Special:Diff/1329779590 is reverting edits at this very moment without spefifying any reason. Possibly vandalism. Gigman (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to all be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi, which could use some attention from uninvolved admins (the behavior is obvious enough I'm not sure a CU is necessary). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on subsequent comments at that SPI, it appears that this is a case of meatpuppetry and harassment via offsite canvassing, rather than single-person sockpuppetry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that ... could be sockpuppet account too.

All activity on his page is pretty recent, he was also a participator in our Baltic infobox RFC discussion. And now he seems kinda engaged in edits I make. Gigman (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an accusation based on very flimsy grounds. By that standard, everyone that has involved with you and edit in your topic area would be possible socks.

That may be also an aspersionwhich is unacceptable. Unfounded accusations are really the reason why multiple AN/I reports have ended with a boomerang back to you or you getting in hot water. You probably should be more mindful of your language and accusations. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse anyone of anything, Mr. Non-autoconfirmed user №2.

All I said is I have a suspicion based on that user's action. Gigman (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide something more concrete than "Guy edits same topic area and participates in same discussions as me". If User A and User B both participate in CfD heavily and edit in articles about Germany's trains, and User A was created before User B, is User B a sock of User A? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions are fine. Announcing your suspicions publicly without any evidence is not. I ask that you delete your comment and that no investigation be performed on me, as it would be a waste of time (I am innocent). LordCollaboration (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this "3 Löwi" character and categorically deny any connection to them. LordCollaboration (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to account for the possibility that you offended many, many people after going on an editing spree and changing the biographies of hundreds of Estonians by altering their birthplace from "Estonia" to the "Soviet Union". It is such an uneducated move that it does not warrant any further discussion. After the holidays, it will probably be covered in local newspapers, earn the denunciation of professional historians, and prompt action from official representatives of the country to raise Wikipedia's editorial standards. ~2025-43615-68 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A diatribe, no less. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed with consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes. Blocked the obvious sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I did is transformed Estonian pages up to common Wikipedia standards set by rules on infoboxes. I had no intention to offend anyone and I had no idea this will provoke such a backlash.

But if I'll ever make it to newspapers, let me know. Gigman (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Estonian SSR" that has been littered everywhere is plain nonsense. In legal terms, as affirmed at the highest levels, such as the European Court of Human Rights, it was illegitimate, internationally unrecognized, and had no lawful basis for existence. In practical terms, it existed as the Soviet-occupied Republic of Estonia. There is no acceptable formulation of a mere "Estonian SSR". If you want to add further context to birthplaces beyond just "Estonia", then mentioning the Soviet occupation is unavoidable, the same way articles about Norwegians born in the 1940s mention "German-occupied Norway" as birthplace, but the small group of people pushing this change have a severe allergy to highlighting the fact of Soviet occupation, as is common among astroturfers promoting imperialistic Russian narratives. That is the telltale sign where this change is coming from. ~2025-43741-36 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of promoting imperialistic Russian narratives for adding "SSR" to Estonia at birthplaces just hillarious to me. Gigman (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that these sock/meat puppets will continue with the disruption. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another account making mass changes to infoboxes.[1][2][3] There was also another account writing similar personal attacks.[4] I suspect some kind of off-wiki coordination. I did see a recent social media post encouraging others to take action so who knows what is being done privately. Mellk (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is no one paying attention to the edits of Gigman/Glebushko0703? Ivo (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS/Infoboxes (December 2025) RFC, for further info. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also ~2026-13507-9 (talk · contribs). Same range as previous 3 Löwi socks. The sockmaster is also using D1Hondt (talk · contribs) on Estonian Wikipedia to discuss the matter. Mellk (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does not exactly explain why Russian propaganda narratives have made their way into Wikipedia in such a successful way. I understand that people outside of Europe may not need to be as aware of certain European history details, but the question was: why are people not looking into this? While 3 Löwi with its socks has caused problems and made it more difficult to sort it out, that is not the only issue here. Ivo (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how many times other editors have been told if they are not happy with the RfC outcome, they should formally challenge the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and yet this has not been done once. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're here to right great historical wrongs, not to operate within procedures. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I recommend that administrators pay close attention to this discussion taking place. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed that discussion on the grounds of (a) started by a trolling LTA, (b) the wrong venue given the RfC results, and (c) overall heat:light ratio skyrocketing towards fusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption continues, with another evading IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack-a-mole applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we sorta go again, @The Bushranger:. Attempts are being made to push a note in, which isn't called for by the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And some of the editors pushing this POV are extended confirmed. I have fully protected the article for three days, and will be tossing out CT/EE notices to any of the involved editors who haven't previously had them. If disruption resumes once the full protection expires, arbitration-enforcement topic-bans are next. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now it appears we're getting unusual 'edit summaries' & reverts at Estonia on another matter. How is it politically motivated to line up Estonia with Latvia & Lithuania? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because Estonians are really touchy as being counted in line with Latvia and Lithuania, see the meme about Estonia saying theyre nordic? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a range block is required? See contribs of @Kristiãns Jānis: for example. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note I made an unideal WP:INVOLVED close on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Logo change for 25th anniversary due to time constraints. A few days ago, I made a post here asking for a closer to no avail. I invite any uninvolved editor to modify my close. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also involved, but that's how I would have closed it too. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing this, Ca. Also, thanks to @Chlod for implementing the changes on Phab. Toadspike [Talk] 16:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following private and public consultations, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to both the Checkuser and Oversight teams.

The committee thanks all editors who participated in the consultation.

