, as well. That only ended following a discussion at MOS:BIO (if I recall) when numerous editors told them they were wrong. GiantSnowman 19:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion you are referring to can be found here. It was MOS:LEAD actually. In the end, no apparent consensus could be determined on whether to include or not include the material. That said, as I said then, and now, I am still very much interested in a clear guidance either way. If the consensus clearly establishes in the MOS that adding such foreign language equivalents should not be done, then I would of course abide by whatever the community decides upon. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Guidance has been given. The fact you cannot grasp that is a competency issue. You should be topic banned from editing foreign-language names. GiantSnowman 21:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok so I was probably never going to start an ANI thread about this, but since it's here already, let me repeat some comments I made in a less appropriate forum. I have serious concerns around Iljhgtn's editing concerning Hebrew names. Here he took an article with two foreign-language names and elevated only Hebrew to the infobox. Here he added a "native name" with no sourcing for a person who was born in the US and lived there for at least half of his life. The edits here are similar; I can see no evidence that Gaitsgory has a "native name" in Hebrew (why not in Tajik, Romanian, or Russian?). These are merely edits I happened to have noticed because articles were on my watchlist. As far as I can tell, none of Iljhgtn's Hebrew (or other non-English name edits) are ever supported by sources; this includes cases where it would be possible to do so (as in a recent example at Ruhi Khalidi), but I think that in the vast majority of cases Iljhgtn is just making shit up. This view is reinforced by our discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar that led to this report; in my view, they exude a disdain for the basic principle of sourced editing, and I think a significant fraction of their 70,000 edits are little better than hoaxing. I do not know what sanction to propose but I feel strongly that they should be prevented from continuing to fill Wikipedia with hundreds or thousands of unverifiable "native names" and similar. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I posted an ANI notice on their User talk page as they were probably under the impression that this discussion was over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Replying to JBL and unpacking the points one at a time.

1. Boris Tsirelson: The subject is a Russian Israeli, and lived from 1991-2017 in Israel as an Israeli Jew. In that context, the Hebrew appeared to be the primary, but Russian secondary as languages for the subject. In the infobox, there is often an option for only one native_name and native_name_lang to be included. I chose Hebrew for the infobox based on the subject matters most apparent direct connection in terms of nationality.
2. Stephen Wiesner spent the first half of his life in America, but the latter half in Israel. Based on your arguments with Ilhan Omar, we should include the Hebrew on this one then, no? How is this determined? How do we thread when and when not to include such foreign language equivalents?
3. Dennis Gaitsgory is an "Israeli-American" not a Tajik-American, therefore, I think I added the most closely related transliteration after the English dominant title.
4. Ruhi Khalidi I added the Arabic, which JBL removed, and then it was added back with support from another editor.
5. I do not see how this could be construed as "hoaxing", and I do not know where the hostility comes from. I do not think JBL has AGF at any stage of our interaction from what I can tell.

