Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1213

I am requesting administrative attention regarding the conduct of Hemiauchenia and StAnselm at Tziporah Malkah. Their behaviour has escalated across multiple noticeboards and my user talk page, and has resulted in repeated restoration of policy‑noncompliant material about a living person.

1. Repeated restoration of unverified and contradictory BLP content The article contains an unverified engagement claim about the subject. This claim: • has no reliable, contemporaneous source • appears to originate from speculative reporting • is contradicted by a 2024 Sydney Morning Herald article in which the subject states she has never been engaged to any man • is currently under active discussion at BLPN Despite this, the claim has been repeatedly restored by the above editors, including after the BLPN thread was opened. Under WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious material about a living person that lacks high‑quality verification must not be included.

2. Misuse of warning templates and accusations of edit warring After removing the unverified claim twice under BLP, I stopped reverting and moved the issue to BLPN. Since then, I have received: • multiple edit‑warring warnings • repeated notices on my user talk page • accusations of “OWN”, “double standards”, and similar claims These warnings were issued after I had already stopped reverting, and while the BLP discussion was ongoing.

3. Noticeboard shopping and escalation The same editors have escalated the dispute across: • the article talk page • BLPN • COIN • my user talk page ANI has also been threatened. This pattern appears to be escalating the dispute rather than resolving the underlying sourcing issue.

4. Personalisation of the dispute I have been repeatedly asked to “confirm or deny” whether I personally know the subject. Wikipedia does not require editors to disclose personal information or private relationships, and such questioning is inappropriate.

5. Reintroduction of previously removed UNDUE and poorly sourced material In addition to the engagement claim, the same editors have reintroduced other material that had previously been removed for policy reasons, including: • content removed as WP:UNDUE • negative personal details sourced to low‑quality or tabloid outlets • sensational or disproportionate coverage of minor events • material removed in earlier clean‑ups for failing WP:BLPSOURCES These restorations have occurred after the BLPN thread was opened and have contributed to instability on the page.

6. Request I am requesting: • administrative review of the behaviour described above • enforcement of WP:BLP and WP:BLPENFORCE • stabilisation of the article (page protection if appropriate) • guidance for all involved editors on proper BLP handling I will not revert again and am seeking administrative assistance to prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeuu (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Deeuu, do you have a bullet character on your keyboard? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

If they're using a mobile device (which is possible despite the lack of tags, if they're using a mobile browser), many mobile keyboards have the bullet character. Additionally, you can get it on Windows by selecting Alt + 7 (•). Today's utterly useless top tip! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Or on Macs by option-8 (•). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Or it's even easier to get an LLM to generate it for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

There’s no evidence of LLM use that I can see - the use of a • character isn’t evidence of LLM use. I just obtained that character in two button presses on my iPhone. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

When I read some of the posts on Talk:Tziporah_Malkah#Proposed_removal_of_relationship_content_under_WP:BLP_and_WP:UNDUE, they definitely read strangely as if they were generated by a LLM. But that's just my judgement. Katzrockso (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, there I agree, especially the three consecutive "thank you for your comment but I'm going to go on at length in numbered paragraphs repeating the same boilerplate" answers starting from the one dated 00:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC). Not unlike the one that started this thread. But I don't think the bullet character by itself is convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, I saw another post on a thread which I have forgotten (perhaps it's also ANI?) today, and it too used bullet points but didn't have any spacing between each point; it was clearly AI-generated, so it's definitely possible that the same thing here is an indicator. Maybe it's a new thing that one of the LLMs is doing. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

And although this is not at all solid proof, it's interesting that such an infrequent editor uses (and knows) the term 'noticeboard shopping', especially given that almost all editors use the term 'forum shopping'. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

LLMs do seem to generate bullet hell, in my reading experience (and WP:AILIST mentions this). Perhaps the odd punctuation in this case is the result of LLM output being pasted into another editor before being inserted here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It is 100% LLM generated. wound theology◈ 16:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In Talk:Stepanakert, I raised a request to move the page to Khankendi (as well as Stepanakert in the Republic of Artsakh to Stepanakert.) One of the respondents to the request, User:KhndzorUtogh, deleted the message of another respondent, User:Cuman, twice (revisions 1334077778 and 1334106156), citing "reversion per WP:GS/AA" as the reason in both cases. I restored Cuman's message in strikethrough (revision 1334126317), acting out of an assumption of "good faith but bad form" on KhndzorUtogh's part in deleting it, but I later went through WP:TALK and realized that not only is deleting messages expressly prohibited, but so is striking them through (in other words, both KhndzorUtogh's deletion of Cuman's message and my restoration of it in strikethrough were in violation of the talk page guidelines.) I would like an administrator to resolve the situation. Glide08 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

An admin can correct me if I’m wrong, but do you realize that the move request you made is under extended confirmed protection? “ However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.”

What’s the point of this ANI? I’m simply following the restriction. Assuming good faith on your part, you didn’t even bother to warn me or discuss with me if you really wanted to “resolve the situation”. Straight to ANI! KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I went to ANI for this because:

• 1) it involves someone deleting someone else's message in the talk page, which is a violation of the talk page guidelines (I have only went to ANI over an incident once before, and that was also due to someone deleting someone else's talk page message)
• 2) my own attempt at patching the situation, restoring the deleted message with a strikethrough to reflect that Cuman wasn't supposed to make it, turned out to also be a violation of the talk page guidelines.

Glide08 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

ok, what about the first paragraph of my comment? Are you satisfied with my rationale? I could’ve just told you this on my talk page btw, still don’t see the reason for direct ANI escalation without any prior warnings or discussion. This is not just some random comment deletion, there is a clear extended confirmed restriction here, its relevant remedy I quoted, and a user violating it. But admins can correct me if I’m wrong, no shame in that. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The first paragraph I actually agree with, and that's why I initially restored Cuman's comment with a strikethrough to indicate that Cuman wasn't supposed to make it. Glide08 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, WP:GS/AA specifically allows its own enforcement of limiting talk page access through reverting edits, so it was an appropriate move. When weighing the sanctions against guideline, it’s worthwhile remembering that the sanctions were community-authorised and have more weight than the guideline you mentioned (for which there is a non-exhaustive list of exceptions). IndigoManedWolf (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Glide08 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

fyi Indigo is not an administrator. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Either way, I'm gonna leave the deletion be, both because Indigo clarified that it's warranted and because it was the status quo ante. Glide08 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: I have shortened the Proustian-length thread title for convenience. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This report is against @Ender-theBoy: On the Battle of Borodino page an edit war ensued over the result parameter. Eventually, I tried to promote a discussion on the talk page.

