Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• Haydi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've filed two complaints about this editor, but both times the bot archived my requests. Will any action be taken against this editor? If not, please let me know, otherwise, the bot keeps archiving it, and I'm left unsure about the status of my request. Thank you! ^^

1. First request 2. Second request

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did they repeat the behaviour from the last ANIs? If not, I don't see what the point of this is. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same ANI, created three times because the bot archives it quickly. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fur future reference, archival happens after three days of no comments, so if you simply reply to yourself every two days, it will prevent the section from being archived. This would be preferable to recreating the section every time. For third parties, the issue according to Barseghian Lilia is that the editor is POV-pushing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, and some of their edits in that area also seem to have sourcing and copyvio issues. I have not come to a conclusion yet on the merits of the case, I am simply providing a summary of the accusations so that other editors aren't required to look through the archived threads. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info ! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barseghian Lilia You may have more luck posting this at WP:AE. Posts there do not get archived until they are dealt with, and it is better suited to dealing with complex topics. This user is aware of the contentious topic and thus their edits after that notice can be discussed at AE. Toadspike [Talk] 01:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My initial complaint wasn't related to the contentious topic. But if no resolution is reached, I'll forward it to AE. Thanks for the advice! Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barseghian Lilia (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taghavishr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently editing Varesh Airlines - initially by adding copyright violation images to the infobox (namely this logo, which was deleted by User:Yann and almost instantly re-created by the user - they've now been blocked on Commons), and now by edit warring the addition of unsourced content - [1][2][3][4]. They've received numerous [5][6][7] warnings on their talk page, and have even been pinged on the article talk page [8] yet no reaction. We know they are able to use talk pages, because they previous responded to an unrelated matter on their user talk. Given I'm now at 3RR in trying to deal with the unsourced content in the article, and they're ignoring every attempt to make contact, is there any way they can be blocked from article space until they start communicating? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re back again, still making undisccussed changes - and I still can’t get them to respond on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re finally responding on their talk page… however @Taghavishr, one question - what’s your connection to Varesh, as it’s the only thing you’ve been editing? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And still, after I've lost count of how many warnings, they're still adding unsourced content. I've reverted this particular edit of theirs at least twice before now, I've told them to stop adding unsourced content (they're on a level 4 warning on their talk page), and yet they still continue doing it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a third time for them to please come to ANI, I'm also seeing signs of possible AI use in their responses so they might not fully understand what's happening. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to admit their bulleted response does scream LLM... but I'm trying to assume good faith for as long as I can - however frustrating it may be! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And still, more unsourced changes. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re still continuing to edit war, restore unsourced content, and have for the third time created a copyvio image on Commons and had it deleted - how much longer are we going to let this carry on for? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more try. I guess this isn't getting attention because it's at the top of the page now? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Historynerd361 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Initially I brought this to AIV, but comments by Izno and Daniel Quinlan suggested/stated that it wasn't the right venue to discuss the issue (conversation can be found here [9], many thanks to them for the clarification). I'll be bringing this to ANI per the latter's suggestion.

Historynerd361 creates a new draft at Draft:Beth Aramaye. What should be mentioned is that Beth Aramaye is a redirect for an already existing article on Wikipedia, Asoristan, though this of course is not an issue. But in the edit history of the draft, one can find a series of edits from this [10] to the most latest edit at the time of writing this [11] showing change in only character/space of the draft. This series comes to a total of 26 edits in the span of 6 minutes. Accordingly, this appears to fit Example 1 of Gaming of permissions, which is the making of "unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level". Prior to this draft, HN was at around 270-280 contributions, but after their most recent edits through this draft, they currently sit at 329.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated regarding this matter. Surayeproject3 𖢗 05:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely does look strange - @Historynerd361 can you please explain what you were doing and why? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to add templates to the draft, but they weren’t appearing after saving. I began trying different approaches and just kept spamming it without realizing I was creating multiple edit version. This was a technical misunderstanding, not an attempt to gain permissions. If possible you can decredit me for those edits, I honestly don't mind it since it never part of my agenda to gain more edits. Gaining access to Kurdish articles is not part of my agenda. Have in mind on of the warning against WP:KURD was that I added a source mention the term Kurdistan in a linguistic article. Historynerd361 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're saying is true, then I apologize for my previous comment. What templates were you trying to add to the draft? I can see that you were using the visual editor while you made those edits. You might have some success with the source editor. Chess enjoyer (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the understanding and advice, I will definitely try source editing this time. I tried to add several templates but the one that kept me awake was ’’WikiProject Aram’’. For some reason It just wouldn’t show up on the article. Historynerd361 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historynerd361, I assume you meant WikiProject Aram (Suryoye). If you look at the history of the draft, you'll see that I was able to add it. However, WikiProject templates are supposed to go on the talk pages of articles (or drafts in this case), not the articles themselves. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thank you. I wasn’t aware of that. Historynerd361 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I wanted to assume good faith, as while this definitely looks strange, it's not like Historynerd361 did this all the way to 500 edits. However, a look at their talk page shows that they were warned against violating the ECP restrictions of WP:GS/KURD about a month ago, with their most recent comment on the matter being Understood. Thank you for the final clarification. I will not make any further edits related to Kurds or Kurdistan until I am extended-confirmed. Based on this, I think it is likely that Historynerd361 is now trying to game ECP so that they can edit in WP:GS/KURD topics. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a concern, but hard to be sure. Revoking XC seems extreme to me without more evidence, and is complicated by the fact they don't even have it yet. Given the assertion Gaining access to Kurdish articles is not part of my agenda, I wonder if a voluntary topic ban from WP:GS/KURD or Kurdish topics more broadly would be satisfactory. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Check is a new tool in development that may (or may not) be useful for this discussion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation from IncidentArchive1182 where I was the same person reporting User:Normal rookie

• Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anwar Ibrahim cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the article Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, I believe I was constructively editing a table, but my efforts were reverted without explanation. In the previous incident here, I raised concerns regarding WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, but since no administrative action was taken, I am bringing the matter up again.

My edits to the article Anwar Ibrahim cabinet were scattered on the accounts below with consistent behavior and editing style:

• User:~2025-32972-59,
• User:~2025-34307-21, and
• User:~2025-34494-19, as well as IP addresses:
• Special:Contributions/183.171.113.224
• Special:Contributions/183.171.112.211 and 118.101 ranges.

In almost every case, my changes, which I took care to explain in detail, were simply reverted without explanation. ~2025-34742-01 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I agree that Normal rookie's reverts without edit summaries were unhelpful, and I am fairly close to partially blocking them from that article given that they have been warned about this before. What would be nice however is an explanation of what you are trying to achieve. You are using edit summaries, which are kind of helpful, but they don't really explain what you're doing or why you're doing it. Normally, we point people to WP:BRD, which boils down to the fact that anyone can make a Bold edit, anyone can Revert it, and they are then expected to Discuss the changes. I'm seeing your Bold edits, and Normal Rookie's unexplained Reverts, but no discussion. The article's talk page has had a total of 7 edits, with the most recent being from January 24. Can I suggest that you go there, explain the changes you are going to make, why you think they need to be made (with pointers towards relevant policies, guidelines, MOS instructions etc where appropriate), and then if Normal rookie reverts you again without any explanation, come back here.

