User talk:EnviousDemon

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank You EnviousDemon (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 07:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank You. I will take a look to assure I follow the guidelines. EnviousDemon (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate your uncivil behavior towards me. You insinuate that I am a right wing anarchist when I suggest to update the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone article with actual acts of violence occurring in that zone. That apparently doesn’t sit well with your own political views. 4 days after I suggested the additions of on the ground footage of violence to warn people about lawlessness in the area (which you were against, ridiculing me), a 19 year old was shot and killed in the area.

I tried to warn people, you objected, and 4 days later we have an actual death. You continue to be uncivil towards me, calling me an anarchist and extreme right wing while you know nothing of my location, nationality or political leanings. I think you are an uncivil and biased editor. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as you are new to Wikipedia, I will not call for administrative action, but I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @86.93.208.34:. Thank you for sharing with me your concerns about my so called "bias." Please let me know, where I called you a right wing anarchist? I merely stated that if you want to continue to post far right unreliable sources, to go somewhere else, since you've spent the past week disrupting the talk page. If you want to point me towards Content Guidelines, may I suggest you read WP:RS? Thanks.

I also have concerns seeing how you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia itself... yet you're posting from behind an IP. While not as suspicious, the nature of your edits and posts on the talk page led me to believe that you have not been editing in good faith.

Aswell, "trying to warn people" isn't a cause for an edit of Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFORUM. Suggesting that not allowing you to edit wikipedia with unreliable sources, caused someone to die is beyond mind boggling. Not only are you taking personal issues with what was said on the talk page, but you're now accusing me of leading to someone's death? How delusional are you?

Please go away, and stay off my talk page. EnviousDemon (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors who are (in effect) systematically laundering Pat Robertson's page of controversy and criticism. I can't do much because I'm not an auto-confirmed user. Is there any chance you could have a look, perhaps starting with my comments on the Talk page? OrganicStateMachine (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I don't feel like engaging in an edit war. It might be a good idea to head to WP:ANI if this continues to happen. EnviousDemon (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This was an unacceptable personal attack on another editor. Don't do it again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Any further edit-warring or personal attacks will bring a block. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion @Firefangledfeathers: Please note the thread below and this comment. I note that all four of these instances involve attempts to describe things as blood atonement without reliable sources, and the thread below and linked comment are now a second and third instance of accusing people of pro-Mormon POV-pushing for removing these poorly-sourced statements. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi EnviousDemon. I'm looking to interview experienced editors here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Colorado Springs nightclub shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

So I get in trouble for making reverts, but the guy who stalks me faces no repercussions at all for following me around the site and reverting any edit I make that mentions mormonism in some capacity? Got it. EnviousDemon (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If you broke the rules elsewhere and were reverted, that has nothing to do with me. I am giving you a warning for edit warring on the one article with your very poorly sourced addition. Reddit is not a reliable source, this was made clear to you by two different editors, and you decided instead to keep adding it. If you continue your disruptive editing, you will be blocked. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm done. I've tried to improve articles to the best of my ability, in good faith, but then I get accused of edit warring. It's clear the LDS sock army is too powerful and can exploit the system to get me to shut up. So you know, what I'm going to cease editing anything that has to do with Mormonism because this shit is way to stressful to deal with. EnviousDemon (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It's still amazing that people are seriously debating adding a "trans mass shooter" category but the moment I try to add categories regarding Mormon violence, I get in trouble. It's almost like there is a double standard there 🤔, but what do I know. It's not like a core tenant of their entire belief system is about how they should be justified in murdering anyone they consider a """sinner""". EnviousDemon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think that everyone reverting you is an LDS sock, that's a good sign that you're wayyy too close to this to edit neutrally. People have told you you were edit-warring because you were edit-warring. People have reverted you for unsourced or poorly-sourced edits because they were unsourced or poorly-sourced. Everyone is just holding you to the same standards everyone else is held to (including the people who want to insert content about supposed transgender violence). If you want to edit about LDS topics (or any topics!) without running into these kind of conflicts, there's a pretty simple recipe for that: First, only add claims that are cited to reliable sources. Second, if someone disagrees with your addition, assume good faith and follow normal dispute resolution steps, same as the rest of us do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that the warnings you received from me had ZERO bias, I didn't even know about any of your other edits at the time. The problem I had was that you were adding content to a page using nothing more than a Reddit thread for a source. Reddit is not a reliable source (specically, see WP:RSPREDDIT), and two users reverted your edit for this reason and made it clear in their edit summaries. Without any discussion or even a comment about it in your own edit summary, you decided to edit war and restore your content a third time. There is a specific rule that any user can only make 3 reverts to a page in a given 24-hour period, which is why I gave you the second warning after your third edit. Instead of bothering to even try to discuss it, you chose to create this section and message. As a Wikipedian, I honestly don't care who is on the other side of the keyboard, we are all equal here and treat each other with respect. But if you refuse to reciprocate that general respect (specifically, assuming good faith and not attacking other users), or are unable to edit without bias or follow the same rules as everyone else, we just don't need your help. Sorry. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Since you appear to have quit, I was just going to leave this alone, but after reviewing your recent edits, with your obsession with "blood sacrifice" and LDS, your continued bad sourcing, your accusations that everybody is an LDS plant, and your awful conduct on the talkpage for the Tumbler Ridge shooting, I've placed an indefinite block. You don't get to come back four months after warnings like you received from myself and Firefangledfeathers and behave as if nothing happened. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

As an independent observer who supports LGBTQ+ rights and understand the problem of religiously justified bigotry, I still found this to be obvious battleground editing, with "us and them" rhetoric. It was easily found in the edit history after your account gained too much attention at the recent shooting article. You were not blocked yet when I noticed this. Even with the benefit of the doubt, it is difficult to distinguish it with trolling to divide communities and increase tensions with accounts pushing at the two extremes of a topic. At the very least, it was not careful editing and I consider the block reasonable. Of course, it's a hot topic and people can also calm down and retry. An indefinite block can be appealed, if done properly. If after a break you have the intention to improve the encyclopedia in some way, I suggest to specify in which areas and to accept a temporary topic ban, either from LGBTQ+ or Mormonism. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)