We discussed, but the user exhibited WP:ICANTHEARYOU after a clear talk page consensus.

First they accused me of WP:CANVAS after I invited two recent major contributors of the page (and a major contributor toward military infobox pages) to promote consensus.

Second, under a false edit summary, they claim they were fixing the lead (after consensus was established on the result), but in reality, edited the result instead with it as well.

Third, they misrepresented WP:BRD, which clearly says to not fall into edit wars, and discuss on the talk page instead. (especially after a consensus had been established...) .

Fourth, they continue to edit war the result after consensus had been established: . .

Overall, this user has been incredibly disruptive to the page. They've accused me of WP:CANVAS, while I warned them of WP:BLUDGEON as they littered the talk page with numerous comments to every user who disagreed with them.

Given ANI notice: Noorullah (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Extra comment, they're also under WP:SPI. See here: Noorullah (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment, defense I just reverted to the last revision before Military history RUS's edits. Per WP:BRD, Military history RUS put forth a bold edit, I reverted it, and now we're discussing it. People can see how the proposed edits make the third paragraph overlong, the paragraph takes up the whole screen. I'm merely doing gardening work with the revert so I'm confused why Noorullah reverted my revert and took his complaint here. Check out the proposed edit and you'll see the revert was necessary and in accordance with WP:BRD I reverted to the last revision before the proposed edits. Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

But...is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph, or were you just reverting completely fine additions because you felt they were "overlong"? (Why not just add a line break and make it two separate paragraphs? 4 paragraphs in the lede of such a page is not unusual.) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the appropriate response to an edit that makes something too long (but is otherwise appropriate) is to find ways to pare down the prose, not to simply revert it. As far as I saw, the content dispute was only over the infobox. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Length of article/length of paragraph can be the wrong thing in itself... Here's my further explanation from the discussion which I'm rolling into a footnote here^[a]

Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead as it was in the reduced state was around 250 words, around the lower range of the 250 to 400 words MOS:LEADLENGTH (not policy, but a fair reference when talking about lead length) says are typical in featured articles. While the 500+ words of the expanded lead could very well have been too much, it certainly isn't necessary to revert the entire edit. Removing half of the sentences could have been appropriate. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been acquainted with WP:BRD and isn't that just how it goes all the time--first a bold edit, then revert (then discuss). It's happened to me before. Maybe there are alternatives but I thought that's how it goes and perfectly acceptable (?) Ender-theBoy (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A principle issue is you overrode the edit regarding the result parameter as well. You are responsible for the edits you make.

I explicitly told you on the talk page: "Moreover, stop edit warring to restore your result, it is exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU and I will report you if you continue to ANI"

BRD doesn't mean to edit war. Noorullah (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Update comment: Seems like they were blocked for being a sockpuppet. See SPI Noorullah (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

The user Techoliver298 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a multi-year history of ignoring warnings on their talk page (they also have a Sept 2025 level 4 warning on their talk page), so I'm bringing this to the administration page.

The user has added sources from Instagram and Facebook profiles to connect an actress to a purported family member. I removed the information and FB/IG sources, but the user added them back.

Diffs:

First edits inserting Instagram and Facebook as sources

For Tatiana Ignatieva

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatiana_Ignatieva&diff=prev&oldid=1333501456

For Bailey Bass

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333501574

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333501879

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333502005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333502037

Revisions of edits removing IG/FB sources, adding IG/FB sources for second time

Bailey Bass

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659795

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659488

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659451

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bailey_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=1333659375

Thank you very much,

Pommeperson (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Self-published posts on social media cannot be used if it involves a third party per WP:BLPSELFPUB. @Techoliver298: Can you explain why you keep inserting it back? Northern Moonlight 05:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've indef pblocked them from those two pages, but their editing in general needs scrutiny - they have severak prior warnings for unsourced or poorly sourced edits to BLPs. Fences&Windows 20:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the pblock worked: -- Mike 🗩 12:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• ChitoCastillo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor doesn't post any reference to their edits. This edit, shows a copied/pasted reference that doesn't even back up the edit. The editor also marks all of their edits as "minor edits", when their edits aren't minor. They have been notified 4 times through their talk page, about their unreferenced edits, another for misusing the minor edits box and another for not using the edit summary. The editor doesn't communicate in their talk page, and doesn't use the edit summary.Hotwiki (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

They may well not know they have a talkpage. I have blocked from article space, with an informative note in the block log. As soon as they respond constructively and acknowledge the warnings, admins are welcome to unblock. Bishonen | tålk 13:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC).

Hi all. I'm requesting admin review of the behavior of user Adachi1939 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Over the past two weeks, Adachi1939 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, battleground behavior, and harassment toward me across multiple pages, including article talk pages and user talk pages.

Diff: Joined a discussion he was not previously involved in to criticize me rather than address content, and stating intent to oppose my participation in any future discussions regardless of topic:

Diff: Reported me to WP:ANEW immediately over content disputes, then telling me on my talkpage "BUDDY you are in trouble":

Diff: Posted insulting comments on my talk page, @Alexysun's talk page when I tried to talk with him, and several article talk pages, including possessing a "deep lack of understanding", sarcastically referred to me as an "expert", having not "learned enough in grade school" and being "neglectful" and allegedly "causing issues for other editors"

This is an escalation of past behavior, which included:

Diff: Admitting to following my activity log to counter my alleged "narrative pushing" (whilst also called me a small dog):

Diff: Following me to @Alexysun's talk page to accuse me of spreading propaganda.

Diff: Reported me to WP:ANEW on the basis that I was "in denial", "I didn't know what I was doing", "I spread misinformation", "I falsify history", and for displaying "ridiculous behavior"

Diff: Used rude language, including comments about my life decisions and my worth as a person

Adachi1939 has behaved this way with newcomers before.