@Normal rookie: it is clear that this IP editor is not attempting to vandalise the page. If you continue reverting them without any explanation, you should expect your account to be blocked from editing the page altogether. If you disagree with what they are doing, explain yourself on the talk page and engage in discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Just to point out that this might not be useful, as Normal rookie, who has 23,000 edits, has never used an article talk page, and indeed has never edited any talk page other than to answer a few posts on their own usertalk. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I also note that they were not informed of this discussion - unregistered editor currently known as ~2025-34742-01, you must notify people when you report on their editing here. I've done it now. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this user (~2025-34742-01) in Anwar Ibrahim cabinet due to I want keep everything unchange and I think the older version is suitable. Normal rookie (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IJDLI is not a justification for a revert. Please explain what was the actual problem with their edit. Ultraodan (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normal rookie, in the discussion on this board back in March, you were told that this unregistered editor was permitted to edit the article, and you were not the sole arbiter of what goes into the article. I see you doing similar things over at Tengku Zafrul Aziz. Why would you keep reverting someone else, and never bother to explain what you are doing on the article's talk page? I could understand reverts without edit summaries if they were vandalising the article, but I don't see any evidence that that is the case. If you continue to just revert people without explaining yourself, you may end up blocked for disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ready state that keep the older version Normal rookie (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I ready state that keep the older version" does not mean anything. Are your English language skills good enough to have a conversation on a talk page? If the answer to that is 'no', you should not be reverting other people's contributions at all. If the answer to that is 'yes', I would be grateful if you would explain yourself properly. Merely saying 'older version is suitable' doesn't really cut the mustard. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure the OP meant something like 'I already stated that I prefer to keep the older version' i.e. was referring to their older comment "I want keep everything unchange and I think the older version is suitable". This is fairly similar to what they said last time [12] "no need change on the article, is perfect" and [13] "no need improvement". English aside the OP seems to have an unfortunate belief that articles don't need improvement which doesn't even apply to an FA let alone some random article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal rookie Please remember that every time you revert an edit, you're undoing someone else's hard work - you need a good reason to do that, one that you can explain clearly to others and should meet specific policy guidelines that you can ideally cite when challenged. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:BRD and attempted to Discuss this matter here. However, instead of engaging productively and explaining their actions, they merely attacked my status as an editor and provided vague, evasive responses.

Their behavior also extends to other articles as well, such as here, where my edits (same IP range 183.171):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar_Ibrahim&diff=1280083864&oldid=1279572063 I will provide more examples later if needed.

~2025-35090-38 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out: Normal rookie rarely uses edit summaries, even on their non-reverting edits, and this sometimes makes it hard for other editors to scrutinize changes. ~2025-35090-38 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should add some background on previous issues from the multiple warnings on their Talk page. I've only gone back to 2023 but there are warnings before this, (including recreating a deleted article & removing AFD tags) and some minor warnings between the ones below:

• Reverting a move without explanation
• Agreeing to use edit summaries in 2023 after being warned
• Unexplained content removal at Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet
• Warning re. ownership of Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet
• Reverting an edit so a politicians Facebook and Twitter are included in their article
• More unexplained reversion
• Two warnings about difficult/hard to read formatting
• Two warnings about cut & paste moves.
• Multiple warnings about adding icons to articles.
• Disruptive requests at RFPP
• Another Anwar Ibrahim warning re. edit warring

Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal rookie, stop acting like you have ownership of the article, just because you dont like it doesnt mean you have to edit war over a article which can change every day. shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shane, this has already been covered by the responses above. Please refrain from restating points already made, as it can feel like dogpiling. South of the Tongass (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stated this at 9:22 am, when there were were 9 responses shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normal rookie's response 'I ready state that keep the older version' and failure to engage further with the thread indicates that they haven't taken on board the feedback, so I propose a community-imposed zero revert rule for Normal rookie. Stockhausenfan (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support User has repeatedly shown signs of ownership, not liking the edits people are making, and now possibly even icanthearyouitosis. I would even go for a TBAN if it were needed, shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be inclined to support this. They have failed to respond substantively to this discussion, and the last discussion, and the example of them telling an IP editor to stop editing a page linked above is just not on. If they aren't willing to discuss their reverts, even when challenged about them at ANI, they should be prohibited from performing reverts. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a complete ban on reversions seems a bit heavy, for a user with no block history, and I don't see any other previous punishments. Perhaps a 1RR? Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I just realized that User:Normal rookie has been editing heavily for the last couple of days, while completing ignoring this discussion. That is unacceptable. I withdraw my opposition. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Editor is continuing to edit and hasn't been able to provide any policy-based reason for their reverts. I'm also concerned over their WP:OWN behaviour of the Anwar Ibrahim Cabinet article over several months (see my post above) and would support an additional TBAN for this subject. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as they have clearly demonstrated OWN behaviour and their reverting has only been justified by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Their refusal to properly participate at ANI while still editing elsewhere makes it hard to see a lesser alternative. Ultraodan (T, C) 01:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Since Normal rookie has given no real indication that they understand the problem nor that they intend to improve their conduct in the future, this is the lightest sanction that's likely to have any effect whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Circassian bubuzuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I am doing my own research on historical topics that this user created, however I do not find any evidence of the events happening. I searched historical documents and found zero evidence for them existing. I also googled them and still nothing. The draft articles also reeks of large language models. Felicia (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please alert the user in question shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorShane3456: How do I do that, it is my first time. Felicia (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to hi-light text? shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have notified them. Felicia (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Defeat of the Nogais and Crimeans (1576)

Draft:Circassian raid on Anatolia (1572)

Draft:Circassian–Golden Horde War (1498)

Draft:Crimean-Nogai raid on Circassia (1576)

Draft:Safavid invasion of Kumykia

Draft:Battle of Don (1646)

Draft:Circassian raid on Anatolia (1572)

Draft:Circassian–Golden Horde War (1498)

They do not give the page numbers of the sources they use in their articles, and they continued despite my last warning. [14][15] Kajmer05 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ngl this seems like there should be a indef ban shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean block, not ban. There is a distinction between the two. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia777, you tagged several as WP:G1. Hoaxes are explicitly excluded under that. It should be under WP:G3. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged every draft that wasn't tagged under G3 shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the two that wasn't fixed to G3. Felicia (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a G1 and a G15 for Draft:Battle of Don (1646). The more I begin to look into a G3 for it the more I begin to think this may be some sort of alternate history project, or worse, propaganda related to the Russo-Ukraine war. Also, although I declined the G15, I can see why the speed of article creation may indicate that they are using an LLM. That said, the sources (at least the one cited on Battle of Don) do appear to exist, and I would prefer if someone who reads that language could take a look and try to verify if they say at all what the drafts say. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mistagged them. I should look into CSD more carefully. Felicia (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who reads the language I checked the source that was given for the lead paragraph, namely:

• Моков, Б.М. Кабарда второй половины XVI-XVII веков.

