Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page for discussing incidents that may require action by administrators and experienced editors
User editing from a U.S. government office, with a long term disruptive agenda

WP:NOTHERE, per ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and associated edits to Nathan Phillips (activist). Primarily disruptive, trolling and using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Perhaps the Defense Department should know if this is the activity of one of its employees. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am one of several editors who'd never heard of the name Shamsheer Vayalil until begged to help in countering this or that claimed injustice in its editing. (For the plea I received, see User talk:Hoary#Help.) The article is the obsession of a person, with or without his brother, who uses Bharti Airtel IP addresses that geolocate to Patna, Bihar, and also of User:Ankitroy1997, who has implausibly presented himself as a different person. These pleas for assistance, accusations of unfairness, etc, have gone on for some time and have been very tiresome; but they have hardly been actionable. Recently, however, this person has become more agitated, and offensive ().

Although I don't consider myself involved (other than as a bemused/despairing onlooker and occasional voice of what I think is reason), others may disagree. And so I turn this matter over to one or more other admins. Do look through Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and User talk:AlanM1. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

::Not interested in biased wikipedia. I have seen all the rules and regulations which are only for Shamsheer Vayalil article and not for others. I don't want to contribute anything here. Before leaving I'll point out some of your statement: Eagleash: His one of the kind statement: Some of the articles are only perfect on wikipedia. Which are these "some"? Are they Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy Wales? AlanM1: His statement: Removing degrees from bio infobox is not correct because infobox without degrees is incorrect. For which article it's incorrect? Is that Jimmy Wales article or Mark Zuckerberg article? So, I don't want to contribute to that place where there is biased nature. Keep your wikipedia with you. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Few months earlier I was new to wikipedia I didn't know that how it works,in that duration of time I made various mistakes which lead to vandalism but my intention was not to vandalise wikipedia

Through Cabayi's advice, RoySmith recently indef-blocked Kazemita1 for block evasion. El_C from indef to a 3-month block. The case could do with further feedback.

1) For the last several months, Kazemita1 has been a SPA account at People's Mujahedin of Iran, where he has received an increasing number of warnings for edit warring there. () () () () ()

3) While being blocked (for two weeks), Kazemita1 uses different IPs to continue edit warring (at which time I file a )

5) Kazemita1 appeals the block by . The unblock request is rejected by 331dot.

6) Kazemita appeals for a second time, this time blaming , as well as blaming other editors and not admitting to socking.

7) I that the IPs edited the exact same text that Kazemita1 was edit-warring about, which was either an amazing coincidence or block evasion.

8) Kazemita1 removes my post and his claims about "lack of proper SPI" practices, and now admittig to socking/block evasion.

Only when it was pointed out that the evidence showed he was the one behind the IPs, did Kazemita1 admit to socking/block evasion. Kazemita1 has for their actions, and yet they continued to edit-war using purposely-deceptive IPs that wouldn't be traced back to them. In light of this, I think that the changing of Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months, for an increasingly-disruptive editor, merits further feedback from the community. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm the admin most involved in sanctioning the user prior to this block evasion incident — a ping to me or to the blocking admin does not constitute canvassing. El_C 15:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam continues to remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. This user has been mentioned at WikiProject Islam and has been warned multiple times about obvious POV pushing. I've tried to be civil with this user, I've never reported anyone at ANI before, but I feel this is the only way to prevent further disruption. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam

In your second post above, you state that you "attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page". Can you provide a link to the relevant posts? Because all I can locate from you in the history for User talk:SharabSalam is a section entitled 'Persistent vandalism' followed by an ANI notification for this thread. Are you suggesting that these posts constitute adequate 'discussion' by you, or has there been such discussion somewhere else? (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

[o]n point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out.An issue regarding any Wikipedia editor with (any) strong personal belief

On 2 January 2020 I made an unreserved apology for the use any descriptor other than a belief system.

