User talk:IvanScrooge98

You were not blocked from Talk:Moroccanoil. You could have taken your concerns about the article to the talk page. Instead you opened WP:AN#Moroccanoil which is a demand that other editors proxy edit for you to evade your pblock, and - speaking frankly - a statement that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point to get your way (If you want me to drop the stick, someone needs to pick it up and clean up this messy situation ). You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours for attempted block evasion through proxying. When the block expires, I would strongly suggest you unwatch the page and move on to editing other pages on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? You didn’t even let me post a last reply. What proxy evasion?? I was asking someone to review the edits, not to revert them blindly on my behalf. Now I can’t even do that?? What on earth is even this? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: be civil and kindly unblock me as soon as possible. This was not an evasion attempt. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You demanded that other editors "clean up" the edits you disagree with. This was, in fact, an evasion attempt. You will not be unblocked. Again, drop the stick and walk away from the article. The article may or may not need cleanup. It does not have to be you watching over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Kindly stop misquoting me. The RfC was deeply problematic, this is an objective fact. I was asking that the whole process be reviewed and any problems cleaned up by a neutral administrator, not that the edits were just all reverted in bulk. And no, I’m not gonna take an article I have greatly contributed to off my watchlist just so unchecked unilateral editing goes on. If you don’t want me to “watch over it”, someone else should be doing it instead. Which is what I asked for. Instead, I got twice-blocked for even trying to raise the issue. This is very problematic imo. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I was not mis-quoting you. I can’t do anything to undo their disruption; If you want me to drop the stick, someone needs to pick it up and clean up this messy situation. Your exact words. And I’m not gonna take an article I have greatly contributed to off my watchlist just so unchecked unilateral editing goes on sounds a lot like you believe you own the content. You don't. Drop the stick, walk away, and edit something else when your block expires, because if you continue to beat on the dead horse you will wind up editing yourself into additional sanctions. None of us want that, so step off the road towards it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd note despite the OP's 5 alarm fire warning about this article, existing participants seems to be discussing the edits the OP disputes in a somewhat civil fashion further proving IMO that the OP's 5 alarm fire warning was unnecessary. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

They were civilly ignoring the whole point I raised just to drive me mad, a pattern that is seemingly repeating itself here. Thanks a lot. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think that you insinuating that users here and on the article talk page "were civilly ignoring the whole point I raised just to drive me mad" is really helping your case. While I would agree that it's a mild personal attack it isn't something you need to be doing. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I described the situation. I’ve been repeatedly pointing out something that seems to still fly over almost everyone’s heads. Whether it is intentional or not, there’s nothing I can do about it but keep underscoring it, in the hopes that some other user wakes up. Hardly a personal attack if you don’t listen to me all while you keep adding comments to my talk page. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There is in fact something else you can do: disengage and use your energy to improve something completely unrelated in any way to this article and dispute. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

And you can use your energy to do the same instead of continuously coming here to instigate bitter responses like a troll. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don’t believe I own the article. But neither do those who have made controversial edits to it. Kindly stop misquoting me to accuse me of things I am not guilty of. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Ivan, as someone who's not been involved in the dispute at Morroccanoil, please really take this time to take a breath on this. I honestly do think that if you return from this 48 hour block and continue re-raising this you'll be lucky to only end up with a Topic Ban for WP:CT/AI, and more than likely will just get hit with a far longer total block because of your unwillingness to let this go. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

But can you at least take a look at the issue I raised? It only feels like I’m being driven to madness because I’m seeing a huge problem and everyone else is blaming me instead of checking it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not a huge problem. It is one page about a company. See User:Theleekycauldron/Some disputes aren't worth it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

“[...] avoid getting sucked in at all costs. (But maybe let an admin know if there aren't enough eyes on a nasty situation.)” I was blocked for doing this. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You were already blocked so clearly at least one admin knows about the situation. And I see experienced editors in the RfC. This doesn't seem to be a dispute which needs more eyes but instead editors who aren't getting their way i.e. you need to move on. Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I got it, none of you is even gonna read it. Thanks for the support. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed the latest controversial edit was partly undone by M.Bitton (talk · contribs), whom I’m gonna thank here (since I was blocked even from pressing the “thank” button) for doing what you guys refused to do, i.e. keeping an eye on any possible disruption and separating the two very different matters discussed at the page talk. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