First of all, the link leads to a different paper from what the hyperlink text says. The paper to which the link leads is named

• Княжеская власть в Кабарде XVI - XVIII веков: проблемы исследования

The author of this paper is not Моков, Б.М. but Азикова, Ю.А.

As for the paper by Моков, Б.М. from the draft, the paper does seem to exist and is listed as one of the sources in Азикова's paper (source number 2). However, Азикова's paper only references a single page (i.e. 142) from Моков's paper and uses it as a source for a single statement. The statement is:

• Одни исследователи демонстрируют сословный статус пши, другие - стремятся описать именно его властные полномочия. У первых пши предстаёт как «феодал высшего разряда» [2].

This statement does not mention anything from the lead in the draft. It's not talking about the year 1646, it's not talking about the Don River (Дон), it's not talking about any battles, it's not mentioning Circassian forces or the Russian Empire or Crimea (Крым) or just anything from the lead.

Actually, Азикова's paper doesn't deal with any battles at all, it rather deals with the difficulties of studying and researching the power status of Kabardian princes of the 16th-18th centuries. Nakonana (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I knew something was off with the citation. Felicia (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that it is not only the lead paragraph that is sourced to Моков's / Азикова's but the entire draft. Unfortunately, I can't find Моков's paper to check its content. Nakonana (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much - that's one reason why I wanted someone who could read it, as I wasn't 100% sure I even had the right paper when I added the link. But the link I added does appear to cite the same paper as the draft? But you cannot find the actual paper? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't realize that it was someone other than the creator of the article who added the link. OK that explains why the link leads to a different paper than the one referenced in the draft.

The paper you linked is by Азикова and yes Азикова's paper cites the paper by Моков which is mentioned in the draft.

I've found other papers that reference the Моков paper in the draft, and I found a doctor's thesis by Моков which is also on the topic of the history of Kabardia / Circassia. Therefore I think that the Моков paper, which is referenced by the draft, is real and actually exists even if I can't find it via Google search. It's possible that it's only available as a print version but not as a digital version. Nakonana (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more digging and checked whether there is an article on ruwiki about the Battle of Don, but didn't find one. What I've found, however, are articles on the commanders and leaders who are listed in the enwiki draft.

• There's on the one hand prince Pyotr Pozharsky (ru:Пожарский, Пётр Дмитриевич): there's no mention of any battles in 1646 in his article. The ruwiki article somewhat states that there are no records about him for the year 1646 at all.
• Then there's Mutsal Cherkassky (ru:Черкасский, Муцал Сунчалеевич). In his article there are indeed military conflicts mentioned for the year 1646 in the Don River region. So, it looks like there might have been 1-2 battles that might fit the content of the draft. However, what stands out here is that the prince who supported Mutsal Cherkassky was not Pyotr Pozharsky but prince Semyon Pozharsky (ru:Пожарский, Семён Романович). Semyon Pozharsky's article also mentions military conflicts in the Don River area in 1646.

I'd guess that the enwiki draft was created by LLM and the discrepancy regarding the princes is the result of some AI slope. The enwiki draft also shows some other LLM characteristics, like, pointing out the significance of the battle.

But it looks like some battle around the Don River actually took place during that time. Nakonana (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their edit summaries, all in Russian, I think it is quite probable that Circassian bubuzuan does not speak English and is solely relying on AI software to write here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that appears to be the case. If I use Google translate on the enwiki draft to translate it into Russian it generates normal Russian sentences, while grammar in the English draft appears to be a little off? For example, it says in the lead Battle represented significant episode when it should actually say The Battle represented a significant episode, if my English serves me right (I'm not a native English speaker). So, it looks like they used machine translation and/or AI, and AI introduced some inaccuracies into the draft, like mixing up the prince's name. Nakonana (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources in English. So I am still questioning the source. Felicia (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an English language dissertation here that has some info on the actions of prince Semyon Pozharsky ^{scholary romanization: Semën Požarskij} in that region and during that time, for example:

• In response to the Tatar campaign, the Muscovite state resolved at the beginning of 1646 tolaunch a punitive expedition against Crimea and the Tatars roaming in the steppe. On the basis of Muscovite sources, Novosel’skij relates that After Aleksej Mixajlovič ordered the voevoda of Kursk Semen Požarskij to go to Astrakhan and assemble an army of Astrakhan musket-bearing troops and cavalry, some groups of pro-Muscovite Tatars, Great Nogays and Kabardians, Požarskij managed to collect at least 20,000 troops
• In June 1646, the nureddin Gazi Giray came to the environs of the Don River and attacked the Kabardian allies of the Muscovites. However, the Crimean army was forced to retreat by the arrival of relief troops of Požarskij’s reinforcements and the Don Cossacks.

Nakonana (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an English source. Felicia (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language a source is written in is unrelated to its questionability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Felicia777: Sources are not required to be in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems possible to salvage some of the articles, but if no one can step up correct them and provide the necessary sources, they are not going to survive in their current state. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read the language, but I do read a lot of AI text. Some of the drafts read as very obviously AI...

• Draft:Circassian_raid_on_Anatolia_(1572): "The successful raid highlighted the vulnerability of the Ottoman coast to seaborne attacks and demonstrated the continued military and naval capabilities of the Circassians despite pressure from the Ottoman Empire and its allies. The event contributed to the enduring image of the Circassians as a significant maritime power in the Black Sea region during the 16th century and represented an important episode in the long-standing Circassian–Turkish conflicts."

...while some are vaguely AI-shaped but don't really have the same grammar or verbiage, and have missing articles and such. I have zero proof of this but my gut is that maybe it was AI-generated in a different language and then non-AI-translated into English. That or AI-generated in English and then rewritten into grammatically incorrect English.

• Draft:Battle of Don (1646): "Conflict emerged from ongoing struggle between Circassian principalities and their powerful neighbors. In 1646, Crimean Khanate in alliance with Ottoman Empire launched substantial military campaign toward Don River, targeting Circassian territories and threatening strategic balance in region."

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This matches the behavior of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadifan; I have made a report. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, I've been as thorough as I can be with this answer and I expect it's disappointing. It's kind of a mess. Happy to recheck any individual parts if someone doing a thorough behav finds some particularly suspicious edits. I think this is most efficiently going to have to be dealt with as a conduct issue for the three(?) individual contributors. -- asilvering (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They created another new article. Circassian–Safavid War (1547) Kajmer05 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've p-blocked them from article space pending an adequate response here, and also provided an explanation in Russian on their user talk page in case it helps. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: They recreated it under Draft:Circassian–Safavid War (1547). Might as well revoke access to the draft namespace as well. Felicia (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the same page, moved to draft by another editor about an hour after they created it. It's not great that their only edit since was a brief word in Russian on my talk page (with a large dose of good faith, it could maybe be taken as an admission of fault) rather than responding here, but they have yet to continue editing article content since my block and warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not notice that the page was moved. But I tagged it as G3 for the time being. If they make their case here, I'll remove the tag. Felicia (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted an edit by citation bot to Retrograde and prograde motion. The bot appears to be malfunctioning. It replaced the title of a book with an unrelated journal article. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now the bot has reverted me and reintroduced the incorrect edit. Fdfexoex (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi Smith609. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see stopping the bot from editing a specific citation. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For months now the bot's maintenance has fallen to someone with little coding experience who can only change small things, and not fix any serious malfunctions; see User talk:Citation bot#Is anyone actually maintaining this bot?. So when the bot repeatedly introduces serious errors to citations with little hope of fixing it, I think stopping the bot from editing altogether should come into consideration, rather than playing whack-a-mole with the same error on all the articles where it recurs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb: ANI Stalker here. Please make your report more succinct. With the length it currently stands at, it is completely impossible to reasonably evaluate. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some broken telephone happening here regarding an arbcom case - I surely said (or meant) that you could bring the matter to WP:AE, since you're working in a WP:CTOP. There's certainly no need to go to arbcom with this since I think it can easily be settled here. But it's also fine to bring it here. I disagree with @GoatLordServant that this needs cutting down - it's quite clear enough, and there really is this much volume. It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