Diff: Said he "gains satisfaction" from getting negative responses from other editors, or as he describes, "victims of historical propaganda"

Diff: Called other editors "clueless," "victims of Chinese propaganda," illiterate , and guilty of fabricating history

This conduct only appears to be escalating and has continued despite several requests to remain civil and focused on content. I am requesting administrative review to determine whether this behavior violates WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND and whether any action is appropriate. Wahreit (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

And their response was "Imagine what could have been accomplished if you used the same amount of time trying to paint me as the bad guy on some self-reflection and studying of better sources." Great way to disprove Wahreit's allegations there, Adachi1939. So ... what part of self-reflection and studying of better sources were involved in you taking Wahreit to the EW board, eight hours before their ANI report? Ravenswing 07:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ravenswing,

Below are several more Diffs I missed, in addition to those listed above, displaying Adachi1939's behavior:

Within the last 24 hrs:

Diff: His response to this WP:ANI notice (commenting on my life decisions)

Diff: Calling me ignorant

Diff: Following me to @Alexysun's page (without a ping) to insult both me and Alexy, even though Alexy has never been involved in any of these incidents

Diff: Used Tu Quoque allegations on this WP:ANI thread to call me a gossiper and a bad-faith editor (whilst also admitting "I [Adachi1939] am just as much guilty if not more")

Towards me as a newcomer in 2024

Diff: Made comments about my worth as a person, "wasting precious time in my life", and a "spreader of misinformation"

Diff: Accused me of being disrespectful and questioning my ability to understand simple explanations

Diff: Called me ignorant, "ridiculous", accused me of lying, and tried to give me orders

Diff: Accused me of being a troll and being an "unreasonable person"

Diff: Called me an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, someone who "spreads nonsense", and being "misled"

Towards other newcomers

Diff: Calling another newcomer's contributions "fairy tales" and commenting that their efforts "are not welcome"

Diff: Warned another newcomer to "reconsider their actions" whilst calling them a "victim of propaganda", "hostile", "unjustified", and admitting that he "get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses"

Diff: Giving orders to another newcomer (and sending arbitrary deadlines) because their changes were "unproven"

For these reasons, I believe WP:BITE applies to Adachi1939's behavior in addition to WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:HA given the length, escalating patterns, and active nature of the hostile interactions.

@Alexysun for visibility. Wahreit (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, commenting here cuz I'm tagged. I think Wahreit has a good argument. Alexysun (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

As an update to this situation:

Diff: Adachi1939 has just extended the battleground to the Three Alls Policy page:

Diff: Found another instance where Adachi1939 followed me to another editor's talk page to accuse me of ignorance and emotional instability Wahreit (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Wahreit has done an excellent job combing through my past few years of contributions to hand-select some of my most negative interactions I've exchanged with him and others. Although I must applaud this labor of love that almost certainly took a few hours of effort, it completely neglects to include the context behind these interactions as well as their own misconduct.

My interaction with them essentially started when they added that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. Wahreit supported this claim with an uncited web article which turned out to have plagiarized an older uncited version of the Wikipedia article itself and another later published book which relied on the same web page (also see this for a thorough explanation of why/how they did not participate in the battle). I tagged Wahreit and explained with evidence why this was incorrect and did not hear a response from them. Wahreit continued to make edits in spite of my explanation, and I did take offense when instead of responding to me directly, he instead ran off to a talk page to disparage my work and character stating "it seems that this adachi guy has been implementing his own narrative of sihang warehouse by framing the battle as a skirmish and chinese propaganda." It could be argued that they actually fired the first shot in this matter, but at this point I am just as much guilty if not more.

Such rude comments from Wahreit would not be isolated—not long later after I made other edits he started a discussion called "return of the revisionist in which he insinuates I am engaging "blatant historical revisionism" (I personally believe historical revisionism is a often a good thing but it is clear they are referring to it pejoratively here). Even today, Wahreit has taken the time to not-so-subtlety mock me with a friend on their talk page writing "Guess I really scored the multi-year rent-free contract in that funny head of his" after I had interactions with them. As guilty as I may be, at least I afford Wahreit the dignity of saying it straight to them. This poor behavior towards other editors is not exclusive towards myself either, after being met with a differing opinion from editor Keith-264 on the Battle of Verdun article's talk page, he started a discussion to canvass for help on another user's talk page where he wrote "Reaching out again, would you be able to assist on the Verdun page? Unfortunately, the Keith guy can't behave".

Based on these above interactions from Wahreit spanning multiple years, it seems they believe anyone who doesn't agree with their view is narrative-pushing, a revisionist, or "can't behave". Even if they are a well-established editor like Keith-264. Furthermore, they seem to believe that good conduct is only expected within talk pages of articles and that user pages are some free-for-all gossip forum.

In closing, I hope the above shed some light on the context of my own interactions and Wahreit's character. This is in no way meant to exonerate my behavior. There are some interactions cited by Wahreit that in hindsight I wish I handled better and others I still stand by to this day. If arbitrators find a ban is necessary punishment for my conduct, I will respect their decision. Adachi1939 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Note, by Adachi1939's own admission:

- "at this point I am just as much guilty if not more"

- "As guilty as I may be, at least I afford Wahreit the dignity of saying it straight to them"

- "no way meant to exonerate my behavior" Wahreit (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Another new one, in response to a recent edit-warring request being closed and the both of us advised to deliberate more in the article's talk section to work at a solution: "Hey buddy, You're now 0-2. Even after 18 months of prepping the comeback. You must feel like a real champ."

Wahreit, while taking zero accountability for their own actions, is under the impression they are engaged in some kind of pro-longed battle with me in which score is to be kept count of. Nonetheless, I am still trying to extend the olive branch with this editor but it appears to be a futile effort. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears that Adachi has now decided to bring the aforementioned Battleground to the WP:ANI board.

I ask if admins could assist with a WP:HA situation as evidenced by the Diffs and Adachi's response above. I request a block against Adachi1939 for the sake of Wikipedia's community and its newcomers. Wahreit (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

While I think both Wahreit and Adachi need to be more respectful in their interactions with each other, I'm not seeing anything especially egregious or an immediate need for admin intervention. I encourage both sides to stop trying to get each other blocked and instead focus on understanding the sources being used and the arguments being made by their fellow editor. Toadspike [Talk] 15:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Toadspike,

I have tried to understand Adachi's POV and engaged in dialogue several times, and I have never tried to get him blocked before (he has twice) despite numerous personal attacks. What's changed now is him actively shadowing my account, escalating a battleground to multiple unrelated pages, and joining random unrelated convos just to attack me. Adachi's persistent aggression towards newcomers has gotten him blocked before for similar behavior, and it only seems to be escalating now. Wahreit (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this far more concise summary of your complaint. Looking at the first link, I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation. The second link is concerning, so I will warn @Adachi1939 not to follow Wahreit across the project, which is hounding.