Iljhgtn (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

I propose that Iljhgtn be topic banned from the subject of names in languages other than English. This was already basically proposed by Black Kite and GiantSnowman above. One thing that the discussion above makes clear is that Iljhgtn has 0 interest or ability to acknowledge the problems with their editing. This is also present in this recent sub-thread of discussion, where Iljhgtn makes an unambiguous error, which I pointed out too cryptically; after it was clearly explained to them by two other editors, they respond in a way that completely ignored these explanations and continued to defend the bad edit; after I pointed them back to those explanations, they have simply gone silent and never acknowledged or corrected the error. A person with this attitude who is making bad edits at high volume and not acknowledging to any degree the problems needs to be stopped. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I am entirely open to community input and follow policy and guidelines as outlined. In some previous discussions, I have sought to have added to the MOS:LEAD some specific language that would either permit or prohibit edits of the type that I have been engaged in. I started the ANI because User:JayBeeEll accused my edits of "making shit up", when I was instead making basic transliteration additions on pages where the subject matter is most directly affiliated with a particular foreign language. In cases where I have made errors or been outside of these bounds, I have not edit-warred the revert (instead I participate in talk page discussions, is that so wrong!?). The "recent sub-thread of discussion" was started by editor another editor, named @QalasQalas, I think a serious lack of Wikipedia:AGF has been present in my interaction with JBL from the very beginning, and that is all that I sought redress from in bringing up this ANI. I am more than happy to back off from making too many edits in this specific area though until clear MOS/policy/guideline language is added that clarifies what might be required first in order to make the sort of edits that have been noted in some of the above discussion. If that is acceptable, I will begin laying off of those for the most part, and no further action I would hope is necessary. Lastly, I do have a real life as well, and I respond to everything as fast I possibly can. Please be patient and remember WP:TIND. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Your chronic dishonesty is really shocking. I started the ANI because User:JayBeeEll accused my edits of "making shit up" is a lie, as everyone can see by reading your first comment here. I am more than happy to back off from making too many edits in this specific area is straightforwardly dishonest as you have been asked to do that by many people over many months. I respond to everything as fast I possibly can is another lie, as you are invoking it as an excuse for not responding to a simple yes/no query during a 48-hour period in which you made more than 100 edits elsewhere in the encyclopedia. That's not a complete list of the misrepresentations in this single paragraph, but I will grant that probably The "recent sub-thread of discussion" was started by editor another editor, named @QalasQalas is just a matter of misunderstanding: when I link to a particular comment with the phrase "this recent sub-thread", I refer to that comment (yours) and the thread that follows it. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The comment of, "Tell me, who was off caring for your children during the 100 other edits you made while ignoring my question?" is exactly why I initiated this ANI.

Nothing else. No other points. The rest are content disputes that can all be dealt with on their own relevant talk pages. But you continue to make deeply personal statements while I have stated above to move on to different topics and types of edits (notice the past few hundred are indicative of that).

The fact is that every type of edit is different. Some take a lot of time and energy and research, others can be made with relative ease. Every editor knows this and has different types and sizes of edits made over the course of their time contributing to Wikipedia together. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, did you actually post the question Tell me, who was off caring for your children during the 100 other edits you made while ignoring my question? to another editor? I don't have the context but that crosses a line. Maybe we need an IBan here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Look. Please do not make it a point of criticism if I do not respond quickly enough on a talk page discussion to each of your points. I have a job and children to attend to as well. Context is a useful thing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, that comment helps but it still seems like a bizarre remark to make. 04:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Liz, please read the discussion I linked above, the question makes perfect sense in context but it is not realistic to copy entire sections of talk-pages onto ANI. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, I appreciate the consideration of an IBAN for my protection from harassment by JBL, though if possible, I think more formal sanctions should be avoided when possible. In this case, since I have already agreed to take a step back from some of the material that has come up in this discussion, I wonder if we could both agree to just generally avoid one another and not waste anyone more time of the participants?

On a separate matter, I wonder if a formal RfC would be helpful on the Ilhan Omar talk page, and just bring some clear resolution to that over there instead of conflating too many things at once in this already long ANI thread. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This all started with a reasonable complaint by Iljhgtn that JayBeeEll was casting aspersions. While there is no clear accusation of socking, it seems insinuated by the statement JBL made. Based on a cursory look at the history of both users, thats completely absurd as they seem little alike in their topic preferences even with a little overlap, and one has to wonder why JBL would even think that. Liz and Snowrise had constructive and reasonable responses.

Additionally, JBL suggested activity was "closely resembling hoaxing", which also seems like an insinuated personal attack. Again based on zero evidence. Things are either hoaxing or they are not. Looking at the examples provided:

Boris Tsirelson:

בוריס סמיונוביץ' צירלסון is the Hebrew article

בוריס סמיונוביץ' צירלסון is what Iljhgtn put.

Stephen Wiesner:

They put סטיבן ויזנר

The Hebrew article העברה עלומה mentions סטיבן ויסנר which could be wrong and Iljhgtn is right

Dennis Gaitsgory:

cant find anything either way

It seems based on these, they are either right, or a mere letter off. On what basis is a citation needed for this? If there is a corresponding article on Hebrew Wikipedia, then its easy. Otherwise, what is the problem? Of all the things to be contentious about? Hoaxing is inventing false information. These are at least attempts to be correct transliterations. There are myriads of examples of uncited name transliterations. Shall we go around removing them all? I see a lot of cherrypicking.