In order to write a compelling appeal (or avoid future sanction), it would be super worthwhile for you to consider what the sequence of events around your blocks looks like to someone not invested in your particular position. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gino Paoli, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

At least one other user has warned you before me about incorrectly removing Catalan identifiers when there have literally been discussions about when inclusion is clear and relevant, and your edit reasons are nonsense bullshit - so consider this your final warning. In the case of Cristina Baudet, which I strongly encourage you completely refrain from editing in the best interest of you not being reported, that's a player who has exclusively played in the city of Barcelona and turned down playing for Spain but did represent Catalonia internationally. That's more than clearly relevant. Quit it. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have no idea what you are blabbering about. I have made edits completely unrelated to that. And I encourage you to read MOS:GEOLINK which I have linked countless times and you have ignored. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I added categories that you removed. And "in February 2026 she is engaged" is historical present, which is not how we word biographies on enwiki, and I changed it to "got engaged". Please stop undoing my improvements, disrupting the article instead. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romandy, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallo-Romance was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You're in the media: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What an honor LOL. They even wasted their time going through old edits of mine from Commons. Great investigative journalism! :) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

happy ➡️⬅️ Easter, do you want a^cake? Ivanscrooge (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy Easter, I guess. But what about your username? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I want a refund f**k Ivanscrooge (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that under WP:AIUPSCALE image policy, the English Wikipedia doesn't use AI upscales of historical photographs (eg. File:Angelina Merlin.jpg as a 12x enlargement of File:Lina Merlin I legislatura.jpg on Lina Merlin). The original available photo scans are preferred, even if they are of a lower quality. Belbury (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok. The thing is I didn’t do anything to the lower-quality file, I just uploaded a version with higher resolution that I found elsewhere, and then looking closely I noticed something must have been done to the original – which is neither of the two. I’m gonna have to upload that one then. What a mess. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, IvanScrooge98. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Moroccanoil. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do you really want me to open up another AE filing? Please consult WP:NOTVANDAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m not attacking editors, I’m describing vandals. Please learn the difference. There is a vandalizing user who is still around trying to push an agenda after already getting away with vandalism with impunity. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, if you insist. (I'm personally not a fan of being described as a vandal.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

To make it clear: the vandal started their process of outright disruption after overtly vandalizing the article on at least two occasions ( and ) simply out of spite, this is why I’m calling them by their name. So not an improper word for an editor who acts like Julian. And since you guys keep allowing them to intervene in the article, don’t get angry when I use the same word for you. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samira Lui, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Il Giorno was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is IvanScrooge98. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you retract everything that you wrote so far in that case, think carefully about what you're being accused of and then formulate a response that should include an apology and a promise not to repeat the same thing. I'm fully aware of the dispute and what went on, but the admins won't look beyond the surface (which doesn't look good). Forget about what's fair and what isn't and do the right thing, i.e., don't let a dispute about an article overshadow all the good things that you did for this project. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Why should I promise not to repeat my engagement with a disruptive user? Look at the discussion. They have already decided. Best you can do is intervene in my favor. Thanks for everything you’ve done so far by the way, and for attempting to save my contributions. I appreciate it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Because it's not worth it, and to be totally honest with you, I (as someone who is familiar with the issue) found your responses over the top (this should tell you something) and could literally predict what was going to happen (even before the article's block). In hindsight, I should have said something back then. Please consider what I said and act before it's too late. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s already too late. But again, thanks. Please try to save what is savable of my contributions to the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not too late to strike what you wrote so far, apologise and promise not to repeat the same behaviour. You should mean it: even if that doesn't seem obvious right now, it will sink in once you look at it from a different angle. Trust me on this. M.Bitton (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

But I don’t mean it now. It’s just obvious I won’t do any of that when the issue is settled, I never did it anywhere else even for worse problems. My history on the project should speak for myself. I’ve tried to highlight this but they chose to ignore it. Just like they chose to ignore the fact that the Moroccanoil article is going down the drain. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

.. when the issue is settled you'll just have to accept that it won't be settled. I know it's hard, but that's the way it is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Look, they settled the issue: now I can’t even edit in areas that have nothing to do with Moroccanoil or Israel, in utter spite of my contribution history. Goes to show how much some really care about Wikipedia. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Original heading: "Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

More information Converted to a normal block per the discussion below ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC) ...