So, we have three options: you both work together collegially; you avoid and ignore each other; or we take a long hard look at the evidence, likely resulting you both getting blocked. I would prefer to avoid that last option. Toadspike [Talk] 20:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with Option 3. I've tried options 1 and 2 in the past; both have resulted in Adachi harassing me and hounding me despite requesting he disengage multiple times. It was only after months of Adachi commenting about my worth as a person, my intelligence, and my life decisions, following me to different editor's talk pages to insult me and them, and him bullying other newcomers that I became less patient.

I'll take my chances and let the evidence speak for itself. I appreciate your time and will respect whatever judgement you make. Wahreit (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike forgot to ping Wahreit (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will refrain from any further behavior that could fall under hounding. I will add however, that while I can't say with absolute certainty, Wahreit seems to be engaging in similar behavior as well. To give a recent example, I edited the Three Alls policy article on December 19 2025. Less than a week later, with no other editors making changes in between, Wahreit came in and undid my changes on December 25 2025. The revision history shows they had not interacted with this article for over a year and a half, nor taken issue with any of the numerous changes made before mine.

In contrast to Wahreit, we can see another editor, RelmC, later did a revert of a newer edit of mine on the same article but gives a clear explanation of their reasoning and invites for the matter to be discussed. This is the sort of collaborative spirit that I wish to engage with.

As it's Wahreit's request, I don't believe I have a say in the options, but from my own view, life is too short to hold grudges, especially against a faceless internet user. I am willing to work with them as I would with anyone else, or if they'd rather be left alone that is totally fine as well. As far as I can remember, until this recent interaction I had not engaged with them since April 2025 anyways.

Thank you for your time. I regret that my poor conduct with this user has resulted in taking so much time from the administration. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-38994-0 (talk · contribs)

IP address ~2026-38994-0 (User talk:~2026-38994-0) is repeatedly edit warring contested material into Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The reason their contested unsourced change is a problem has been clearly explained, however, they have explicitly stated they will not stop edit warring, saying "... I will keep putting it back, and then if you block me, I will wait until the expiration date and try again, stop undoing it ... "

Considering they have explicitly stated they will continue edit warring after a block expires, I would request a particularly long block. Also please check if this has violated 3RR by the time this request is processed. It's sitting at 3 reverts today at the time of posting, with their stated intention to keep edit warring. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The edit warring noticeboard is thataway → SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Due to the TA jumping temporary accounts, blocking isn't really going to help. I've protected the article for a week. If they resume their edit war when the protection expires, request resumption of the protection at WP:RFPP. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hammersoft, surely blocking the range of the TP-hopper should help, or am I missing something? Done, for a month. Bishonen | tålk 13:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC).

I didn't sign up for the ability to see the IPs of TAs. Just one more thing to hang administrators by. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Useful, however. Definitely in this case. Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC).

Agreed. But, bagging on edit warrior isn't worth it when protection stops them. If an admin with that ability wants to step in, be my guest. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Ashleylag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Consular and Diplomatic Service University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They have also created another page, which I have draftified, where they're using AI-generated sources, which is how I came across this user in the first place:

• Draft:World Diplomatic Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Instead of waiting for the fifth AfC result (presumably another decline), Ashleylang first moves the draft into projectspace(!). A few minutes later, Ashleylag moves the draft into mainspace with the edit summary Moving from draft to mainspace for wider improvement., and then removes the AfC tags from the page.

Then they add an AfC acceptance message to their own talk page themselves, and also invite themselves for a discussion at the (now moved) draft page (not the draft talk).

• User talk:Ashleylag § Your submission at Articles for creation: Consular and Diplomatic Service University
• User talk:Ashleylag § Discussion at Draft:Consular and Diplomatic Service University

Afterwards they remove all of the AfC decline messages from their talk page, as well as CSD notices for related drafts and warnings.

I'm not asking for any specific sanctions here. But this feels rather fishy to me, and the hallucinated ISBNs and other WP:AISIGNS are not great. I have skipped over some details, and less obvious AISIGNS, to try to keep this short enough for folks to read through. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For me at least, someone clearly fabricating something to look like it was sent as part of a process is a bright, red line, and one that's very hard to characterize as good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I decided to open this thread. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Two other, possibly related related users:

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

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, adding an AFC acceptance message for themselves after moving the draft to mainspace is quite fishy, however, we know people does that often especially somewhat new editors. But in the case of Ashleylag, I am seeing from their history that they have stayed here for a year, and focusing only on these two articles from the start clearly shows that they are WP:NOTHERE. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

They are clearly here only to promote the Consular and Diplomatic Sertvice University and are wasting valuable community time with their UPE/LLM. I went with a Not Here INDEF and suggest an SPI for the potentially related editors. Star Mississippi 21:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

ETA, and that's absolutely an IAR draftification. Any established editor is welcome to move it back if and when they believe it's ready for mainspace. That was clearly currently not the case and we do not need to waste more community time on it. Star Mississippi 21:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello everyone, and thank you for bringing this to my attention. I want to acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the draft movement, AfC process, and the use of AI‑assisted text. I understand why these issues were flagged, and I appreciate the editors who took the time to review the situation and provide guidance. I have now gone through the feedback carefully and corrected the problems that were identified. My intention was never to bypass established processes or cause disruption. I am still learning the correct procedures for AfC, sourcing, and content development, and I appreciate the opportunity to improve my understanding of Wikipedia’s policies. I also want to clarify that I am committed to following community standards going forward. I will avoid moving drafts prematurely, will not self‑accept AfC submissions, and will ensure that all content is fully compliant with sourcing, neutrality, and manual‑of‑style expectations. I am also taking extra care to avoid AI‑generated phrasing that may trigger concerns. I welcome any further advice from experienced editors and administrators. My goal is to contribute constructively, learn from this experience, and work collaboratively with the community to improve the article and related topics. Thank you again for your time, patience, and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylag (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that this is AI-generated, too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

And the replies to me on their talk page as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ashleylag: A thread is started here in part due to your inappropriate use of LLMs. In response, you post something generated by an LLM. Did you honestly think this was a wise move? We do not want to talk to a machine. We want to talk to you. If you are incapable of responding without the use of an LLM, you likely do not have the competence to be editing here. I've collapsed your reply here as LLM generated. Please don't post LLM slop here again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Responding to LLM concerns using an LLM is a pattern for this user , they appear to be entirely incapable of communicating in their own words. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I should point out that they have previously been advised a about LLM use Giulio 20:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the request is not taking extra care to avoid AI‑generated phrasing that may trigger concerns, the request is to not use AI. The phrasing is just an indicator that one might be using AI. It's the equivalent of knocking over a glass and saying that in the future you'll take extra care to make sure there isn't broken glass on the floor. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Hounding

My interactions with User:Aradicus77 began in late November 2025 with disputes about the content of the Post-noise page.[A] By 7 December, another editor filed an ANI report against Aradicus77, citing ‘Lack of competence and disruptive editing.’[B] I contributed to the discussion, citing my own recent content disputes with Aradicus77, like the Post-noise one, as context. The result of the ANI report was both editors being blocked for a month.