And then to ice the cake, JBL makes a quite snide remark: "Tell me, who was off caring for your children during the 100 other edits you made while ignoring my question?" Isnt that a bit insensitive and cruel? I would agree with Liz that an IBAN of JBL on Iljhgtn is warranted at a minimum. Metallurgist (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Metallurgist, I am trying to avoid repeating myself at great length, but: the problem with Tsirelson is elevating Hebrew to the infobox but not Russian, not any question of whether the Hebrew is correct; the problem with Gaitsgory is that it is entirely made up (there are no sources anywhere that indicate that he "has a Hebrew name" or that it is the particular string Iljhgtn gave); and the problem with Wiesner (and much more generally) is that Iljhgtn does not base any of this on sources of any kind, he just makes shit up for his own amusement. I am obviously extremely annoyed by this very poor behavior (which has, given Iljhgtn's high rate of editing, undoubtedly added false or undue or unverifiable information to thousands of articles) and I am not using optimal tone or tenor in my engagements, so please read the comments by Black Kite and GiantSnowman, who have expressed the same idea in better temperment. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I did look into the examples you presented, and that was the only one that was really wrong. Youve never made a mistake or been overeager? Looking at their comment above, it sounds like they have voluntarily agreed to lay off this and it looks like both of you are fine no longer interacting. Its probably best for everyone to move on from this. Metallurgist (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: No the idea that Dennis Gaitsgory "has a Hebrew name" is definitely wrong; the fact that you can't find anything about it either way is the proof of its wrongness. If I go to some random biography and add "known by his friends as 'Slick'" in the first sentence, and you are unable to find any source that supports it and I refuse to offer one, you would recognize that as deeply inappropriate behavior on my part, indistinguishable from hoaxing. This is exactly the same, except that it is happening over hundreds or thousands of articles. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you are definitely wrong. Here is an archive link from his alma mater, Tel Aviv University, showing his Hebrew name as a featured alumnus, in reference to winning the 2025 Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics. Metallurgist (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not commenting on the editor behavior or aspersions here but wanted to chime in about "These are at least attempts to be correct transliterations. There are myriads of examples of uncited name transliterations. Shall we go around removing them all?". I think misses the complaint about these transliterations. As mass creations, these redirects are coming from a sense of achieving some level of completeness that's unwarranted in the encyclopedia. They aren't evolving organically where an editor focused on one article might find that a specific biography would benefit strongly from a redirect from a person's name in their native tongue. Instead, these are wholly original research, creating transliterations wherever possible with no regard to whether the name exists in reality. I don't think we should set aside Iljhgtn's behavior just because other editors might have made bad transliterations. We have different rules for mass creations and bot-like behavior because these kinds of errors grow too fast for the community to review and correct. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I have stopped making those edits until new consensus emerges, ideally in the MOS:LEAD on what guidance we should take either for or against, and two, at least 99%+ of the redirects that I created might have been for Israeli born natives that had extremely obvious Hebrew names such as "Noam" or "Moshe" and that a Hebrew transliteration could only ever be correct for as a "נֹ֫עַם" or "משֶׁה" respectively. The accusation that these were "made up" is just bewildering. I never reverted back or edit warred in instances where I made a mistake, there was uncertainty, or just frankly in the event of any challenge. I believe the right place for settling such disputes is on talk pages anyway. In any event, I am focusing on other areas now. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I came here from the Ilhan Omar discussion, which was definitely an unverifiable ("made up") transliteration. I generally find these redirects useful and I look forward to participating in the policy discussions elsewhere on them. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It was sourced to BBC Somali "Ilhaan Cumar". Iljhgtn (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Is that all that's required per BLP? DN (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Several editors on the article talk page have already explained why this isn’t a verifiable biographical detail about her birth name so there's no need to fork the discussion here. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My point was just that it was not "made up". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note The discussion at Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Adding_Efn_native_name has raised the point that Iljhgtn has also been adding unsourced Somali and Arabic names to other American politicians. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes there's a major WP:FAITACCOMPLI aspect to all this. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Iljhgtn - and would also support two-way interaction ban as well, agree some of the comments above are inappropriate. GiantSnowman 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think that both of us would be happy with the interaction ban, FWIW (but as an accompanyment for the topic-ban, not a substitute). --JBL (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like Iljhgtn is willing to lay off the topic voluntarily, see above. And both editors want to cease interaction with each other. That seems like the best resolution to all this that everyone just walks away. And JBL hopefully is able to improve the tone of responses in the future, which seems to be what started this. Metallurgist (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Iljhgtn's "commitment" above is vague and unenforceable. The thing that started this is a completely false claim about me, as Zero0000 helpfully pointed out several days ago. (Has Iljhgtn ever retracted the false claim, or apologized for their misrepresentation of me? Of course not.) --JBL (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I made my initial assertion based on a basic reading of the original statement that got us here, you said, "I've spent some time in the past convincing myself that they're probably not a sock-puppet of User:Jagged 85" Also, you then went on to falsely accuse me of hoaxing. This entire ANI started as a response on my part against your harassment and hostility, which has continued here.