For the Arbitration Committee, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Functionary appointment, January 2026

I'm not totally sure how blocks on temporary accounts work, but both I and other administrators have been blocking temporary accounts indefinitely with account creation blocked. Does that mean that account creation is blocked indefinitely from the IP addresses used by the temp account? If so, it is clearly gross overkill, in many cases being the result of a few edits on one day. Obviously this didn't happen in the old days of IP editing (Remember that?) because we didn't block IP addresses indefinitely. Can anyone clarify what such blocks actually do? Or provide any other relevant comment? (I am in the process of going through my block log and unblocking account creation where relevant.) JBW (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An "indefinite" block of a TA actually falls off after 90 days, IIRC, so I assume the account-creation block fall off at the same time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second table at Wikipedia:Temporary accounts#Impact for administrators goes into this. If account creation is blocked, while logged in, a TA cannot create an account. If hit by an autoblock, the autoblocked IP cannot create an account. And it has this footnote: Autoblock length is limited to 24 hours from each time the blocked account attempts to edit a page, even if the underlying block is indefinite. Because temp accounts are forcibly logged out after 90 days, hardblocking a temp account cannot trigger autoblocks any later than that, regardless of block length. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bushranger & Rsjaffe. I thought there was some limit of that kind, but I wasn't sure. 🤔 That's put my mind at rest. ☺️ JBW (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I presume administrators are monitoring this Village Pump discussion. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The OP originally posted their concern on this page - in fact, it is still on this page - and they were advised to take it elsewhere. I think you can take it admins are aware. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that the situation has been annoying me given that the one account seems to be violating the usernames implying shared use and usernames considered promotional portions of the Username Policy. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. You'll laugh about it one day: probably tomorrow. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger - You're definitely not wrong. I smacked my own head and laughed at myself just a bit ago about this, but will likely do so again after I (hopefully) get some sleep tonight. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, back in the bad old days, such cranky toddlers would be administered a dose of Paregoric. Cullen328 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - Opioids? HA! That would've definitely resolved the problem last night... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In Britain the narcotic of choice for children was laudanum. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A drop of wine in the milk makes every toddler relax or sleep. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A doctor recommended to my mother a tot of whisk(e)y in my milk to help me sleep when I was c.3 months old. The past is a different country. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My grandparents always gave me brandy when I was sick. It resulted in me being a rare 10-year-old who really enjoyed Cognac. Still do, nearly 40 years later, though I tend to prefer Armagnac. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The bad old days are not that long ago. A doctor told me to rub paregoric on my daughter's gums to relieve teething pain just 50 years ago. You could still buy paregoric then without a prescription. Donald Albury 19:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shakib ul hassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Copying over an unblock request that is at WP:3X and thus requires community review:

I am currently blocked for sockpuppetry and for violating WP:3X. I acknowledge that this was the result of my own actions. The accounts I used were: User:Androkottus, User:Imaan quadri, User:ImanAli45, User:Imanali45, User:Manik69, User:ManikSharma8969, User:RagedBrahmin, User:Sandrokottus, User:गांधार नरेश. I understand that using multiple accounts this way weakens the trust between editors and disrupts the collaborative editing process of Wikipedia.
I am been blocked for more than a year now, and during this time, I have reflected on my past behavior and on why Wikipedia takes sockpuppetry so seriously. I understand that transparency, and editing from a single account is necessary, and that attempting to edit despite having active restrictions only make things worse rather than fixing them. If unblocked, I aim to contribute constructively. I am willing to accept any reasonable conditions, including topic limitations if necessary, and I will edit strictly using only this account. Shakib ul hassan talk! 7:49 am, Today (UTC−5)

Thank you for your attention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Block was March 2024 and placed by user:Izno citing [25] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jonharojjashi/Archive#12_December_2023 (Jonharojjashi was determined to be unrelated). Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The user has failed to accept the topic ban from South Asia and has also failed to describe what else they can edit. Azuredivay (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed response from Shakib ul hassan: Reply to User:Azuredivay:
I would like to clarify that I have not refused a South Asia–related topic ban. I asked that a narrower restriction limited to INDMILHST might be preferable IF possible, but I am willing to accept a broader South Asia–related topic ban if that is what the community decides. Also, In an earlier unblock request, I mentioned that I could contribute on topics outside South Asia, such as Middle Eastern history or Southeast Asian history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an appeal of my Red Krayola topic ban now that more than six months have passed since it was imposed (see the topic ban details here: [26]). The ban arose from me shoehorning Red Krayola into the gothic rock page in 2023 and other pages without understanding the reliable sources policy. To the person who blocked me it looked like a promo campaign but was actually moreso me thinking a song might sound like a genre so it has the right to be mentioned on the corresponding Wikipedia pages. Which was wrong. Since then, I have a better understanding of core content policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, and I would approach any edits regarding Red Krayola with high quality sources. Additionally, I have proved in the last few years that I edit a variety of topics that isn't just limited to Red Krayola. My intended edits at the moment for Red Krayola involve: (1) updating the Red Krayola article and related pages with reliably sourced information to ensure it is current, accurate and informative, and (2) reviewing mentions of Red Krayola on genre pages to either properly source them or remove them where they are unsourced or inappropriate. For example, a user added the band to Neo-psychedelia without a reliable source: [27]. Additionally, other Wikipedia users such as User:Binksternet who was the one to report me in 2023 had a change of heart as of late on my edits.

My goal is to improve accuracy and sourcing related to the band and a variety of other groups who need mention where reliable sources warrant, not to promote the band or give any other group undue weight on articles. Thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to have a hard time getting support for this directly coming off a 1 month block. This is...probably not the right time to be asking this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, that 1 month block was from a completely unrelated event. Please look into the history of what happened there because that user was persistently trying to get me in trouble for touching the shoegaze page. Me and him both were met with a 1 month block User:Buf92. I have waited the allotted time and you can see from most of my contributions that I've done no wrong. The other user that I was blocked with User:Woovee is currently serving an INDEF block that can only be appealed in 6 months due to his persistent edit warring [28]. The 2 times I've clashed with these users was in challenging what they were doing. From what I see most editors avoid these scenarios because all it leads is to both users being blocked and so they let the disruptor have their way.