I cannot take administrative action here because I became editorially involved trying to help unstick the dispute at Ethnic groups of Afghanistan after Xan747 struck out. Someone else will have to evaluate this and set a tban from Afghanistan, SA social groups, or maybe more narrowly "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" (the topic, not the article). Or just indef. This isn't going anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Was looking at all the diffs and this report's liberal use of bolding, and immediately questioned what volunteers would really absorb it all. After some time looking through all these though, the throughline is there; I agree. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted him to the contentious topic, so if he doesn't get indeffed now, the CTOPS options are in play. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan, they're aware, just not with the fancy banner. A very quick skim for likely diffs above got me [22], which isn't as clear as I'd like, but I find it hard to believe we got through a 3O, a 4O, and some dozen rounds of DRN without the CTOP ever being mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's aware, then there's WP:AWARE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not sure why I didn't hand out a /first when I showed up to the first edit war report, since I normally hand them out like candy. Perhaps it was just that distractingly bad already. -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Asilvering; I closed this discussion, which seems one of the loci of the dispute, and while I merely weighed the arguments, the behaviour highlighted by the OP was very apparent. (Specifically, the unholy trinity of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WPBLUDGEON and WP:IDHT) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Below is an extensive, but by no means complete list of all misconducts"

Given how excessively long this list already is, I'm very concerned as to what ISN'T on this list. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef/CBAN If they cannot collaborate with others to this extent it's gone beyond a TBAN, and I can see barely any edits outside the problematic areas.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to CBAN - see here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked them indefinitely as a response to the incessant personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, without having fully tabulated every other offence included here. No prejudice to the community deciding to further consider at WP:CBAN. SdHb, for reference, at WP:AE word limits for case filings are 500 words and 20 diffs, to give you a rough sense of the level of documentation normally needed for the adjudication of conduct issues, in case you ever have cause to file another report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are now appealing the block on their talk page with a statement that is contrite. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first half is probably AI but the last paragraph seems genuine enough - they probably only used AI to get their thoughts together. I'm happy with TBAN on that basis. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  „please excuse me, I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal.“ After over 3 months and literally dozens upon dozens of suggestions, askings, call-outs, and warnings, IMHO this one statement can‘t possibly be taken seriously, and at least shouldn’t be enough to justify mitigating circumstances when he had the chance to better himself every single time during the whole period. SdHb (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The turnaround time for this apology following the block is rather surreal considering the prior history and staggering amount of examples of both problematic behavior by them and attempts by others to warn them. To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever reviewed a behavioral conduct case with this much evidence available. My inclination is that we're in WP:SO territory as far as paths back to editing go, although I don't think it's out of the question to consider converting the indef block into an indef tban from Afghanistan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Saying „I […] sincerely apologize for my recent behavior“ also doesn‘t help their case since it makes it seem like they haven‘t even recognized or acknowledged the misdemeanor they’ve shown the whole time since August. SdHb (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. I really wanted to believe they were taking this seriously but my AGF glasses are obviously too rose-tinted today. Perhaps a CBAN is justified after all, then they would need a full assessment of any appeals by the community following SO. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just adding a bit of information here. Although it definitely doesn't excuse the behavior, I think there's a bit of a language barrier here, so the content that seems like AI might actually be the result of a translation app/algorithm. This did make it difficult to follow some of the discussion, but it's still very clear that the user has become very hostile and making really strange, inappropriate accusations. This seems to be a very personal/triggering issue for them, and I do sympathize. But their accusations here are inappropriate. If anything, their dispute is with the authors of an article/report -- from a reliable source, i.e. the ABC News report they've mentioned (which is actually an ABC/BBC collaboration). The authors presented the data in a perfectly acceptable manner, but either way, they're the publishers of the data in question. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN in order to require an appeal to the community. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN per @Blue-Sonnet and @Fortuna imperatrix mundi shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their cban !vote (which I interpret to mean a site ban), but I would like to remind everyone that the community can set a topic ban here, and since the editor is already indef'd, they will have to get through an unblocks admin to return to editing in any case. Unless I'm much mistaken, we don't presently have any evidence that they would be disruptive outside of this topic area yet - it's all they've ever edited about - so a community-applied tban of some kind would likely be enough to stop the disruption. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they would. But the whole point of the C[ommunity]Ban is that it isn't within the remit of a single "unblocks admin" to unblock; it would have to come back to the community. And if the result of a tban is the same as a cban—because of their narrow editing are—then there's no real reason to go with a lesser sanction that would allow for similar behavior in a different topic area. (A Tban does not speak to the above-mentioned unholy trinity, for ex). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, my mind keeps changing! My original concern was that they seem to be almost an SPA, it's hard to judge a TBAN because I have no idea whether they'd continue their disruption elsewhere - they say they enjoy mountains, so would they have the same problems if someone pushed the right buttons on an edit about mountains?

The fact that they wouldn't listen to so many other people is definitely concerning, so they apparently have difficulty in editing objectively if they feel passionately about a subject. It'd be easier if we had more to go off, but we don't.

Yes, we have an indef, but are we voting to downgrade that to a TBAN or TBAN only after a successful indef appeal? Or CBAN with subsequent TBAN?

I ask because the whole "TBAN on appeal" part feels moot since that's what would probably happen on appeal anyway - I'm a bit worried that it'll get confusing if we're not clear on the suggested options.

Should we add separate proposals so it's clear, or am I thinking about this too much? We don't even know if they'll appeal or if it'll be successful yet.