  Per WP:AGF, I would be happy to forgive and retract my statement if I did in fact misunderstand. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Observation and suggestion A two way Iban might be a good idea and welcomed by both. Other than that this proposal looks like a derailment by and written by the person who was the subject of the OP. The OP was about some pretty substantial conduct issues towards another editor none of which have been refuted. The complaints against Iljhgtn seem to be disagreeing with their edits plus some minor-at-best other ones like not responding to a question for 46 hours. See if they are both willing to back off a moderate amount, and maybe give JBL an informal warning on the conduct issues. And move on and see how this goes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  @North8000: This topic-ban was proposed informally by two administrators in the section above; if you are not impressed with my behavior (fair) please go read the comments of Black Kite and GiantSnowman. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  My comments are only exactly as written. You seem to be reading more into them. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  @North8000: Sorry I don't understand this response. You described this proposal as "by the person who was the subject of the OP". This is imprecise: the proposal for a topic ban was made (without a section heading) by two administrators before I created this subsection. (It is also not true that "none of [the issues raised with my conduct] have been refuted"; indeed the entire premise of this thread is mistaken, as Zero0000 pointed out rather quickly.) As I said, if you do not find my contributions compelling, I request that you read the comments to which I refer (by Black Kite, GiantSnowman, and Zero0000). Thanks. --JBL (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  My take on this and suggestion remains as in my 18:40 post. My one clarification is that I had a low key meaning of "derailment" in mind as simply an observation of the mechanics of what happened and nothing stronger than that. Regarding your behavior listed in the OP, the most I suggested as "maybe give JBL an informal warning" so I don't want to beat that aspect to death. Briefly, I don't agree that you have refuted any of the points in my post. Regarding the asperson about being a sock, I don't agree that lack of a specific accusation of being a sock means that it wasn't an aspersion about them being a sock. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat...???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Special:Contributions/172.110.27.91- IP rambling about some court case which appears to involve the Secret Service and Texas space lasers. 3 of its edits were made to my talk page, one of which appears to contain a loose legal threat against Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This diff by the IP refers to c:Special:Contributions/172.110.27.91, and if you follow that, it becomes slightly clearer. Looks like the user is suing Wikipedia. That is covered by the WP:NLT policy, so I am blocking for one week, though I believe this threat is disorganized enough as to not have a chilling effect on editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe They also have an account here, User:Kevinkohute39. Looking through their contribs they have not made one single valuable edit at all. I'd argue this is a WP:NOTHERE Electricmemory (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention the personal info on that account, as well as nearly every one of their contribs to Wikimedia having been undone. Electricmemory (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The person did actually file a civil suit against the Secret Service in Texas, but agree they should their ramblings and nonsense off Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia suit is linked to this person's account, I've indeffed for legal threats. While the user has done the opposite of expecting privacy (posting all sorts of personal identifiers etc.,) I'd give them privacy, as the proper course of action. Deleting personal info. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Their talk page contains further personally identifying information, including an address, that you may be interested in revdelling. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Rev-del'd, notified Oversight. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, the WP:NLT policy doesn't say a legal threat has to be at all plausible, and this person should certainly not be editing Wikipedia, so I guess that's as good a reason as any to block them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross-Wiki Harrassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm an administrator on itwiki. Currently being harrassed on my talk page here on enwiki. Would appreciate if you could block the user and revert it, or better protect the page. Thanks Valcio (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I reported them at WP:AIV. They are blocked now and can't cause any more trouble, at least here. Annh07 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unusual declared COI AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Constable
• MrKevinGoddard (talk · contribs)