I at the moment I'm minding my own business and have mainly been editing and making fringe articles. So please read what I said again. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

> that user was persistently trying to get me in trouble for touching the shoegaze page.

Wrong. The real trouble was your penchant for original research. I don't even care if you're allowed to edit pages you want to get access to, but given the amount of trouble in your edits that Echoedits67 and I alone were able to flesh out in my last report, I don't think you're even eligible to be an editor. Buf92 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you got blocked for disruptive editing. [29] The worst was clear CLOP. Please don't turn this into another battle [30]. And got blocked again for lying about sockpuppetry [31]. For shame. You shouldn't be editing at all if you are going to be making breaches in copyright. Everything I add is sourced and if it wasn't I would have been blocked a while ago. My block between me and you is due to the admins saying we needed a break as you can see from the log "Proposal: Block them. Block them both"[32]. Stop lying on my name unless you want to risk an Interaction ban. While you and your friend Echo argued against me. The users who defended me were numerous: User:Binksternet, User:AP 499D25, User:Narky Blert. While user User:CAVincent said quote "the accusation of "lack of competence" on the articles they are editing is so ridiculous as to be a WP:boomerang. I don't even want or need to read through all of the above to know that this is not a good faith complaint."Aradicus77 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

> I don't even want or need to read through all of the above

That's a very valuable opinion from someone who doesn't want to review the evidence but still has an opinion. And that's the main problem: your "defenders" think you're productive, but this productivity usually turns out to be an illusion once one starts to look more closely at how you interpret your reliable sources in your edits. You don't even need to use LLMs, Aradicus – you "hallucinate" well on your own. Buf92 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You use LLMs and as you have pointed out, I don't. You are digging your own grave by making yourself look bad here. You say my defenders find out I'm not productive when they look deeper but you haven't posted a single example of this ever happening. Everything you say about me like the original research claim, you never post a single example. You are bitter and have a grudge against me for whatever reason and it's just kind of sad to see you spend Christmas talking about me on Wikipedia than spending time with family or taking a break from the site... Aradicus77 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

> you never post a single example

You're dumb, Aradicus. Ignorant and dumb. Buf92 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great job again, Admin team. Not a single one of you can be bothered to address this personal attack and incivility from both editors? ~2026-31042-1 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Buf92 for personal attack per the comment above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also if this is not the right time to be asking when is the right time? I was told to wait for 6 months. I did... A separate event got me blocked and this has almost in total led to a 7 month wait to edit pages mentioning one band for an event that happened 3 years ago when I was 16... Aradicus77 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you feel like just after serving out a month long block for misconduct with other editors is the time to show how well you're handling yourself on Wikipedia, then by all means try. I was just trying to save you some time because I've seen this go poorly so many times before. I just can't see it garnering support. You can point the finger all you want, but it feels like unconstructive, heated disputes follow you wherever you go, and your block log reflects that. I think you should be working on how you interact with others before anything. If you keep up how you've been going, the community is going to end up fed up with these incidents. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my previous message because its too long and doesn't matter anyway. OK just let me know what to do next or how long to wait. I've gone back to talk to User:Ceoil who pointed out problems with me and taking your advice on "working on how you interact with others". Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that's a good start, and the best path forward. I think it would help a lot to focus your communication with others. Less tangents, less comments on others, just stick strictly to single disputed points, working through them one by one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my stance on Aradicus77, I expressed a preference for his editing efforts over those of Woovee at the ANI thread back in October. I said that Aradicus77 had recently "buckled down and worked hard to flesh out a wide variety of music topics" but the context was that his Red Krayola topic ban was still in place.

I continue to be concerned about the possibility of Red Krayola getting more ink and more of a presence on Wikipedia out of balance with media coverage of the band. I filed ANI reports about it in April and May 2023, followed by a block evasion report in June. I can imagine that Aradicus77 of today may be less likely to engage in edit-warring to try and puff up the band, but considering the recent dust-up with Woovee, I don't have the requisite faith to say I agree with lifting the topic ban at this time. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair but also be aware Woovee is currently blocked indef for the same reasons I had an issue with him but this time he did it with 3 other users he edit warred with. While I haven't edit warred with anyone since then [33]. That's all Aradicus77 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a support or an oppose vote, but just a general comment, coming from the user who helped out Aradicus77 with making this TBAN appeal. Indeed, I did notice the recent 1-month-long sitewide block before I helped him and this may have not been the right moment for me to say Aradicus77 shall go ahead with the TBAN appeal. However, my assumption at that time was that the reason for the 1-month-long block was quite unrelated to what got him originally blocked in 2023 (i.e. the 'puffery' on the Red Krayola article), and so I thought there still would've been a bit of a chance at successfully appealing the ban.

If this TBAN appeal really does not go ahead, then I do apologise for wasting your time, Aradicus77. In the event that it is closed or archived away without a consensus for the TBAN being lifted, what I recommend doing, is trying to build a "track record" of your Wikipedia profile for the next six months before making your next TBAN appeal. By that, I mean not only trying to keep up with making quality edits, but also avoiding getting blocked from editing again (whether it's a partial block or a full sitewide block), by not edit warring during content disputes, and not acting with a counter-battleground attitude towards other editors who possess that attitude. WP:BATTLEGROUND explains what to do, and what not to do, when someone acts with a battleground attitude towards you (e.g. User:Buf92 above). Remember that Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about teamwork.