If we ignore the possibilities of any theoretical successful appeals, then the options would be:

1. Keep indef
2. Upgrade to CBAN
3. Downgrade to TBAN

Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN based on community consensus here wouldn't be quite the same as a TBAN upon appeal from an indef. I believe the difference is the level needed to repeal; a TBAN as part of a conditional unblock could be repealed by a singular administrator (per WP:CONDUNBLOCK), though it would have to be from the unblocking admin. A TBAN imposed here could only be appealed to ARBCOM or the community. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, thank you! Unfortunately it turns out their appeal isn't very good. I wanted to AGF but it is pretty basic considering their overall behaviour & I can see why everyone's concerned still. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN - with the indef, a CBAN is unnecessary. A TBAN as well, will give them the chance if they appeal the indef to contribute in other areas without diving straight back into the CTOP. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN.There is clear evidence they are disruptive in this topic area so a TBAN is needed to prevent disruption and give them some time outside the topic area to show they can edit productively if they appeal their indef. I do not support a CBAN as it is unnecessary as they are already indef'd.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN ABAN at least to begin with). Full disclosure, I've never voted on an issue of banning before because I really try to Assume Good Faith, except in blatant vandalism. In reality, "good faith" is in the eye of the beholder, and I try to be sympathetic to anyone who appears to be going through some emotional stuff. But whatever this is that I've recently witnessed, I don't think it will resolve itself or fizzle out. For the sake of those being attacked (and for the sake of the attacker who probably would benefit from some time-off from this triggering topic), I would 100% support an ABAN TBAN, then see how that goes.

BetsyRogers (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this should be an ABAN instead of a TBAN? An ABAN would only prevent them from editing the article (and maybe the talk page). They could still disrupt the project outside of that scope. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could clarify, in what other ways could they disrupt it? (Serious question, trying to make sure I understand correctly what an ABAN does and doesn't do.) BetsyRogers (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BetsyRogers, an article ban would stop them from editing a specific article or set of articles, say, Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. But they'd still be able to talk about the same concepts elsewhere. I expect that ban would be far too narrow. The dispute would just end up recurring somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most simple ABAN is one that solely blocks an editor from editing a page; it is akin to a partial block on singular page, just that it requires consensus to be undone. It does not stop the editor from being disruptive on the talk, or their user talk, or other pages. Most of the disruption in the report appears to relates to the talk page, and the No original research noticeboard, which aren't covered by the most basic ABAN. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ asilvering 45dogs. OK, thanks for the clarification. Maybe then a TBAN ban is better. Separately, I'm remembering now that the user said they planned to follow up with a new RfC on reliable sources (I guess trying to dispute ABC News as a reliable source?). I don't know if there's a term for "disruptive RfC's", but is there any sort of ban/warning that could address that? BetsyRogers (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify disruptive RfCs as just simply being disruptive. I would image doing such a thing, at least soon after being unblocked, would cause them to be reblocked as simply WP:NOTHERE. Depending on the contents of the RFC, it could violate a TBAN as well since TBANs are (to my knowledge) generally classified as broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN. Badakhshan ziba may be editing in good faith, but at a certain point competence is required. They've shown a distinct inability to listen to and comprehend points raised by other editors. There may be a language barrier at play here, but their personal attacks against other contributors are also unacceptable. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the links! That clears up a few things. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: - I have declined a request to unblock (although they have already filed another), based in part on the fact that it is clear to me that the community wants to make the decision as to the outcome of this particular situation, rather than have an admin singularly decide. I won't opine of the merits here, as I've already handled the unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN I always try to assume good faith to the final, tiniest shred, and I take the arguments presented for a TBAN instead very seriously. However, the poor conduct here is so extensive, beyond simply poor edits in a specific topic area, that I see this editor's approach to be fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project such as this one. Their ethnic WP:RGW is extremely troubling, but I have zero confidence that this editor will react well to any kind of disagreement on any topic. While I have a great deal of confidence in admins, my personal belief is that with behavior this poor and with so many editors involved, the community has a responsibility to deal with it, and make it our problem; too often we outsource our headaches to admins. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN: Yes, that's a massive wall of OP text. But it's also a massive tally of violations; we'd CBAN someone for a tenth as many of them and not even blink. It's a good indef, but I just don't see a way clear to ever trust this editor again. Dennis Brown called it in the first sentence of the first decline: "This seems too convenient, just 4.5 hours after you are blocked, you have an epiphany regarding a few months of abusive behavior." The fulsome apologies also just seem like snake oil to me: this degree of egregious behavior isn't a momentary spasm, or a "I was wrongly thought that my behavior was probably normal" (what, did this bloke not notice that no one else talks this way here??), or "I recognize that my strong personal connection to this sensitive topic caused me to communicate inappropriately?" No. Doing this for months is strong evidence that this is who this editor is. Ravenswing 09:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) Thank you for your comment, I completely agree. If anyone here has still doubts that the "epiphany" the user suddenly had just might be real and they really want to change their behaviour all of a sudden, I want to pick apart the content of this comment and their second asking to unblock to show what their real intent might be IMHO.

  But I have greatly improved the content of Wikipedia on the page related to the ethnicities of Afghanistan. Don't you consider this? Just compare the content of the article 6 months ago with the current article in the ethnic composition table

  Let alone the fact that considering that would in no way excuse their overall behaviour...

  This is so incredibly out of touch with reality and a straight punch to my face that it's hard to comprehend. Firstly, because all of their already discussed destructive behavior in all of the months. But secondly and more importantly, they completely undermine my contributions to the content of the article. I by no means want to give the impression that I created the live page all by myself, I certainly didn't, but them to say they "have greatly improved the content [...] on the page" while it was me who sat on the page for months [23][24][25][26][27][28][29], trying to improve the whole content with the intent to bring it to WP:GOODARTICLE status [30][31] (which BTW was also honored and acknowledged by other users [32][33]), while all they actually did was complaining about the content or straightup reverting everything [34][35][36]. Even the current ethnic percentage table was mostly done by me and Xan747 [37][38]. And now, they are claiming all the improvements made by me for themselves? That just shows how incredibly self-centered, ignorant, and righteous they really are (keyword: WP:ICHY), and how they want to make this discussion about them.

  I believe I have fallen into a big trap to be permanently banned from participating in Ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

  The same person who has just filed a complaint against me threatened me a few days ago and say ( I will try to find a way to leave you out of the discussion completely )

  Now I just realize that he was gathering evidence against me. this is just one example from several case.

  They don't really feel sorry for their behavior at all, they just think I and all of the other users who warned them for months made a plot against them. This may fall in the psychological realm of siege mentality (or "me against the world") and is totally inappropriate for serious discussions. Edit: Conveniently for them, they left out that part of the "threat" (inflammatory rhetoric!) where I said:

  ... unless you change your way of cooperativness dramatically.

  I'm pretty sure this is called framing, WP:GASLIGHTING, or playing the victim card. SdHb (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't really know three months ago that I was violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct.

  me and other editor who were involved in the discussion, both some times had an unfriendly tone. So I thought this was probably normal behavior and there was nothing wrong with it.

  More examples of being just blatantly oblivious to all the warnings that were presented to them for months and months.

  Is it justice that I can't even speak?

  The next example of inflammatory rhetoric/emotionalization of the discussion.

  This all shows that their responses are still framed by the same unproductive conflict patterns as before, rather than by a genuine understanding of the concerns that multiple editors have raised and tried to sympathize with. But as @Asilvering already said:

  It's unending. @Xan747 tried, I tried, @Robert McClenon tried, evidently others have tried: nothing has worked. This editor is not able to contribute collaboratively with others.