This is something I don't usually see in AfD; MrKevinGoddard who claims in social media marketing for Fluor Corporation, the company Mr. Constable is CEO for, has nominated their article for deletion as they don't feel the sourcing is up to snuff. They have made no edits to the page itself outside starting the deletion discussion, and I just want to make sure this is proper for them to do since we rarely run into a situation where someone with a company nominates their leader's own article. There's nothing where I'm seeing any kind of whitewashing of the article outside some copyvio removals in the past, but I just want to make sure that MrKevinGoddard is okay to do this so that if this situation comes up again I'm doing the right thing in letting it go forward, or if it needs to be re-nominated by someone non involved (and I have no intention to have anything given to MrKevinGoddard except clarity; I do not feel their edits are inappropriate in any way). Thanks for any advice you can give either of us. Nathannah • 📮 21:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. We regularly see article subjects ask for articles about them to be deleted. Sometimes, this is a request that is honored, other times, it becomes controversial in itself and editors argue about whether article subjects should have this privilege to ask for the page's deletion. It is certainly a COI for an employee of the company the subject works for to start an AFD deletion discussion but in situations like this, an article is usually judged on its merits (or lack of merit), not on who started the AFD (except for cases of sockpuppetry). I understand why you brought the issue to ANI but I think the result will just be more editor attention to this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, that definitely helps answer my question; I'll proceed as if it's a normal nom (and EEng, as a long-timer on AfD with experience, there are fewer folks that ever go to an AfD talk page than air conditioner installers in Alaska; I would never get any response there, which is why I brought the question here for proper eyes). Nathannah • 📮 21:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You'd have got a response if you'd pinged a few editors that already know you to that page (just as I'm pinging you here now). And if that hadn't worked, you could've gone directly to some friendly neighborhood admin's talk page. ANI is not just a last resort, it's the VERY last resort. (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, more trying to educate neophyte editors who might come upon this thread and get the wrong idea of what is appropriate for ANI.) EEng 02:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GhostDanceBand legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GhostDanceBand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username against policy, WP:COI editing, and trying to WP:OWN "their" article. Oh, and legal threats. GoldRomean (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The best option may be to completely remove the entire article in order to avoid publicising incorrect information. GhostDanceBand (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you do not WP:OWN your article and should make edit requests instead of directly editing it, since you have a conflict of interest. Additionally, your edits should have sources and are promotional in tone; which is why they were reverted (along with the removal of sourced information without much explanation). And please remove your legal threat, that is not allowed. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple IPs disrupting a page/IP disrupting after receiving block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

136.61.4.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to make a thread about this IP, who had been blocked for 3 months for continually adding an end date to Hot Wheels Let's Race, but I just noticed that shortly after their block expired, they again reverted it to their preferred version of the page, [388] despite no reliable source confirming the show had been cancelled. I looked at the article history, and numerous IPs were making the same disruptive edit on the page. [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] I took a look at their disruptive contributions, and then the disrupted pages article history, and the numerous IPs were making the same unconstructive edits on the pages. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked before in March for 31 hours, so probably a repeat offender. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 01:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

They were then blocked for 3 months, and then when their block expired recently, they went right back to their disruptive edits. Since multiple IPs were using the same edit, sock puppetry is suspected. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.