And, sometimes, the best thing to do in a content dispute is to walk away for a bit of time (e.g. a few weeks) rather than keeping at it trying to get your edit reinstated.

One last piece of advice I have for you today is that you do not need an interaction ban formally placed by an admin to stop interacting with another user. Yes, you can just simply avoid all further contact with a troublesome Wikipedia editor yourself and it will be just as effective as a formal IBAN, in not getting future sanctions on yourself, with the added bonus of goodwill. I say this because I recall seeing a comment from you on ANI or some other noticeboard about requesting an IBAN after another user had reported you on that noticeboard, or something along those lines.

I recommend that you follow these tips regardless of whether or not this topic ban appeal succeeds. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for this, yeah I have come to realize this is the approach to have with these kind of events as I pointed out earlier I notice people just avoid these kinds of scenarios as they might get blocked themselves. You're right that counter-battleground behavior isn't the way. I'll take my time with editing in the future and walk away from the site for now with minimal editing (if any). Aradicus77 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I previously posted here, on the Admins noticeboard, requesting Wikipedia administrators review and issue formal decisions on three informal bans that were imposed on me on the COI noticeboard.

1) A citation ban that forbids me from citing my own books and newspaper / magazine articles. After discussion on the Admin noticeboard, I consider this matter closed.

2) A topic ban on Louise Vincent. After discussion on the Admins noticeboard, I consider this matter resolved.

3) A topic ban on Johann Hari, which was proposed and then agreed upon by four editors on the COI noticeboard. I oppose this topic ban. The original discussion thread on the Admin noticeboard was closed after issues #1-2 were resolved, but before the Hari matter could be discussed. I am therefore opening this new discussion thread to address the issue of my informal topic ban on Hari. I am requesting a formal decision in the hope that I will be cleared of a COI regarding Johann Hari.

I edit Wikipedia under my real name and have always been transparent about my past professional interactions with Hari. I will describe all facets of those interactions here.

In 2017, I wrote a book called Fighting for Space (FFS). In researching that book, I contacted Hari and requested audio tapes of interviews he conducted with a deceased individual. He sent them. Hari also wrote a short blurb for FFS’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.

In 2021, I wrote a book called Light Up the Night (LUTN). Hari wrote a short blurb for LUTN’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.

I’ve also interviewed Hari for two magazine articles. The most-recent such article was published in 2018.

This is the totality of my relationship with Johann Hari.

Regarding allegation of a professional conflict of interest, as detailed on the COI noticeboard, I want to emphasize that I no longer work in journalism and do not consider myself a working author. I have not had a single byline published anywhere in more than five years. Hari and I do not work in the same profession; therefore, I question the extent to which a professional conflict of interest can exist. I’ll also emphasize the highly limited impact that a blurb has on a book’s sales, and note blurbs are routinely made among authors of a shared field with little consideration or impact. In addition, both FFS and LUTN are no longer in print. This was all years ago now. Ergo, regarding the Hari blurbs, even any limited influence on sales that might have once existed can no longer be considered anything but negligible. I therefore declare no professional conflict of interest.

No accusation of a personal conflict of interest was ever made. Regardless, I will emphasize here, I have no personal relationship with Hari. We are not friends, and I have no communication with him. I declare no personal conflict of interest.

I argue that a COI topic ban should not be applied for any past level of acquaintance to a topic regardless of how small the degree. COI topic bans should only be applied when an actual COI exists. I argue that my past contact with Hari does not meet the bar for a COI topic ban.

I request a formal decision on my informal topic ban on Johann Hari. I will tag Wikipedia admins who expressed an interest in this discussion in response to my original post on the Admin noticeboard; @Voorts, @Phil Bridger, @The Bushranger. And I respectfully encourage admins to declare no conflict of interest. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've started two community sanction discussions below. The broader community, not just admins, will decide whether a self citation restriction and/or topic ban are required. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to previous AN discussion, in case it gets archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tlupick (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from citing his own work. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tlupick (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Johann Hari, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started to draft a policy proposal with another editor (focused on creating more specific guidelines to determine when a contentious claim is considered fringe) and I labeled it with the appropriate tag. I left a notice on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to get second opinions from other editors on the idea after a more experienced editor I trust recommended I leave a post there. The proposal got some heat, which was perfectly fine as I'm open to the idea it may be a bad proposal.

AndyTheGrump, the editor in question, started to engage here. At times his tone felt a bit heated, but nothing too notable so I simply ignored it and responded normally. For ease of reference the comments are linked below.

• Comment 1
• Comment 2
• Comment 3
• Comment 4

But then he left a comment on the policy proposal talk page that I felt met the threshold of incivility.

• Comment 5
  • For context, the other editor and I were early in the drafting process and pulling together lots of information from many sources as we worked on the page. We agreed in the talk page to remove public opinion polls from the policy proposal page, where we were assembling some data.
  • Andy left a comment here after we made that decision but hadn't got around to removing public polling data yet: Can I ask why the fuck anyone should think that data concerning US opinion polls should be seen as any sort of useable evidence for whether something is 'fringe' or not? This is supposed to be a global project, and anyone with even the slightest clue should be aware that opinions on such matters will vary accordingly. We have enough issues with overemphasis of US sources, and of assuming the US is some sort of 'default', without attempting to concoct policy around such obviously inappropriate data.

I left a comment on his talk page asking him to please be civil.

In response, he accused me of making ill-thought-out policy proposals that actively encourage systemic bias in article content and saying my proposal was just plain offensive.

I responded trying to explain in greater depth why I wished he was more civil.

He then responded if you are incapable of understanding why this obnoxious proposal got the response it did, that's your problem. Think first, then write. Anyone with an iota of common sense should have realised from the start why this was never going to be acceptable.