In that month, my activity slowed down as I was busy, and by the time I got back to making major edits Aradicus77’s block had expired. I have since ignored most of their activity. They, however, have been following my edits from article to article, reacting to all of my activity, usually with a great quantity of minor edits.

Both of the articles I’ve made major contributions to this month, Toytown pop and Freak folk, are being ‘monitored’ by Aradicus77 in this way. I can’t direct my activity to another article (as they will immediately follow me there) so I can only disengage from the site completely – or file this report.

Yesterday, I asked them to stop on their talk page:[C]

Can you please cease the minor, pointless corrections to my edits like removing red links, slightly changing the order of sentences for no reason, and other completely arbitrary changes which only seem to be made to 'correct' me?

They don't improve the quality of the articles at all; why even go out of your way to make them every time I finish editing a page for 10 minutes?

There are so many articles which could be targeted for improvement in different ways, but you have to monitor my edits specifically and make minor, arbitrary edits. I am genuinely asking, why?

Admittedly, the tone of my message is inappropriate as it escalates instead of deescalating.

Aradicus77 defended their pattern of behaviour with:[C]

This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. If you do not want to comply by the manual of style then you are breaking some of the core policies.

This shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia’s core policies are. This defense also does not take into account the edits Aradicus77 had made not on the basis of any policy; for example, this edit changing the order of three sentences I had written with the arbitrary and subjective justification 'Not right chronologically, 2025 source should be later.'

Again, I unfortunately escalated, needlessly bringing up their recent block to undermine their authority. Their further responses accused me of lying (several times), using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, and pointed out that I've been contributing to the encyclopedia for a shorter amount of time than they have.[C] Ultimately, Aradicus77 wrote:[C]

Man get out of here. I'm not talking to you anymore.

I immediately disengaged. However, they kept reacting to my edits on the freak folk page in the same way and wrote a content-related message on my talk page little over three hours later, to which I responded neutrally.[D]

2. Continued disruptive editing

Building on the previous point, the issue is not just Aradicus77’s continued monitoring of and responses to my activity, but also the nature of their responses.

Much of their reactive activity is not based on adding new information, but making a great quantity of minor, unimportant changes. Some of these changes could be justified by the Manual of Style (yet that does not justify monitoring all of my activity), but many are simply subjective choices, sometimes including major reorganisation of the article without seeking consensus.

Due to the high volume of edits in a short time, even edits which clearly seek to fix mistakes, like removing duplicate in-line citations, are sometimes not carried out correctly and result in e.g. correct in-line citations being replaced with incorrect ones.

While many of these are minor in nature, the high volume of these edits, and specifically in response to all of my activity, makes trying to add quality information to the encyclopedia highly frustrating.

Finally, even in the edits where they do add new information, this information can be irrelevant, undue, or misplaced. On the other hand, recently they simply removed some cited and relevant information I had added, with the additional justification that 'this source is talking about free-folk not freak folk,' which a look at the source will prove false.

The editor’s disruptive patterns of editing line up with what I already observed in December and recounted in the ANI report. Echoedits67 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

With regards to this point - Can you please cease the minor, pointless corrections to my edits like removing red links, slightly changing the order of sentences for no reason, and other completely arbitrary changes which only seem to be made to 'correct' me? - I'd advise you both to remember that neither of you WP:OWN your contributions. I can see exactly where you're coming from with regards to having your edits immediately changed for what might seem to be a vague reason, but it is other users' prerogative to make these changes. This would be an issue if the edits were disruptive (i.e. reversions of your contributions), but expanding or correcting them isn't contravening policy in and of itself. Becsh (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, some of my comments have arguably bordered on WP:OWN and I will refrain from any such comments going forward. Again, I take my part of the responsibility for escalating the dispute.

However, even if simply because of the high volume of quick, careless edits User:Aradicus77 makes daily, many of them are absolutely disruptive. They often contain mechanical errors or are based on a misunderstanding of the sources, like some of the examples I've given in the report itself, or the example I broke down in this comment, where the editor removed an entire well-sourced and relevant sentence I had added because they thought it cited a completely different source than it actually did.

These kinds of edits have been unfortunately common in my interactions with Aradicus since our first interactions in late November 2025. Echoedits67 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There hasn't been a reply to this yet so I'll just say, frankly I'm tired of your bending words and perspectives. You yourself removed stuff I sourced in the freak folk article which I had to re-add. That article is an example of 2 editors making massive edits at the same time. Now if you want to talk about "mistakes". You yourself have made several undos and gone back on stuff on that article. You yourself broke MOS as well. You are ironically the one being pedantic here. And if my edits were so "pedantic" and unimportant, why is it such a big deal to waste time with an ANI report? And you also made a bunch of quick edits to freak folk and the other pages in your contributions summary. This is clearly your own bias here and you know it as you have made a lot of baseless accusations. If "many" of my edits are disruptive care to give a glossary besides just citing 1 article with conflict edits from both sides? Aradicus77 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this AN/I thread is turning 'stale' and ultimately will get archived with no action taken. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

not based on adding new information is so incredibly disingenuous. I've added like half of the information on that page which you have tried to remove or trim: , Aradicus77 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This is just so disingenuous that I have no clue what to say. I never reverted anything you added. You were the one reverting me. You are doing a similar WP:BATTLEGROUND thing as Buf92 did and I haven't touched that article in a few hours giving you space to continue editing. I even said so yesterday on your talk page: User talk:Echoedits67#Freak folk article.