Converted to a normal block per the discussion below ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following sanction now applies to you: You are blocked from editing Wikipedia, and from editing this page here for any other purpose than requesting an unblock, for 1 month. Voicing loud and unfriendly feedback about this action would be forgiven, trying to convince others to make edits for you would not be. You have been sanctioned for using Wikipedia as a battleground and persistently describing disagreement as "vandalism" as described in the recent arbitration enforcement request. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Close

Wow, thanks a lot! You managed to go even further than your colleagues in the discussion. Is this even allowed? I thought you were going to implement their decisions, not to take further steps that were not thoroughly discussed. I’m going to appeal for an unblock. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It is; arbitration enforcement actions can be implemented by a single administrator or a rough consensus of administrators. The former are more limited and I guess it could be argued that the additional restriction on how you can use your talk page, placed with the previous block for proxying in mind, may be out of scope. I'm open to that argument; it might be worth voicing in the unblock request. The 1-month sitewide block is definitely allowed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Update

The block was originally a formal WP:AE/WP:CTOP action with special rules for appeals, but as discussed with asilvering below, this didn't make sense. The following default block information now applies to your block:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for using Wikipedia as a battleground and persistently describing disagreement as "vandalism". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IvanScrooge98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

the blocking admin implemented excessive measures compared to what was being discussed in the arbitration enforcement. I request that my site-wide ban be reduced to a topic ban.

Decline reason:

No. If TBF hadn't already blocked you, I would have just now. asilvering (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that’s really shameful, I’m not gonna lie. Not even reducing to a topic ban. Let’s just exaggerate with me while some disruptive users roam around the project undisturbed right? Did you at least read my reasonings? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Should the appeal be copied to WP:AE or WP:AN? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don’t know, I’m not used to being blocked so badly that I need to appeal to someone’s benevolence. You should be more familiar with how to deal with such situations. I’d say copy to both to make sure, idk. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think both would be forum shopping. The consensus for overturning the block at AE needs to be among administrators, the consensus for overturning the block at AN needs to be among the discussion participants from the entire community. As the entire community is often more lenient in their actions against behavioral issues of prolific content creators, I guess AN has the highest chances of being upset about my decision, so I'll copy it there ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

...unless you want to add something perhaps. Like, arguments for why it's excessive. Mh. I shouldn't judge...

I can or perhaps even should also just first wait for an uninvoled administrator to appear and to decide what to do with the appeal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s excessive because it wasn’t being discussed, as I said. And because I basically never had serious behavioral issues in over ten years until the most recent months. And because I’ve always acted in the sake of the project and always brought significant contributions in my editing area. It’s a shame to sacrifice my entire edit chances over issues regarding single users or topics. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Someone seeing this appeal should probably copy it to AN; please notify me. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I don't fully understand why you made this an AE action instead of a regular admin action. Could you explain, or would you consider changing it to a normal action? It is very strange to block someone as an AE action while the AE thread is ongoing. But it's also clear that a block was necessary. As I said, I'd have done it myself for conduct in that thread alone. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, mostly because it was a response to the AE thread. If there hadn't been a discussion about additional sanctions, the block would have closed the thread. It also seemed to me like a situation that kind of block was made for, namely one single administrator taking action that isn't easily overturned by someone else just because the blocked user is a prolific content creator. I think the main difference is where a successful appeal can be had – here or at a noticeboard. I didn't expect another administrator to support the decision so quickly and clearly that they would also just decline here instead of taking it to AN. I think both the decline and the AE/CTOP status of the block should be fine but I'm not much opposed to changing this if that is highly unusual or doesn't make sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the following just came to my mind: An AE block and a regular block don't even differ in the regard that the blocked user can specifically ask to appeal at AN. And – I didn't analyze the policies thoroughly enough to be 100% sure – but they also probably don't differ in the regard that the request can be declined outright. What I certainly don't mean to prevent is quick declines of bad unblock requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It was in response to the AE thread, sure, but there was an active discussion going on there, and no one was suggesting a one-month block. A tempblock was obviously necessary from their behaviour in the thread alone, but that's for their behaviour in the thread, not as a reaction to the substance of the report, which was still clearly under discussion. asilvering (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

And yet you still declined my request abruptly and without explanation even amid discussions. May I have an answer? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I'll convert it to a normal block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IvanScrooge98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

My previous request was harshly rejected without explanation, with the AE still going on and no consensus over a site-wide ban. There needs to be serious intervention by a balanced administrator. Again, please reduce my ban to a topic ban. I’m serious.