So to summarize, AndyTheGrump swore at me, he used very rude language (anyone with even the slightest clue... / if you are incapable of understanding why this obnoxious proposal got the response it did, that's your problem), he told me my good faith proposal which I made after consulting other editors in a collaborative spirit was ill-thought-out and just plain offensive, and he implied I don't have an iota of common sense.

I feel like his comments meet the threshold of WP:UNCIVIL, which says Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. I tried to politely point this out on his talk page rather than to escalate, but he pushed back aggressively basically telling me I deserved it because my proposal was so bad. So I am now bringing the issue here because I would like him to use a more collaborative tone so that others don't have similar unenjoyable experiences on Wikipedia in the future interacting with this editor.

Thank you ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Below are additional uncivil comments made by AndyTheGrump after this AN was opened.

• Comment 8
  • I have no idea what that rant is supposed to be about, but you seem to be having difficulty comprehending what I have just written, having previously made entirely false assumptions about what I might think. I have just told you that I do not believe that global polling data exists to the extent that it is useful. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. You are the one proposing to use such data, it is down to you to demonstrate that it exists. And no, you won't get to 'use' any polling data to determine article content unless and until there is clear consensus for policy change. And given that this proposal seems to have gone down like a lead balloon, I can't see much prospect of that.
• Comment 9
  • A modest proposal. How about we change the policy name to Wikipedia:Imposing systemic bias through bad data and arbitrary number-crunching?

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve by drawing attention to your apparent inability to comprehend what I actually wrote, or your continuing failure to acknowledge that your proposal is gaining no support whatsoever. Feel free to carry on though, if you really think it is helping your case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From the above, So I am now bringing the issue here because I would like him to use a more collaborative tone so that others don't have similar unenjoyable experiences on Wikipedia in the future interacting with this editor.

AndyTheGrump, if you don't like the proposal, then it probably would be better to wait for those working on it to submit it for consideration for the community rather than using your time to bash their proposal. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They did 'submit it for consideration for the community'. At least, that's what the prominent notice at the top of Wikipedia:Seriously contested assertations states: The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.... The community (including myself) was offered to opportunity to consider it, when a thread on WP:FTN was started, asking for 'Help from experienced editors'. And as far as I can see, everyone who has commented has formed substantively the same opinion - that it is a bad idea. Making a proposal, asking for opinions on it, and then complaining when you get them is suboptimal, to say the least. And yes, I expressed my opinions strongly. Given what this ill-thought-out proposal is attempting to do (replace editorial judgement with arbitrary number-crunching of inadequate and questionable data) It thoroughly deserved it. The proposal is utterly at odds with core Wikipedia practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal template did indicate that is still could be under development, which it is. VidanaliK (talk to me) 15:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, as an editor who commented in the FRINGEN discussion and who shares much the same perspective as you on the underlying question, I think you're going a bit overboard with the criticism and accusations of bad faith, at least in this AN thread itself. I'm not sure opening this AN thread was necessarily warranted to begin with, but if you continue harping on the proposal here you will be providing cause for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For further context, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, where it is made abundantly clear that those behind this ill-thought-out proposal are attempting to bring in new policy with the specific intention of influencing discussions over a highly-contentious topic - the question as to whether Israeli actions in Gaza amount to genocide. [34] The 'policy proposal' (if it could be called that - it doesn't actually propose any specific text) quite explicitly uses this subject as an example of a 'type of claim'. Attempts to change policy in order to win content disputes are questionable at the best of times, and anyone doing so with regard to this particular issue can expect pushback. Furthermore the persons responsible for this had no issue whatsoever with linking a 'proposal' that was built around the highly-dubious premise that one might apply polling data to determine what is or isn't 'fringe', and then went on to cite US-based opinion polls as 'evidence'. This is clearly grossly inappropriate in a global project, where elementary common sense would suggest that such data cannot be extrapolated worldwide - it amounts to imposing systemic bias through policy - and if I reacted strongly against it, I'd have to suggest that it deserved exactly that. Wikipedia has enough problems with external forces attempting to impose a narrow right-shifted US political perspective onto what is supposed to be a global project without contributors adding to the problems with such ill-thought out ideas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

with the specific intention of influencing discussions over a highly-contentious topic - the question as to whether Israeli actions in Gaza amount to genocide