Anyone reading this, keep in mind this user was complying with another user who tried to disingenuously get me banned known as User:Buf92, the editor he cites as reporting me prior, he is now currently indefinitely blocked for insulting me, /

Both users don't like me and are trying to use any means necessary to stop me from editing. I never monitored the articles you cite. I have a lot to add on those topics and contributed to both just as much as you did. The idea that I am trying to monitor or correct you is a fabrication you have made yourself. The only articles I have edited that you were on were Toytown pop and Freak folk. You don't WP:OWN these articles, anyone is free to edit. I never expressed animosity when communicating with you. It feels to me like you have chosen to report me to bring up previous recent experiences in order to dupe who ever is passing by to think I'm deserving of a longer sentence. I didn't break any policies by editing Freak folk. All I did was add constructive edits. WP:BOOMERANG

My proposed compromise is either I stop editing Freak folk for let's say a week to let this editor do whatever he wants so he doesn't feel I'm "monitoring" him or we could also get an interaction ban arranged so we don't have to interact or touch each others edits. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't touched that article in a few hours giving you space to continue editing - Remember that there is WP:NORUSH, though! We all have a responsibility to disengage when we feel that things are getting heated and I am glad to see you did so, but you could leave an article for a day or two to let the editor's work speak for itself a bit more. It seems like Echoedits had a valid reason for moving that quote and it could be worthwhile to just see what they're trying to do before stepping in - in other words, leave it for a bit longer and make sure you're reacting based on policy rather than emotions. Having an open discussion on the talk page (i.e. not going to the user's talk page) or inviting a third opinion are alternative actions you could take to avoid escalating the issue. Becsh (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I only went on the user's talk page, because the user went on my talk page first with the "Pedantic edits" thing. You are right to point out they should have first opened a talk page on the page itself. Maybe a third opinion could be helpful on that page as well? It's hard to know who decides how an article should be structured or how sentences should be written. Most of the edits I make in a given period are met with echo completely removing them or being angry that I'm editing the page. It seemed to me as WP:OWN but I never wanted to accuse them of that. This to me isn't a matter that should have gone to ANI, which is obvious as well with what you are saying. As I said before it feels like the user trying to "finish off" their opponent per how they jumped on me during Buf92's previous report of me. It doesn't feel amicable at all. I'm open to stop editing the article for as long as they want but it makes no sense if I come back to make contributions and echo continues doing what he has done prior in removing most of what I add. But until that time comes I won't call it WP:OWN Aradicus77 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, keep in mind this user was complying with another user who tried to disingenuously get me banned known as User:Buf92, the editor he cites as reporting me prior, he is now currently indefinitely blocked for insulting me[276], [277]

To clarify, I have no personal associations with User:Buf92. I had no contact with them until shortly before they filed their ANI report, and have not communicated or interacted with them in any way since then. Echoedits67 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

To comment on your point here, Echoedits is not reporting you to get you blocked, they've come to AN/I to flag their concerns to admins. They've pointed out that they consider your edits disruptive and an instance of WP:HOUNDING, not that they want you blocked. It isn't wise to accuse people of wanting you blocked, however much you might think this is the case, when they've raised a fairly valid concern. Becsh (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of hounding at all. They say I monitor or follow them around. But I've been wanting to make edits to the Freak folk page for a while. I was the one who even split the section in Psychedelic folk to make freak folk its own page. I have been focused in expanding a bunch of undertalked about music genres on this site. I made the Post-noise page which was what started me and Echo's friction as Echo saw a problem with everything I was adding even though the page had not yet been finished and I was working through it as he is stating here that he is working through freak folk. Echo also cites Toytown pop. But I made typical constructive edits any editor would make on the site. The page was missing an infobox, the lead was too short and it didn't have the right citations. Nobody ever protested to these edits not even Echo so I'm confused why this is even cited. You see why I feel this is a bad faith report rather than a valid concern? It reads to me more like someone trying to tally or cobble up something against someone rather than any concrete example of the user being disruptive. You yourself stated "This would be an issue if the edits were disruptive (i.e. reversions of your contributions), but expanding or correcting them isn't contravening policy in and of itself." So that's where I'm coming from personally. So when you look at it the only examples of "hounding" or "monitoring" is 2 pages this user cites. One where you have stated I'm not making disruptive edits and the other where the user never made any concern at the talk page or informed of any issue with what I had contributed. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition, I've been editing a large amount of different pages such as Freak scene and Shitgaze. It's again very disingenuous to say I'm following or monitoring Echo's edits when said user is only editing 1 page while I am editing a big range of pages and even said yesterday that I'd step away from freak folk for a bit which you said was good. Now I know to step away from a bit longer before resuming editing. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not trying to arbitrate here, but my point was that I don't think it is fair to say that Echo has made this report to get you blocked, however little you might agree with the contents of their report. There's a reason I advised both of you to remember WP:OWN and WP:NORUSH since the escalation here seems to stem from both of you being very passionate about and invested in the article/articles you're contributing to. Becsh (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree on that last point. That’s fair. I am open to step away. The last edits I made to the page were not even disruptive nor trying to change echos wording. They were just 3 edits, which is why I don’t understand this report. I could have equally reported him for all the reverts he made towards me but alas. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I have to respond to some stuff here which are false. When I said that source is talking about free-folk, the section you added specifically said "Free-folk is also heavily influenced by British folksingers from the latter half of the twentieth century, mirroring, however inadvertently, the exact origins of all American folk music, which itself was inspired by Celtic, Scottish, and English folk songs in the early 1800s. British bands and artists like Bert Jansch and Pentangle, Comus, Shirley Collins, the Incredible String Band, Donovan, Vashti Bunyan, Fairport Convention, Roy Harper, and loads of others peaked in Britain in the 1960s and '70s". You used that section to equate that these artists were influencing freak-folk. I moved the section to Free folk.

Also everyone reading this, note I have never once removed anything Echoedits67 added besides duplicated citations. However, Echo has many times reverted and removed contributions I added. I have also not changed his wording on the article that much besides just moving around sentences so it not be "anachronistic" such as citing a 2025 source in a paragraph then later a 2006 one instead of the other way round.

The information Echo calls "irrelevant" makes no sense because the criticism section which discusses in length Kandia Crazy Horse's criticism of freak folk which also references Harvilla's article which brought up the genre as well as part of criticism is needed to have proper context in that section.

And finally the source that Echo calls "undue" is when a reliable source known as American Songwriter magazine stated that freak folk had emerged in the 1970s as psychedelic folk then took off in the 1990s only to experience a resurgence in the 2000s. I added this source and paraphrased it into the lead of the article because Echo had removed all mention of the genre "emerging". The source was a reliable source that specifically stated when exactly the genre emerged, which Echo marked "undue". Aradicus77 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute.

However, no, the source for the sentence you removed, a Pitchfork review by Amanda Petrusich says:

For the most part, freak-folk tends to eschew any clear genre parameters, but its participants-- willing or not-- are still blissfully united in an eyes-closed, drifting-to-the-strums adoration of ancient British folk tradition, while routinely pilfering from late-1960s/early-1970s folk-rock heroes Fairport Convention, Vashti Bunyan, Shirley Collins, the Strawbs, Pentangle, Comus, the Incredible String Band, and more.