Decline reason:

There is no chance of this happening right now. I'm not removing TPA, but recommend all parties stop engaging here save for any necessary notifications. Star Mississippi 14:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so I cannot expect a third-party admin to review this. Only admins who have prevously dealt with me have been stepping in to review my blocks. The same five or so. Thanks a lot, appreciated. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Ivan, there is no present consensus at AE for a siteban, that is true. None is likely to develop, either. But you quite clearly need to be removed from editing at least for now, and the AE discussion about what to do about your conduct in the topic area can continue while you're blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, finally an answer. And still, not on the whole website, and “at least for now” means a whole month. This should first be discussed, if the problem here is really my civility when you guys are not showing much towards me. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

No, a block from the whole website is fully appropriate for this kind of conduct, since it spans multiple pages and multiple namespaces. And a month is, frankly, generous, given your recent block history. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Ivan, I would suggest, at this point, observing the law of holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. My recent block history over specific cases doesn’t warrant excluding me from the entire site for so long, nor does it overwrite my decade-long history of contributions to the project. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, I still don’t understand what’s gonna happen if the AE ultimately applies the topic ban – which is now obvious. Because if it sums up to this ban rather than replace it, it’s gonna be utterly ridiculous. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The block is mine, it's independent of what happens at AE. A topic ban from AE would probably be of indefinite duration, so you'd remain blocked sitewide for the month and could then edit within the limits of the ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so ridiculous and excessive. Had I known I’d be abused like this, I would have turned you down when you asked to intervene in the AE. Mistakes you make when you want to prove you’re in good faith. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ivan, as someone who has recently had to go through AE and believed it to be unfair I can sympathise with such a feeling of anger and frustration, but I think you may find an enforced sitewide absence helpful here because reading your comments where you suggest a feeling you're being "forced" to respond quickly is resulting simply in you making things worse with heated in the moment responses that are now clearly into territory of the personal.

Accusing admins of being biased against you and engaging in "shameful" conduct because you weren't immediately unblocked only makes it less likely anyone will see your unblock request and grant it. I would suggest you come back in a few days and submit an unblock request where you reflect on how your reaction and comments turned what would've still been a topic ban into a full site block. An honest apology goes a long way in winning back trust that you're increasingly damaging here, and eventually you will find your decade long history of contributions really doesn't amount to much if you're going to continue acting the way you currently are. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The only thing I have to apologize for is using offensive language towards good-faith users and/or admins who might have not realized they were playing into a disruptive editor’s game – something which is as clear as day just by looking at that editor’s history. But I cannot be expected to apologize for being reserved a treatment which does more about stressing me further than about solving anything or helping the project – since I was, on the contrary, never disruptive in terms of contributions. So that’s it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling other users vandals, holding someone's previous misbehaviour over their head long after it was dealt with appropriately by admins, and to be frank conducting yourself in your current manner that comes across as little more than suggesting you hold everyone else in contempt simply for not agreeing with you is highly disruptive behaviour in a collaborative project. If admins think you're just going to act like this further somewhere else when unblocked, you'll quickly find that one month block becomes permanent.