I do not want to bludgeon this conversation, but just so that other editors know, this is not true—the topic it was intended to elucidate was the degree to which opposing views should be given weight, with my argument being that the view it is not a genocide should be considered fringe based on how 1/6 of scholars hold the opposing view according to multiple statistics. Another editor disagreed that the "it is not genocide" view is fringe based on this statistic, so we went about creating an objective metric for measuring whether something is fringe that would be helpful across all similar contentious topics on Wikipedia, since we had seen this issue arise repeatedly across many discussions. We both thought such a policy would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. We were very transparent about this, and we explained this on the noticeboard. This has nothing to do with alleging genocide in Wikivoice or with how Wikipedia acknowledges the genocide, which I have repeatedly defended—this arose from a completely separate and much smaller issue regarding weight given to the minority view, but was ultimately part of a broader effort to remove ambiguity regarding when a view on a contentious topic in Wikipedia is considered fringe vs simply a minority view to prevent confusion in talk pages and save editors time. But that is beside the point that I did not appreciate this user's incivility. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:RS/Noticeboard, it is actually made clear that we (a) have opposing viewpoints on the matter, so it is inherently designed to be as objective as possible, and (b) have witnessed such problems elsewhere. While the Gaza Genocide article did start the discussion, it has no specific intention of influencing the article one way or another. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing 'objective' whatsoever in attempting to impose inherently skewed and inevitably inadequate data as a means to settle content disputes. And if this isn't about the Gaza genocide issue why the heck did you chose to pick on such an obviously contentious issue as an example? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a work in progress; the data was just the data easiest to find and it was acknowledged that there needs to be much more diverse data to come to a conclusion about the threshold. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave this discussion as it currently is, since it's quickly getting off-topic from the issue at hand which was how I believe there was incivility from AndyTheGrump. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to decide what the topic is. Not while questions regarding the appropriateness of attempting to frame new policy around a highly-contested topic need answering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This specific discussion is about incivility from you. The topic you are talking about should be answered on the appropriate talk page (Fringe noticeboard). VidanaliK (talk to me) 03:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:BOOMERANG? You probably should, since it has been made abundantly clear on numerous occasions that the person starting a WP:AN/WP:ANI thread doesn't have the right to control what is subsequently discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Were the discussion turned around to AN-relevant claims agains Alexandraaaacs, that would apply. However, your discussion would not have even been taken to AN had it been a new discussion, and is not relevant to AN. VidanaliK (talk to me) 03:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You want an AN-relevant claim regarding the pair of you? OK, here's one: there is very strong evidence that the two of you have concocted a policy proposal with the intention to impose an arbitrary and inherently biased decision regarding a highly-contentious subject, and in doing so, to usurp the community's right to do as it always has done: to look at such issues on a case-by-case basis. Dressing this up as 'objectivity' does precisely nothing to hide the fact that your proposal is nothing of the sort. Wikipedia revolves around discussion, not the application of arbitrary numbers to inadequate data: if we wanted to work that way, we could hand the whole thing over to a bot. I don't believe for one moment that the editing community wants that, and I strongly suspect that they would take a very dim view of any attempts to take away one of the core functions of being a contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. anyone may work on proposed policy, but its doubtful such a thinly veiled attempt to povpush would be accepted as policy anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON, but I also don't want this civility report to WP:BOOMERANG back towards us due to confusion about what precisely we were proposing, so this will be the final thing I say unless another editor asks me a question in this forum. I think your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the policy we were working on, so I feel it's very important to clearly and explicitly correct any misconceptions.

Namely, the idea we are WP:POVPUSHing that it is not a genocide does not make any logical sense:

Firstly, I think it's a genocide, and VidanaliK does not. If you don't believe me, check my profile. I am in WikiProject Palestine, not WikiProject Israel. I started the articles List of civilians killed in the Gaza genocide and List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. I started the templates Template:Gaza genocide sidebar and Template:Gaza genocide and did most the work compiling them (with help from another editor). While I'm as objective as possible, my support for Palestine is a key factor in why I take on some of the projects that I do, and I acknowledge this. I'm not sure if you can confirm VidanaliK is pro-Israel as easily, but I believe he is. So I would argue our differing stances on the issue militates any potential partisan bias that could arise while writing the policy. We were assembling expert survey data about minority views in all contentious topics we could think of and categorizing them as fringe or not fringe in order to identify a threshold at which something moves from being a minority view to being a fringe view.

Secondly:

• Talk:Gaza genocide consensus currently considers the "not-a-genocide" stance to be a minority view, not a WP:FRINGE view
• We are writing a policy regarding the point at which a minority view is considered fringe rather than merely a minority view
• If a view is a minority view, it is discussed with greater weight than if a view is fringe
• Therefore, the only possible change that could arise in Talk:Gaza genocide as a result of this policy proposal is one which recategorizes the "not-a-genocide" view not as a minority view, but instead as a fringe view, and therefore gives less weight to the "not-a-genocide" argument
• So if what you are saying is true, that we are scheming to POV push that it is not a genocide with the policy proposal (which is what I took your POV push allegation to mean), then in this hypothetical scenario we would actively be working against our own interests in writing this policy by creating a new avenue through which the "not-a-genocide" stance could be ostracized in the article

But most importantly, and like I have repeatedly explained, that is not at all what the policy was about. This was an apartisan attempt at reducing confusion about when a minority view is considered fringe across Wikipedia after we both repeatedly observed confusion in talk pages over this exact point. I do not know in how many different ways I need to articulate this to stop the bad faith accusations. Some policy ideas are conceived from concrete scenarios where said policy would have been beneficial to have to avoid confusion, so a policy arising from a concrete scenario does not imply that the policy was created for nefarious reasons. Maybe it was a stupid policy idea, but it was most certainly not a thinly veiled attempt at anything, or else we would not have been so transparent when we took it to the jury. I promise you, I am here in good faith, and I think he is too. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the discussion in WP:RS/Noticeboard appears to be deleted. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, not WP:RS/Noticeboard Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I was confused. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that, I'd evidently got the two noticeboards confused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel what this demonstrates above all else is that it's a terrible idea for two relatively inexperienced editors to come up with and try and develop a fundamental policy by themselves. I'd note besides everything others have already highlighted, while they may not have intended anything by it, their use of the Gaza genocide as an example means non EC editors cannot touch parts of it except to make edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We were both open to the possibility that it was a bad idea, and I myself have given up the idea of using a precise numerical threshold after input from more experienced editors. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also given it up.