The source you just cited, which uses 'free-folk' instead (as a synonym anyway), is a completely different link, albeit also by Pitchfork and featuring writing by the same author, Amanda Petrusich. (Free-folk is also heavily influenced by British folksingers ...)

I assume you'll argue this is an easy mistake to make since both links are by Pitchfork and Petrusich. But this kind of misrepresentation of sources is something you keep doing over and over - it was part of my evidence in your previous ANI case.

It feels like you don't read full articles about the articles you edit, instead searching for keywords and skimming for out-of-context excerpts which 'fit' what you want to add at a given moment.

It also feels like you don't go into editing articles with a strong grasp of the subject matter, instead learning about them as you go along and adding the first opinions you find without evaluating whether they are undue or not.

All of this combined with the fact that you make dozens of quick edits every day and it's not surprising that you keep making careless mistakes like this.

This is something I know other editors, including ones much more experienced than me, have told you already. Echoedits67 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's bring up your reverts. Here you remove my source from etymology and move it to characteristics which is also wrong: . Here you hound me for using the term "scene" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freak_folk&diff=prev&oldid=1333587817] but you later use it "the "patron saint" of the 2000s freak folk scene".

You falsely removed this cited source and called it original research: . I re-added it and pointed out how you were disingenuous in removing an entire credible source for your own biases: .

Here you reverted the removal of red links for artists and albums that are not notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia: .

Here you remove an image I added stating that because the image is from 2009 and the paragraph is talking about the artist work from 2004 that it has no relevance in that section when that's not how images work on music articles: . Here you lie about there not being a rule for removal of red links which is outlined in WP:NORED . Here you make your own biased assertation that the sourced paragraph I added should be moved further down per no policy or MOS rule: (this is when you yourself have criticized me for 'pedantic' editing and claimed I was not following any rules for such edits)

Pretty big list here that showcases WP:OWN behavior to me but I digress. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we've heard more than enough now from Aradicus77 and Echoedits67. Please can you both shut up now so that others have the chance to evaluate what you have said? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please remain civil - there are better ways to ask people to hold back from discussing. Becsh (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there are better ways, but they would be uncivil. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to think you're capable of civility. ~2026-21568-0 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Why are you involving yourself in this matter at all? ~2026-41922-2 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Aradicus77 defended their pattern of behaviour with: "This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. [...]" → The Manual of Style may not be a "core policy" of Wikipedia (I informed Aradicus about this after the fact), but it's still something that "editors should generally follow". If you are editing against the MoS, then there has to be a good reason for it. Otherwise, your edit will get (inevitably) revised at some point, whether it's by Aradicus, or someone else. I myself make a lot of MoS compliance edits on articles these days, too. There even exist user warning templates for deliberately breaking MoS: {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}} and so on.

for example, this edit changing the order of three sentences I had written with the arbitrary and subjective justification 'Not right chronologically, 2025 source should be later.' → Really!? I think most people with a common sense would see that the 2020 item should come first before the 2025 item. Chronological flow of events is how a massive load of Wikipedia articles are written.

I immediately disengaged. However, they kept reacting to my edits on the freak folk page in the same way and wrote a content-related message on my talk page little over three hours later, to which I responded neutrally. → Aradicus77 literally informed you in that message on your talk page that "I’m stepping away from the Freak Folk article for a few hours because things have gotten a bit chaotic, with edits being added and reverted simultaneously. [...]". Aradicus gave you room to edit the article without running into conflicts again, and also gave you another chance at hopefully clearing up any misunderstandings here.

Much of their reactive activity is not based on adding new information, but making a great quantity of minor, unimportant changes. → What's wrong with that? Minor edits like fixing up a grammatical mistake are still very helpful in the end. Pleeeeenty of people here on Wikipedia focus on mostly making small improvements to articles rather than big additions. There's even a barnstar for doing that: Template:Minor Barnstar.

many are simply subjective choices, sometimes including major reorganisation of the article without seeking consensus → That borderline reads out to me as if you are personalising content disputes on Wikipedia. You do not need a consensus to make major changes to pages on Wikipedia. It may be "recommended", but it is not a must. Have you not heard of WP:Be Bold??

Due to the high volume of edits in a short time, [...] → Why can't you just simply wait until the other editor is done with editing the article? Or even better, ask them when they'll be finished with the editing??

Many editors out here have their own different ways of editing Wikipedia. For me, I tend to try and combine many changes into as little number of edits as I practically can, while for others, they prefer to publish little edit after little edit after little edit again. There's nothing seriously wrong with whichever way people edit on Wikipedia, just that the latter habit comes with the higher risk of running into edit conflicts. I have not seen a Wikipedia policy or guideline state that the former way of editing Wikipedia is strongly preferred or a must.

Regarding concerns of stalking / "monitoring" articles or whatever: I've just had a look through Aradicus77's contributions history and it does not appear that Aradicus77 is really "hounding" the OP like they claim here. Aradicus edits a wide range of articles, and the number of articles where Aradicus77 ran into editing conflicts with Echoedits67? I could count on one hand.

Examples of articles recently edited by User:Aradicus77 but not by User:Echoedits67: HexD, Alternative hip-hop, Hyperpop, Shitgaze, Vito Paulekas, Hippie, Zippie, Freak scene, Flower child.

Additionally, Echoedits67 too has made a high volume of edits in a short time to several articles: . One word I would like to say here: hypocrisy.

All in all, a lot of this drama feels like nitpicking to me. And much of it could be avoided by being more careful around when other editors are actively working on the article, so as to minimise edit conflicts. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Aradicus77 literally informed you in that message on your talk page that "I’m stepping away from the Freak Folk article for a few hours because things have gotten a bit chaotic, with edits being added and reverted simultaneously. [...]". Aradicus gave you room to edit the article without running into conflicts again, and also gave you another chance at hopefully clearing up any misunderstandings here.

No. They returned to continue editing the article again an hour and 16 minutes after leaving that message.[A][B] Echoedits67 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I added very minimal edits compared to the slew I added before and even then I still began focusing my attention more at other articles besides that one after I sent that message. To the point that 90% of my editing on that article has gone down since yesterday as well. Once you stopped editing I also resumed to add bigger edits like the ones I outlined prior which I didn't add until you had left: Aradicus77 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

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

User has repeatedly broken infoboxes by inserting Unknown parameters. Multiple warnings on their talk page, including 2 messages that communication is required have gone ignored. most recently they have simply reverted my fix to their latest breaking if a page with no attempt to WP:PREVIEW their edits or to engage with fellow editors about their errors.