  I'll leave it at that. SdHb (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You were gathering evidence against them. Very comprehensively. Quite persuasively. Part of my support for CBAN comes from that they seem considerably more indignant that they're being brought to book than contrite about their appalling behavior. Ravenswing 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. There's no actual remorse about their behavior against me and others. Just this notion of having been wronged, of being the victim of some coordinated effort against them, rather than someone who has repeatedly and consistently violated core conduct WP policies. Their entire "apology" reframes the situation as a plot to silence them, not as the natural consequence of months of personal attacks, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and refusal to collaborate. SdHb (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN: If only administrators are allowed to vote, disregard this since I'm not one. I periodically weigh in on the OR Noticeboard where I encountered Badakhshan ziba. I don't know about all the other issues SdHb but based solely on the OR conversation, I felt like Badakhshan ziba, while seemingly well-meaning, just doesn't have the temperament or basic capabilities to carry on conversations to get to a reasonable conclusion (and was far from that) and that this was leading to many editors spending many hours of fruitless time. Banning this user would allow these many other editors to get on with their work. Novellasyes (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins are not the only editors allowed to !vote non admins can too and several already have(including me.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community sanctions they still don't get it, despite extensive coaching and advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've now stated that they are willing to volunteer for a TBAN, although they prefer to request a TBAN that allows them to edit Afghanistan geography and climate. Pinging editors who have supported more severe sanctions in case this affects their opinions: Novellasyes, ortuna imperatrix mundi, EditorShane3456, Anne drew, CoffeeCrumbs, Ravenswing _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the pings didn't work so I will add the ping @Fortuna imperatrix mundi. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think in this case, I'm going to stand by my original opinion. Their conduct has been so poor over such a long period that I have zero confidence in their ability to collaborate effectively on any topic, the second they run into a disagreement with another editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially yo-yo'd between CBAN & TBAN following indef appeal (it's waaaay up the page).

  I realise I wasn't pinged here, but for the sake of clarity I will confirm I am going with CBAN - this was going on for literal months and they're now trying to argue that an editor who was understandably frustrated by their actions should also be sanctioned. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. My objections are to this editor's conduct and attitude, and I doubt their being unleashed on other topic areas will improve it. My statement calling for CBAN stands. Ravenswing 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Has the scope of any potential TBAN been defined here/elsewhere? I assumed it would cover a broad range of topics. If it would only be specific to the general topic of the article, I don't think that would be enough. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BetsyRogers, GothicGolem29 and Cdjp1: what is the scope of the TBAN you are supporting? For instance, is it just ethnic groups in Afghanistan, broadly construed, or something like Afghanistan, broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My preference, as has been the case in other bans, is to keep it as narrow and specific as is necessary. So "ethnic groups in Afghanistan" seems good enough to me, based on what was seen as at my last comment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the TBAN including ethnic groups in Afghanistan broadly construed as that is where the disruption has taken place so that is the necessary topic area to cover. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if this is possible, but I would support a TBAN that includes the topic of the article AND anything in the realm of contentious topics related to Afghanistan (ethnic groups, cultural debates, politics, etc.). But that might leave too much up to interpretation.

  The main reason I'm not voting for CBAN right now is that although the user did get warnings, the conduct was still allowed to occur for several months with no resulting blocks/bans as far as I know. This isn't a criticism, and it's nobody's fault in particular, but it's still the case. If warnings aren't followed up with consequences, then they're not sending a clear message.

  Also, I looked through the user's edit/contributions history, and it seems the problem behavior only started when they began editing the article in question. Before that, they had been editing for a couple of years, and their contributions were mostly about geography & topography of Afghanistan, and they were not at all disruptive. BetsyRogers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteFactLoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the page on George Jacob to remove details that are sourced but paint the subject in a negative light. While doing this, they also removed the paid editing maintenance tag at the top of the page, which is never a good look. In addition, they have been using LLMs to edit articles (example) and write edit summaries:

At this point, they've been warned several times but show no signs of change, so it seems like it's time for some some sort of corrective response from administrators. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, their response of "No comment" to the speedy delete of (likely AI-generated) Draft:Openly, Inc. doesn't bode well for the chances of a response here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WhiteFactLoom has specifically denied both being a paid editor[39] and using AI "to create the references".[40] Then look at the references on Tarika Barrett (admin eyes only) and User:WhiteFactLoom/sandbox. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

Cool down. when I created these pages i didn’t know that Ai is not allowed so I’m scared my account might get blocked because of using AI, that’s why I denied it.

So you guys can let me know what to do now. Whatever you say I’ll accept it. Even if you block my account I can understand. I’ll try again with full neutrality. I appreciate it. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you acknowledge that you've used AI and know not to use it in future. I'd also stay away from removing templates unless you sure of what you're doing.

Do you have any prior or existing relationship with George Jacob, Tarika Bennett and/or Openly Inc.? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont know them. I just ask ChatGPT when I start, who is notable for page. It show some names Openly Inc Tarika Bennett I create article for them. Before that, I try for Ashneer Grover I think he is notable, but article rejected for paid article don’t know why. George Jacob also show in my suggestion to improve. So whatever my GPT said, I did. When someone revert my edit, I take it serious, because I’m just 19 year old guy, my blood hot, so I revert them asking whatever GPT said. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok - so AI/LLM/Chatbots are discouraged here because they can't write neutrally, which is incredibly important for encyclopedia articles. They also like to make things up, like entire sources.

If you keep using AI, it will create inappropriate articles that look like they're promoting people or companies - other editors will see this and think that you're being paid to promote them. We get a lot of undeclared paid editors who try to slip adverts in as articles, so it's a significant issue here.

It's really important that you stop using any AI, LLM or chatbots to write your articles, because they can't do it well. Click here for a page that explains all of the different problems it can cause in more detail. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read that and I understand my mistake. I will write the full article again by myself. Just small help if you can? After I write it can you check if I did good and if it meets the credibility and requirements? WhiteFactLoom (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! If it's the Openly draft, then you can submit it via AFC for a proper review by someone who's experienced in assessing new articles.

I've found some links to useful resources to help you, keep them open in new tabs or bookmark them so they're always available.

Make sure to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability as these will help guide you through article creation.

The NPOV tutorial and NPOV quiz are also really helpful, especially when you're looking to remove promotional wording that was added by an AI.

If you have any questions whilst you're working, then the Teahouse has someone available to help you at any time. An AFC reviewer will probably be in the Teahouse at some point and be happy to give you final draft a once-over before you officially submit it.

Good luck! Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how you came to have written Draft:Ashneer Grover? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new on Wikipedia so I have one kind of curiosity to make a page I just wanted to learn how to create a proper page. In my sight, Ashneer Grover came first because I watch him on Shark Tank India and I like his show. So I asked one AI if he is notable or not and AI said yes. Then I tried to make the page, but it got rejected. After that I asked AI for other notable names etc. I don’t have any personal connection with him or anyone I only made it because I am new and was trying to learn.