I'm happy to change my mind or acknowledge mistakes, but Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it should not be made to feel like one whenever an editor feels like letting off some steam by yelling at others in the community the moment he identifies an unpopular position that might work as a pretense to get away with it. That creates a toxic environment and it's not a community I want to be a part of. People should be allowed to be wrong without being accosted, and I feel like this is pretty uncontroversial as it's the basis of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People should be allowed to be wrong without being accosted Exactly. While it isn't a policy Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed probably should be taken into account here, similar to WP:AGF which is a policy. VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Falun Gong

@ToBeFree just fully protected the article, so administrators are now the only ones who can edit it for the next couple days, and there may be edit requests made on the talk page. It's been the site of substantial edit warring in the last two weeks; from IPs, from newly registered editors, and from established editors. The talk page discussion has been fairly civil, but there is ongoing dispute over neutrality. There is no individual whose behavior has been egregious, from my perspective, so mentioning here at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. I am WP:Involved and unable to take any administrative actions, so engagement from uninvolved admins to assist would be appreciated. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editing a fully-protected page is an administrative action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - thanks for the correction. As noted, the engagement of uninvolved admins and editors would be appreciated to help resolve disputes and clarify consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries from my side. I had seen it coming, had the edit summary prepared in mind for this case and had a look at the revision history in a lunch break for that reason, but I didn't want to warn a potentially-well-aware administrator in advance to not violate three policies at the same time (WP:INVOLVED, WP:FULL and WP:EW). I had thought about unprotecting the page before reverting the action so that my own edit wouldn't technically also violate WP:FULL, but that felt like overthinking it and I threw that idea away. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a frustrating, because there has been some engagement on the talk page. Editors make improvements to try and fix issues, and then someone comes along and bulk-reverts it back to what it was days ago, sometimes without engaging in discussion at all. I've tried hard avoid the WP:3RR but I can't deny contributing to the general atmosphere of edit warring at the page over the last couple weeks. Right now, the article feels stuck without a clear path to move forwards. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the protection comes with a raised eyebrow towards AlsoWukai. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I acted rashly. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChimaFan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had their indefinite topic ban from editing all pages and discussions relating to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, broadly constructed (original topic ban and ANI discussion) removed on January 8, 2026 (here). Closing admin Ivanvector in their talk page notice to ChimaFan12 about the successful appeal (here) said note that a return to the behaviour which led to the ban being imposed in the first place may quickly lead to additional and more severe sanctions. I would also note admin Fences and windows's comment in the appeal request here that while they were ok with the lifting, they said to ...go slowly.

It has been about seven days now since the appeal went through and ChimaFan12 is back to their exact same tactics of WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and starting unnecessary RfCs on matters that fail WP:RFCBEFORE. These three all have occurred now at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six, with all of their comments in the section Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six#Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man Season 3 (starting with this diff) and the creation of the RfC below it here (with this diff). There was also some similar talk page behavior that got them banned in the first place at Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_timeline#Timeline_disagreements (starting with this diff).

ChimaFan12 also brought up how to navigate discussions after a topic unban at the WP:TEAHOUSE (here) and has clearly gone against the recommendations there of seeking WP:3PO first (something Sjones23 noted they did themselves here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) and instead went ahead and still started the RfC at the Phase Six talk. I would not call the timeline here of them returning to editing this topic a "slow" approached as Fences and windows suggested. I am thus recommend a full reinstitution of this topic ban for this user. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other involved editors: @Adamstom.97 and Trailblazer101: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to launch this discussion with the same points. I have repeatedly warned ChimaFan about their behavior and repeated tactics, but they have routinely ignored this and seem unwilling to listen to any suggestion, compromise, or consensus that differs from what they believe is right, just like they did the last time around. I support reinstating the topic ban with prejudice. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on a minute. Many MCU editors clearly can't stand ChimaFan12, but the discussion involving them and Trailblazer101 contains no actions or comments that I can see breach our behavioural guidelines. You're going to need to present much stronger evidence, or this looks like a pile-on of an unpopular editor. I don't think the closing admin on this thread should give any weight to those who have been arguing with ChimaFan12 on whether a topic ban should be reinstated. Fences&Windows 18:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conduct by the user on the talk page is virtually the same as what got them topic banned in the first place (essentially jumping to RfCs on matters when 3PO or extended discussions are clearly the better course of action). The fact that they fell back into the exact same actions that got them banned in the first place almost immediately after being unbanned is why I started this new discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen this editor before, but the list of disruptive editing that was in that previous ANI post includes righting WP:GREATWRONGS on MCU articles ... act[ing] aggressively and combatively ... accus[ing] editors who disagree with them of OWN, claim[ing] that there was consensus for something when there was not ... edit-warring when they are unable to get their way ... edit wars, RfCs that go nowhere, and edits without consensus ... WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, bad-faith accusations, incivil or rude comments, plenty of bludgeoning, and rehashing of DEADHORSE arguments

    This is an extremely long list of purported misbehavior, of which using the request for comment process was only very briefly mentioned. What part of the Wikipedia:Editing policy and/or Wikipedia:List of policies#Conduct does starting a RfC that other editors believe is premature violate? Katzrockso (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a link to all of my edits to the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline page. Of these edits, two were reverted. I decided to discuss this one, which was the removal of a single questionable source per WP:RS/VALNET, while leaving the text intact, as it had another source which fully supported its inclusion on the page. I let the other revert be.

Here is the beginning of the discussion of the revert. During that conversation, a user I was speaking to seemed to believe I was attempting to implement changes to the timeline unilaterally. I was not, and I did not attempt to at any point. Once I explained this, discussion ceased and I restored my edit on the article page, which has not been reverted or proven itself contentious since then. Therefore, I am inclined to think the prolonged discussion accusing me of bludgeoning behavior on that page was a misunderstanding.