Request a block the article space unti, this user chooses to actually engage and understand that previewing is required. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sheeesh! This page takes longer to load up than I thought. Yeah, first time posting here. Anyway, seeing this guy's recent activity, I haven't seen a preview warning template sent to their talk page. So I have just done that, just to be sure.‎ ‎ B⠄Jayden ^(talk) 18:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

User:B.Jayden while I did not place that specific warning, I have placed 5 other warnings which included working about using preview... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid ANI, but it seems further action is needed with regard to Dmartin969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) work in deletion areas.

Since last year they have been cautioned about their work in CSDs. This ultimately led to @Voorts revoking their NPP right. See User_talk:Dmartin969#Maybe_take_a_break for the most recent discussion started by @Ponyo. I had also flagged it a few days prior. While I encouraged them to use other deletion processes, their success there has also been an issue due to how they understand our policies around notability in addition to them misunderstanding what makes something an A7, which is the bulk of their CSDs. On User talk:Behappyyar you can see Dm969's notifications, some of which have closed and the majority of which have been retained due to their misunderstanding/misapplication of notability policies.

This is not about their success rate, but rather how they go about it including re-nominating an article for CSD when it has been declined. I warned them, and they have not responded.

Therefore proposing that Dm969 is topic banned from opening deletion discussions including XfDs, PRODs and speedies. I know CSD and PROD are not discussions, but not sure what a different ideal word would be. I do believe they should be able to participate as that's a great way to learn more about notability. I am neutral as to whether they should be able to clerk the discussions as I haven't fully been able to look into those edits, although I see a few flags. Star Mississippi 21:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, from what I've read you're stating that they have an issue with CSDs (A7 in particular). Why are you suggesting a TBAN from XfDs and PRODs also? If the issue is CSDs, why not just propose a TBAN from those? TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem @TarnishedPath is that they don't understand notability sufficiently to make good nominations. The AfDs are being closed as Keep with no support for the nomination. While that happens to all of us at one time or another, it is happening with regularity in DM's nominations and they're a drain on the already limited community time. Star Mississippi 01:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Of the eleven recent AfD noms I've made(that have been closed), four were deleted, six kept, and one withdrawn. Not a great success rate, I'll admit, but I don't think worthy of a topic ban. –DMartin (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dmartin969, when you state that one was withdrawn, are you referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gurr? TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British military bases, which I withdrew after I realised I misunderstood WP:SALAT. –DMartin (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about what I've done wrong? Is it not standard procedure to take articles to AfD once prod/speedy has been declined? After receiving your note on the ninth I have only nominated one article for CSD. Any other nominations I have PROD-ed, and then taken to AfD if that was declined and I felt there was a strong argument for deletion. What would you have preferred I did?–DMartin (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to say for the record that I think jumping directly to proposing an indefinite topic ban which would exclude me from anything to do with the deletion process is a needlessly extreme measure.–DMartin (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that a topic-ban from all deletion discussions is warranted so quickly here. Their AfD track record isn't great, at a 65.5% match rate , but I'm sure we can find many editors whose track records aren't so close. Perhaps a sanction to prevent the high rate of nominations, which has been a problem with other editors, and might be a problem here. Katzrockso (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

They have a high amount of open nominations , which might not be an issue but for the fact that their match rate for nominations is 41.7%. I'd hope that even if no sanctions comes from this discussion that they let a lot of those close before nominating anything else so that they can take onboard any learnings. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be fine too @Katzrockso as it would allow @Dmartin969 to focus on quality of their nominations. But noting I mentioned starting, not from them entirely.

@Dmartin969, yes, you're correct in that PROD and AfD were open to you but until this discussion you have not shown a track record of listening to the feedback from your fellow editors about why your read of notability was not good. You referred to them as "declined on technicalities" when that was not at all the case. Why are you in a rush to clear the soldiers to the extent that you used speedy twice and PROD on the same article? I would suggest slowing down and participating so you get a better feel for notability allowing you to make stronger nominations. Star Mississippi 03:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

When did I tag the same article after CSD was declined? If I did I'm sure it was an accident.–DMartin (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Omer Naseem in mainspace and Draft:Omer Naseem. It's the same article regardless of namespace Star Mississippi 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't've thought it counted as the same article in different namespace. It's going to be deleted under G13 anyway as the creator is banned, I just thought I could speed up the process. I'll keep it in mind though.–DMartin (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No it won't, because it should have never been sent to draft in the first place per WP:DRAFTNO. If there are concerns about the subject notability, it should be nominated for WP:AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I concur that it should've not been draftified, thank you for moving it back. I went ahead and nommed it via AfD, which is ironic considering… why we're here –DMartin (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Given why we're here, starting another AfD while this discussion is open is a bold choice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If it fails GNG it fails GNG ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not gonna leave problems for others to fix. –DMartin (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote above? TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You said "If there are concerns about the subject notability, it should be nominated for WP:AFD." so I did? Was there something I didn't pick up on? –DMartin (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

They have a high amount of open nominations [187], which might not be an issue but for the fact that their match rate for nominations is 41.7%. I'd hope that even if no sanctions comes from this discussion that they let a lot of those close before nominating anything else so that they can take onboard any learnings. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the notability of Naseem or whether it should have been draftified, so thank you @TarnishedPath for remedying that piece. My involvement was solely that this subject and probably about ten others were not CSD candidates.

@Dmartin969 rushing to nominate it because it was the creation of a problematic editor while your nominations are under scrutiny is not the best course of action. What's the rush? Why does it matter that the original draftifying editor has now renamed? That's not relevant to notability. And to be clear, yes. Once a speedy is declined it should not be renominated regardless of whether it's in draft space. I think the only potential exception is G12. But there's no rush and no reason you need to do so. Star Mississippi 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I would support a topic-ban from CSD and PROD (as there are deletion processes with less other editorial input that could lead to improperly considered deletions) and some sort of rate limit on AfD nominations, to ensure that this editor fully conducts a WP:BEFORE search and spends more time comparing the article to the existing notability guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, from what I've read you're stating that they have an issue with CSDs (A7 in particular). Why are you suggesting a TBAN from XfDs and PRODs also? If the issue is CSDs, why not just propose a TBAN from those? TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)