To put it succinctly, if you keep insisting that everyone else is wrong then there's a good chance it's possibly yourself who are at fault here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

In all seriousness, take a week off if this is causing you so much stress right now and come back with a more thought out unblock appeal that focuses on what you've done and what you'll do differently. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It might have been dealt with but the user never acknowledged having vandalized the article – the opposite in fact – and, on top of that, they seem to have a history of conflict and disruptive editing aside from this specific case. So it’s really problematic to just go along with them at the expense of article content, whether one realizes it or not. I don’t just wanna insist that everyone is wrong and I am the only one who’s right. What I’m saying is that the issues I’ve raised have not been taken seriously, when not outright ignored, and now I’m the one who’s been punished for overreacting. Yes, I’ve made mistakes; yes, I might be taking it too personally and almost acting like I own the article; but this happens when you made a lot of effort into building a page and you see all your work being destroyed piece after piece in a series of actions spearheaded by someone who has repeatedly shown they are, instead, hardly here to contribute to the project. And it drives you further mad when you’re the only one who seems to notice it, possibly because it involves you more closely than anyone else. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, you are still blaming other people for why you have behaved the way you have. That is not taking responsibility for your own actions. Another editor being in your view disruptive isn't a licence to also engage in disruption.

If you believed you could demonstrate with strong, clear evidence another user was engaged in repeated, ongoing disruption (which is not simply disagreeing with you) then you had the option to take that to the relevant noticeboard and present it much in the same way has happened to yourself now twice. You chose not to do this. Instead you only seem to point the finger at this other editor in a manner that is reminiscent of going "but they started it" after people have gotten tired of your disruptive behaviour. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m not blaming anyone for my behavior, I’m blaming others for theirs. I’ve never denied having had my fair share. But I never had time to go pick all the links to prove my point and open an official case against someone else when I had to focus on a number of things, starting from defending myself and my contributions. Other users apparently do have that time and were able to immediately open a trial about my overreaction. Now I’m asking you to please leave my talk page because you’re contributing to making me further angry about this horrible situation. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"I wouldn't have done X if this other person hadn't done Y" is blaming others for your behavior. And if you are the only one who seems to notice it, that's a good sign you should step back and ask yourself if you're actually seeing what you think you're seeing. And right now, you absolutely need to step back, take a deep breath, and come back to this later - like, as mentioned, in a week - because you've found yourself in a hole and even after being advised to stop digging you're only digging more furiously, and if you continue to dig like this there's a good chance you'll dig your way into having your talk page access revoked for the duration of the block. Nobody wants that, so step away from Wikipedia for awhile and come back once you have a clear head. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t want to “dig” further, that’s also why I asked you to leave instead of continuously insisting it’s a shame I am not chastising myself. Bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not Rambling Rambler; you did not, in fact, ask me to leave. I will, as I have no desire to continue to invest energy here as you've made it abundantly clear you are not interested in listening, but I will leave you with a warning regardless: every post you have made since this started has further convinced everyone reading those posts that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. When literally everyone else holds one opinion of a situation, and you hold another, it's not impossible that you're right and they're wrong, but it's at least worth considering that, perhaps, you might be the one in error - and in this case, unless you drastically change your attitude towards contributing here, you will not, in fact, be allowed to continue to contribute here much longer. Good day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that’s another of the things that happen when you’re submerged with insistent messages from all sides: you overlook a signature and mistake a user for another. Again my fault I guess. Bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

(And you ignored, once again, that I was indeed compatible with a collaborative project – which I still am – for a very long time before we even knew each other’s usernames. Maybe consider that y’all might just be happening to be talking to me during a stressful period and it is in nobody’s interest to push this further and punish me in the long term.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Your stressful period appears to have started somewhere before July 2025, which is when 9 years of a clean block log were ended with block, block, block, block, block, block, block, indefinite block at itwiki, followed by block, block, block, block, block on enwiki, all for edit warring, uncollaborative behavior, personal attacks.

You have one month to end your stressful period with something else than your second indefinite block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s the millionth time I’ve been repeated this. Do you want to instigate a rant or what? I’ve asked a third party to review my block because I’ve been punished enough. I have already apologized for my offensive language. I want to be left alone and keep contributing. Also, bringing up itwiki is quite telling, if you knew how things work down there. I used to think it was very different on enwiki, now it’s starting to feel like some users are working overtime to make me change my mind. I don’t want to change it, don’t make me do. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

(July 2025 minus June 2015 makes it 10 years, not 9, by the way.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Is five administrators not plenty? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Apparently not, since I made the mistake to trust one of them in spite of previous disagreements and I was stabbed in the back hard. I demand an independent reviewer. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  What in the world made me a "non-independent reviewer"? -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve just answered in the section below. Sorry for not explaining more in detail earlier. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IvanScrooge98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I don’t know what else I should do. I have apologized for my language, I’m trying to keep editing and contributing the way I did for a very long time and instead I keep getting pushed back by admins who have had bitter experiences with me. I have already been punished hard enough. Can I get an independent admin, someone I don’t know and who hasn’t blocked me in the recent period, finally review this and unblock me from other editing areas? The AE is already going for a topic ban anyway and I don’t deserve to be kept away for a whole month elsewhere. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Clearly no admin has seen fit to unblock you, so I am declining this appeal as effectively stale, to get you off the proverbial tenterhooks if nothing else.