Here are my contributions to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six. My edits (which were in direct succession of one another) were reverted in one fell swoop, I heard that there was no consensus for them, and I went to the talkpage. I do not think consensus on the page is clear, as there is invisible text in the article specifically stating that it would be WP:SYNTH to contribute a release date to an as-yet undated project, including specifically adding a 2027 timeframe to it. I have not attempted to restore the reverted edit. I proposed an involved user open an RFC for uninvolved users to comment on as a way to build consensus. When I was told that I was displaying recividivsm by proposing an RFC be opened, I sought feedback in this discussion at Teahouse about how to approach this dispute. In the responses I received, one user said I should simply admit that I'm wrong, while two others suggested WP:3O first (which I wanted to do, but since there were more than two users involved, I thought it would not be applicable) and gave me gentle guidance for how to broach a RfC if one occurs. After waiting a few days to let a heated conversation calm down, I made a sincere effort to follow their advice. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sjones had already notified relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, which remains ongoing, and as such, an RfC is premature. You have been told by multiple editors why your interpretation is incorrect, and yet, you seem to reject any rationale that you do not agree with in full. It truly seems like there is no pleasing you, and this whole ordeal has been blown way out of proportion from all ends. While consensus can change, these attempts to force such discussions like an RfC without waiting for discussions to run their natural course will not end in achieving the changes you want. It still stands that you are the only one who wants these changes that remain contested by the frequent article editors. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a look through the discussion at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six#Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man Season 3. It reads to me like ChimaFan trying to discuss a valid point about editors wanting to add information based purely on their own speculation, and everyone else stonewalling them because they used to be banned from the topic. The discussion which "remains ongoing" has been entirely derailed by other editors trying to dictate what may and may not be discussed, rather than addressing the point at all, which is not how any of this works. We don't get to tell someone that they should discuss their changes, and then tell them to go away when they try to do exactly that. I don't see why an RFC is not a valid next step here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I did explain the rationale behind the material's inclusion in the article to ChimaFan and how it was not synthesis, but rooted in a logical and common-sense conclusion of where an annual release would place the season in question. The issue at hand is that ChimaFan is unwilling to compromise on anything other than what they want and is ignoring what other editors have already explained to them. An RfC is not a definitive path to changing consensus, and this whole situation cannot reasonably be amended without an official release date, but the point is that any content released through 2027 (which this third season would be based on Winderbaum's comments, but that is not directly stated to avoid synthesis) would fall under Phase Six, and ChimaFan's assertion otherwise is a fallacy. That is the genesis of this headache of a debate; ChimaFan making material into contentious debates with the same editors using the same tactic as before, when consensus is not in his favor over more minuscule matters. ChimaFan could start hundreds more discussions on this matter or similar ones, but that does not mean consensus will change without adequate evidence to the contrary of what the sources have presented to be true. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I am misunderstanding things, but it seems to me like ChimaFan12 is presenting a valid objection to editors attempting to introduce content that is not verified by the source in question. Just because ChimaFan12 disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are unwilling to compromise on anything other than what they want and is ignoring what other editors have already explained to them. Katzrockso (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is considered "forum shopping", but there are quite a few posts on WP:COIN that have gone at least a week without response. I don't know if this is the right place to put a notification, but I'm unsure where else to put one. I promise I don't just want my question answered first (mine can absolutely wait) but there's an editor requesting someone's real name, at least two people getting scammed, and a few other issues that seem to warrant an administrators response.

I added this about a minute ago, but reverted due to accidentally adding it to another topic. Sorry about that! JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 18:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can someone help with the formatting here, please? I'm using the button at the top but it's doing this anyway. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is fixed, but the backlog hasn’t been resolved as of yet. Still at least one guy asking an editor for their real name (in response to getting accused of a COI themselves) and a few others. My apologies for the late response. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 03:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend monitoring of a follow up RFC, I've opened. Recommendation made, due to recent events. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with monitoring as an uninvolved administrator. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AK0934 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am forwarding the following ban appeal from User talk:AK0934, as the editor is 3X-banned and their appeal thus requires community review:

once again, Happy New Year Wikipedia, i am AK0934, i was blocked for abusing the use of multiple sockpuppet accounts. At the end of 2023, i entered Wikipedia with the intention of editing articles related to history, specifically North African medieval history, During that time i became involved in an edit war on the article List of wars involving Tunisia, i received a warning and was temporarily prevented from editing. at the time, i mistakenly believed that i could simply create a new account and continue editing, like in social media platforms, i later learned that using sockpuppet accounts to evade a block is a violation of Wikipedia’s policies, unfortunately, even after realizing that this behavior was wrong, i refused to stop and openly challenged Wikipedia and its rules, Looking back after 2-3 years, i now understand that this behavior was foolish, immature, and that i was the wrong one all the time, the IP tracking system worked effectively, and all of my sock accounts were eventually identified, By the end of 2024 (as I recall), i decided to surrender and leave Wikipedia. However, i later reviewed the block appeal I submitted on 5 August 2024 and chose to follow the advice given to me by User:331dot, As a result, I began contributing to the Arabic Wikipedia, throughout 2025, i edited in Arabic Wikipedia, where i learned and gained a deeper understanding of Wikipedia’s policies, i believe i made many valuable contributions there including editing and creating and translating articles, through this experience and reflection on my past mistakes, i came to fully understand that I was completely in the wrong. Now, with greater maturity and understanding and good faith, I am returning to ask Wikipedia for a second chance.

As the user contributed to Arabic Wikipedia, any feedback from users familiar with this project, or proficient enough in Arabic to evaluate their contributions, would be more than welcome. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(not admin) AK0934, what led to the block was edit warring, can you please address this and outline how you will handle disputes if unblocked? They've made over 1,200 edits at ar.wiki and created/rewritten lots of articles related to medieval North African history, I can't read Arabic but they look good Kowal2701 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pu Ambatukhama requests deletion of a clearly LLM-generated article about a fictional character, which should fall under WP:A11. I wasn't sure whether I should request speedy deletion normally due to the presence of an AfD template on the page or bring this up at WP:CR, but a speedy close and deletion would be appreciated anyhow as there is consensus to delete the page. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]