Am i clear? Or still something left. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which AI? Bots don't "know" anything, especially not Wikipedia policy, but some hallucinate worse than others. You are better off carefully reading our notability and verifiabilityguidelines yourself, and only adding content that meets these guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chatgpt and I'll keep it in mind for future. That ai not allowed. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, AI is strongly discouraged if you don't know how to verify its output, so yes, please learn to assess sources and write drafts yourself, and do not use AI at all. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to pinpoint the said user's actions. They have been showing very unconstructive behavior in the article of Alevism, which is a hotspot for the Islamist vandalism. I tried to mitigate it by creating Talk:Alevism#Improvements and explaining my edits but it has proven no avail.

Their actions prompted me to check their Special:Contributions/Finnashz page. It seems that this is not the first nor the last of those disruptive edits. They have been pulling the exact same attitude in very sensitive topics such as Women in Islam or Rape in Islamic law or Religion in Bangladesh and many more. Actually, they had some feedback about this behavior (refer to User talk:Finnashz).

I would recommend you investigate their presence here on Wikipedia. I suspect they are on a hardliner agenda and effectively trying to manipulate or block the flow of information.1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @1337.d4nd135, you both appear to be edit warring and two different editors have reverted you on that article.

Secondly, can you provide specific diffs of the behaviour you're alleging? It's not fair to expect others to dig through their history to try to find them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not here because of an edit war rather this edit war is uncovering something much bigger. For example;

• In the Alevism page, even though I am using reliable sources, they are still reverting my edits because they are clearly on an hardliner Islamist agenda and WP:JDL. Again, this topic is a hotspot for them. If you can check the Alevi history page, we have been facing persecutions from their kinds for centuries.
• Again on Alevism they're trying to block the information that was added by another user and then when they fail to do so here they clearly manipulate delicate information, which was way before our spat.
• Here in this edit they have been edit warring about a very delicate issue and if you go to their talkpage, you'll see that they commented: 'Rape is known as forced zina (adultery) for a reason so its based on consent' on this issue, which is another proof of hardliner misogynistic Islamist perspective. Basically, blaming the woman for the rape.
• Here again they said 'Rape was known as forced sex which is based on consent'. What the actual? Forced sex on consent? Again, a clear indication of an misogynistic Islamist agenda.
• Here they state that 'You can't use a hadith as a source' whilst here they use the exact same hadith site as a reference because now it fits their hardliner agenda. What a dilemma.
• Here again they have removed referenced content without a reasonable explanation, possibly to assert their own perspective.
• Here and here again we see a clear effort to change narrative.

You will see plenty more stuff in their contributions. They are clearly on an Islamist agenda. He claims that he is not edit warring and yet he is on a clear edit war with @User:NGC 628 in multiple articles as well. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren’t edit wars, and the issue was resolved on the talk page, which you failed to follow. Now you have diverted the topic to this.Additionally, that user was copying and pasting the same content about rape—from Women in Islam to Rape in Islamic Law and across multiple wiki articles—which was removed because rape is recognized in Islamic law as an offense based on consent; otherwise, it would have been classified as zina.How is that “hardliner”?Also, hadith cannot be used as a source I posted the hadith under the hadith section, which was about scriptural texts, not randomly inserting it into the wiki article. Finnashz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third editor that you mentioned as 'who reverted me' is appearantly also them. They have admitted using a sock account below. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To stop you from constantly reverting and use the talk page Finnashz (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to talk in the talk page and gain a consensus and your still edit warring you made many changes without explaining them and you still do

Also whats wrong with my edits in the other pages women in islam if you check the talk page another user by the name of briton also noticed the edits being made by the other user were an issue and there was no edit warring and the same user did the samething in rape in islamic law which was again dealt with?

Same with religion in bangladesh there was no edit warring? Finnashz (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the BS. Here you are saying that 'Added context should not be removed' yet you are removing my reliably referenced and well-structured content because it just doesn't fit in your agenda. Such double standards, of course, only when it suits you...1337.d4nd135 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the attitude. Casting aspersions at another editor is not allowed here. You are no more of a mindreader than any other of us, and constantly claiming that Finnashz has some sinister agenda -- above and beyond that you don't like their edits -- is a violation of the rules. Try arguing what precisely is wrong with those edits in a neutral voice, without putting it in our heads that you have an "agenda." Ravenswing 22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming? It is clear as a day, check above. I have already given enough leads for a WP:DR, without any 'aspersions'. Feel free to check my contribs. They are not concentrated on the articles related to only one topic (Islam) unlike theirs. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours foucused on turkish issues with alevism being one of them? Finnashz (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMG can somebody check this edit? User:Noxapollo is their WP:SOCK account, which was also active on Talk:Alevism. They have replied to this topic mistakenly using that account and then quickly reverted.1337.d4nd135 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my account how is that a issue here? Finnashz (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the Talk:Alevism: '@Finnashz @1337.d4nd135 Both users are edit warring cool it down. Noxapollo (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)'

So you admit that you have two different accounts and you're acting as somebody else to gain advantage? 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you weren't listening after you made mass amount of edits and refused to engage on talk page after being warned plus thats my older account that I stopped using due to the name change until now Finnashz (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnashz, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. In particular, you should now clarify on both your sock's userpage and your main account's userpage that the two are operated by you. Please do not misuse multiple accounts to deceive editors again. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. I have applied for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnashz as well. They pretended to be another person, only admitting that they actually have the account until I notice it. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Noxapollo and warned Finnashz about non-legitimate useage of alternative accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kelly Ripa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Lepanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• ~2025-32240-12 (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked
• ~2025-34952-78 (talk · contribs) warned twice
• ~2025-31445-28 (talk · contribs) warned twice
• ~2025-32239-27 (talk · contribs) older account with only a single edit
• ~2025-34684-24 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-35152-21 (talk · contribs)
• ~2025-35029-56 (talk · contribs)

Edit-warring in Kelly Ripa without providing a reliable source.

Edit-warring in Battle of Lepanto.

I'm unclear if AIV is the right place to take a situation like this. --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-35029-56, ~2025-32240-12, ~2025-31445-28, ~2025-35152-21, ~2025-34684-24, ~2025-34952-78 and ~2025-35026-78 are all  Confirmed the same editor. Going to need an underlying IP block. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, ~2025-32239-27 appears to be  Unrelated. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of it. Blocked for block evasion (master is ~2025-32240-12). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that abandoned TAs don't need to be blocked as they'll never (hopefully) edit again. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is a WP:BLP, I semi-protected for 90 days as I don't think blocking alone is going to stop the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is annoying. There is no indication of a block on these editors, so if I came across these edits I might warn them, or go to some board (SPI, AIV) to get them blocked, only to hear that the underlying IP is already blocked. Can we please also block the temp accounts and/or get an indication that the IP beneath it is blocked (but a Temp Account may be linked to more than one IP I believe?). Fram (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with this – @Rsjaffe, it can be helpful for record-keeping purposes to block TAs even if they are likely abandoned, which would've been helpful in this case. It also means you can block the IP, then block the TAs, and come back to the noticeboard to report "they've been blocked" without explicitly linking the reported TAs to the IP you blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 13:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot state that the underlying IP has been blocked. See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer#What can and cannot be said: This may sometimes mean that administrators need to be vague in describing IP blocks; for instance, if a TAIV requests that the IP underlying several TAs be blocked, the blocking admin should respond with something like "Resolved" rather than "Blocked underlying IP". I think this particular rule makes no sense, as it doesn’t make it any harder for someone familiar with what’s going on to figure out that the IP has been blocked by checking my block log.

