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 ([2] and [3]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Oppose ImaginesTigers is continuing his battleground crusade as retaliation for my comment in the Veilguard RfC[37], which makes a case for removing some of the content he wrote. BMWF (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• reiterating my support for this here per my comment above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose Appears to be retaliatory and ideologically motivated. Many participants above such as Kowal have previously tried to get some of these editors banned.[38] Koriodan (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[39]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[40]

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

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)[reply]

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.[41] BMWF (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: NCT is already tbanned, per the section above this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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 [42] [43], 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)[reply]

  Completely untrue. Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[44], 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.[45] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  '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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[46][47][48][49] Koriodan (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] 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[58].
  • 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.[59]
  • 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[60]
  • Sariel edit warred to make sure the reception mentioned that the game is "woke" and that it mentioned that MetaCritic had negative user reviews.[61][62]
  • An example of the tag team editing is here too. Sariel will revert[63], and then Vestigium Leonis will revert saying As Sariel said[64], and then OceanHok will revert.
• That it is "woke" that Assassin's Creed Shadows has a black protagonist.[65]
  • OceanHok edit warred to insert that a "conservative Youtuber called it pandering" and "online