That said, I also see no reason to lift this block prematurely: for me to overrule the term set by the blocking admin I would need a pretty compelling reason, and I'm just not seeing one. Personally, I think you were lucky to get away with only a month, and my advice would be to just sit out the remainder of this, and use that time to put together a personal action plan for how to avoid getting blocked again; your block log being already so long, the next one might be indef.

Finally for the record, I've not had any "bitter experiences" with you; to my recollection I've never even interacted with you. And I have certainly not previously blocked you. So I hope this satisfies your request for an "independent admin". DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Asilvering was an independent admin who had no prior experience with you AFAICT. Let this go. Take a month away. Run through some wheatfields (or whatever people do for fun). Come back and do some more encyclopedia building. I know this appears unfair/unjust to you, but admins are just trying to limit disruption, and they haven't been able to do so with prior sanctions. Re any other editor/s or issue/s, read User:Theleekycauldron/Some disputes aren't worth it, specifically #When to walk away. Please don't reply until you've read and reflected on it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The point is I haven’t disrupted anything. I have used bad language in the wrong contexts and with the wrong users, this I understand and I do regret it. But I’m not a disruptive user, if anything I’m going through all this trouble for the opposite reason, believing my attempts to revert disruption would be understood, but I remained alone and I freaked out. I’ve always meant well and for the sake of the project. Regarding Asilvering, the reason is in fact different: they quickly shut down a request of unblock (originally relating to an AE block which was rushed mid-talk, and only then was the type of block changed) without providing any explanation, so I asked for a new review. This is when I got flooded with messages from involved users and ultimately saw my request rejected by a previously involved admin. This is just too much tbh. As I said, I’ve been punished enough. Bear with me but I’ve seen far worse behavior being treated much more lightly. I just want to contribute the way I always did. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you probably don't realise/can't gauge how problematic your behaviour has appeared to others? The above responses to some of the the best and most respected admins on this site (please don't block me) were not terribly wise either. I imagine some time away would probably be best for your stress levels at the very least (?), maybe in a week's time you can come back and make a new appeal with a fresh mind (following Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Not that it should have any weight or count as a justification/downplaying, but trust me when I say my stress levels per se have little to do with Wikipedia. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't help much w off-wiki stuff, but Tamzin has a good essay on mental health and editing, I guess some of the messages in that are applicable to experiencing other fun life events Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Very kind of you. I appreciate it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:April 2025 in Greece indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from Moroccanoil, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

This had been clear for a while. I’m still waiting to be unblocked from the rest of the project though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello IvanScrooge98, there is currently a user following your edits around, undoing IPA changes and sending taunting messages to your and my talk page. I have reported this at WP:ANI#User_talk_page_harassment now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do with this information, since I’m still under your block and cannot intervene. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@AlienvsEditor: sorry to ping you here but as you can see I’m blocked and cannot reply on the article’s talk page. My edit merely added the {{respell}} equivalent to the {{IPAc-en}} rendering you see right before. Juri Ant changed the former without changing the latter, creating a discrepancy between the transcriptions. So, while you discuss which of the two pronunciations is the accurate one, you should revert their edit to maintain consistency. However, I suspect their change was aimed at providing an approximation of the original Italian [tartaʎˈʎoːne] rather than the actual usual pronunciation in English. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  voorts (talk/contributions) 15:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Christian Dior

added a link pointing to Montecatini

Sophia Loren

added a link pointing to Lire

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Rosine Faugouin.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Jean Thureau.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Toots Deville.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Edmond Roudnitska (athlete).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Lucien Guillier.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Jean-Pierr Goudeau.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Jacques Boulanger.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Paul Faucher.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Szczecin, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambridge Dictionary was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)