I’ll go ahead and block them for record keeping. I’ll also note that the above rule mandating obscurity about IP blocks makes it almost mandatory to make the associated TA blocks as well, which permanently links by block timing the TA and IP which is the exact opposite outcome intended by the above-mentioned obscurity requirement. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: We cannot state that the underlying IP has been blocked: The WMF policy says nothing of that sort, it only says not to put the actual IP address in the block reason or elsewhere. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still figuring out how all this works, and I'm probably not alone. This Temporary Account system has a lot of rules that make it confusing when you are trying to determine what you should/shouldn't do or say. My guess is that the policy still has holes. I only protected here, but in other cases I've simply range blocked without worrying about the Temporary Accounts as they are just temporary, so the history isn't meaningful (to me). There is a bit of learning curve at this stage, so people need to be patient about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayaanakmalaysia92 (talk · contribs) shows a consistent pattern of disruptive editing across articles related to Malaysia and Indonesia, specifically in Borneo. Their edits display a noticeable tendency to remove or minimise material associated with Chinese cultural or historical presence, including the deletion of images of temples and other East Asian related content (including translations) even when they are relevant (see Sarah Owen, Theravada, Bureaucrat, Labuhan Deli, Permatangsiantar and Medan (1, 2, 3 and 4), often without explanation.

Their own additions also appear to emphasise non-Chinese elements even when these are not central to the subject (see Demographics of Sarawak and Demographics of Sabah). This user has also attempted to have articles deleted (whether through WP:AFD or WP:CSD) simply because they are "Chinese" in origin, such as International Daily News and Pu Tuo Si Temple. There are also edits where the user simply removed significant amounts of sourced material, again without explanation, such as on Malaysian Indians.

Based on their edit summaries and limited talk page responses, they appear to have a weak command of English, with frequent spelling mistakes and awkward phrasing. This is despite the prominence of English in Malaysia as a former British colony and it may also point to a competency issue alongside their disruptive editing behaviour. Aleain (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add that I myself have warned this user before but got no response (Communication is required) and they do not seem to have heeded the warning or advice... Not sure the best course of action but some action does seem warranted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleain In view of what Zackmann said, I've popped a section header onto the ANI notice to make sure that it stands out, if that's ok?

They've used their Talk page in the past so should be aware of it, but hopefully this'll help draw their attention and make sure they respond. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Thanh Long Viet. This is not a complaint against TLV. It is a notification about domains which have been squatted. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be a complaint against them though. They e.g. removed a link to nopago.org with edit summary "Remove illegal online gambling website http://www.nopago.org/"[63]. Following the link leads to a "domain for sale" website ([64]), not some "illegal" page. Finding dead links is good, making allegations of illegal behaviour against what seem to be bona fide websites is not. Fram (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a couple of their edits earlier. I think they may just not be aware that the websites can be marked as |url-status=usurped. I let them know on their talk page. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind "illegal where?" Hell, there are countries in which Wikipedia is an illegal website. Ravenswing 22:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiinfra development (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vellore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This contributor has received multiple warnings for adding unsourced (and promotional) content to our article on Vellore, a city in Tamil Nadu - see User talk:Wikiinfra development. Despite the warnings, they have just done the same thing - an edit adding an entirely unsourced and promotional paragraph, along with a photo, with an edit summary reading 'Fixed typo'. [92]

Given this disregard for warnings and blatant dishonesty, I can't see them ever being of any benefit the project, and would suggest an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; even the user's non-WP:PROMO additions (see [93]) appear to be unexamined LLM glurge. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the edit summaries are not dishonest but just an example of WP:FIXEDTYPO. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be 'apparent' to you. Given the warnings, and given that they aren't using the same edit summary every time though, I'd still go with 'dishonest'. More so, when you look at their editing history on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly veering towards CIR. Looks like they're using AI for the longer edits, the shorter ones are grammatically incorrect/unsourced or don't make sense in English, whilst the edit summaries are apparently chosen at random from the default list (if they're used at all).

I want to believe that they mean well, but that doesn't change the fact that they're causing damage as they blunder along. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(non administrator comment) perhaps use a short block, such as 24h, to see if it manages to capture their attention and get them to stop? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed at an absolute minimum - 50% of their edits have been reverted (the ones that haven't been reverted are short descriptions). Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor: GangesCommander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Has anyone else come across this editor? There seems to be a continuous pattern of refusing to engage on their talk page after multiple warnings for multiple things (e.g., disruptive page moves). It is looking increasingly like a case of WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:Ohyeainfo created this page (User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox) which is nominated for speedy deletion as pure vandalism and only consists of explicit images and the word "horny". This is the user's only edit and I doubt that this user is here to build an encyclopedia. RaschenTechner (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox. RaschenTechner (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indef its pretty apparent that Ohyeainfo is WP:NOTHERE shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a few weeks a TA has been edit warring against consensus on Yorkshire over a minor issue of whether to say that Yorkshire is the same entity as the kingdom of Scandinavian York. There are three TAs involved but based on behavioral evidence I think they are all the same editor:

• ~2025-33893-81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-34133-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2025-31866-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 9 November User:Rupples opened a talk page discussion in which User:A.D.Hope also participated. Both editors have been discussing the issue with calmness and civility. The TA joined the discussion a couple of days ago with hostility, attacking other editors and assuming bad faith, making comments like "There's a clear anti-Yorkshire Anti British history pro England Supremacist bias here." and "what mental pro English Pro London Anti Yorkshire anti British argument are thee doylems gonna engage in?" and finally descending into death threats: "death to all southern English Saxon dogs up the Yorkshire and Celts and Irish Ulster isn't even a real place bro. I left a message on their talk page asking them to treat other editors with civility, and they responded with "Yorkshire Says No Surrender! Youll all be locked up in the English Death camps we'll turn blackpool pleasure beach themepark You racist and anti Yorkshire southern English rats". It seems clear that they have no intention of working collaboratively with other editors. CodeTalker (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have they edited anything aside from Yorkshire articles? GarethBaloney (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One or two, but those comments are way beyond something that could be addressed by a topic ban. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN for a TA? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know they TA's can't have TBAN's so I should have added that - I presumed that was why the question over which topics the TA's had edited was being asked, but perhaps I misunderstood. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will confirm that all three are  Likely to each other. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the most recent one as NOTHERE. The previous two are the same user but are abandoned TAs, as TAs do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpython (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued edit warring for lists of official scripts for Chinese characters, Arabic script and Devanagari. I removed this, this and that for Arabic script, while Remsense removed this, this and that for Chinese characters, because it is redundant unlike Latin or Cyrillic for example without using official scripts. So I made a discussion on Template talk:Infobox writing system#Official script for depreciate the use of | official_script = parameter. Absolutiva 05:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]