I believe (note, that is my 'belief') it is not unreasonable to raise potential COI Wikipedia editor issues for any editor with any strong, self-identified belief system. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever 'reasonable' to use the talk page of a Wikiproject to make COI accusations concerning a named Wikipedia contributor in the manner that you did. There is an appropriate place for such discussions (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and unless there are very good reasons not to, the individual concerned should be notified.

I think Koreangauteng's understanding of our RS policy is fairly flawed.

E.g. where they re-added a self-published ( source called "A 15 Minute Tactical Guide to Islam" by an apparently non notable author (I don't just mean because we have no article, but a search for this author only finds stuff like they also self-published "Islam: Y Tho?"). And used the argument below 'you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable' even though it was removed as an unreliable source, so by definition, an argument of a breach of a core policy was made.

They used the same argument when re-adding this . At least that time it was not selfpublished (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) and the author is apparently notable Hank Hanegraaff. Still a quick read of the author's wikipedia article suggests there's no reason to think they has any particular expertise on Islam or the Quran. Anyway at least the argument for reinstatement made a little more sense there since it was in response to the removal reason 'The source is not reliable it is written by a Christian apologists'. But of course the point they seem to be missing is there's a big difference between an editor having a COI, and a RS having one. Although the big issue here isn't so much the COI, but as I said, there's no reason to think that work should be consider an RS for Islam or the Quran.

This case where they used FrontPage Magazine also caught my eye although it's a complicated case since it's someone's reply to criticism of their work. In any event, they're still fairly new, so KoreanGauteng should be given the opportunity to learn about our RS policy before any action.

Humans are inherently biased towards humans. Let's ban humans from editing any article related to humanity. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Context: This report involves aviation accident Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, and relates to sole survivor George Lamson Jr. Lamson is notable and has WP:LASTING coverage in reliable sources, but his notability is largely in relation to this accident. Per WP:BIO1E, I believe it's appropriate that Lamson is discussed in this article. (I'd recommend starting with for a demonstration.)

Editor WilliamJE removed substantial, sourced content from the page regarding Lamson, including both his name and the fact that a notable documentary was made about the sole survivor of the accident. I restored the content, added further content and sources supporting notability for Lamson in relation to the event, and added to the article's Talk page. WilliamJE then continued to revert my edits, but more importantly, has refused to discuss on the article's Talk page. He is only willing to explain himself via edit summaries, and he refuses to address the central point I made on the article's Talk page.

Here's a timeline (Edit: Now with diffs) (I omitted my most minor cleanup edits, which I don't believe are relevant to the timeline):

To be clear, WilliamJE has (as of the time I'm posting this here) not engaged on the article's Talk page, not addressed or even acknowledged the WP:BIO1E issue I raised, and continued to act like individual discussions on individual other article Talk pages somehow override general Wikipedia policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E, which combined suggest that (1) Lamson is sufficiently notable and (2) the appropriate place to discuss him is on the article for the related event, which is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. Reasonable editors could disagree, but he isn't being reasonable and he isn't disagreeing, instead he's just citing to "consensus" where there actually isn't a policy consensus so broad and rigid it can be explained in edit summaries. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All -- I apologize if this was the wrong place to bring this up; I originally wanted to request dispute resolution, but when I selected that I hadn't yet discussed on the article's Talk page, it said "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution." When I went back and put that I'd tried to discuss on the article's Talk page, it then asked if the issue was about another editor's behavior, and then it said to come here. That's why I posted here. Since it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page, I'll take it there... Shelbystripes (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please block , see for background. No point wasting time waiting for SPI to deal with this, since the account is active now and making their . Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

See especially . Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, misusing talk pages, adding poorly written synthesis to an article, and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Check it out if you are interested. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories.

Hi, I would like to report a group of people who deliberately spread pov and fringe theories to undermine the Encyclopedia. The IP recently vandalised Wikipedia and I reverted the vandalism but the Land of Punt vandalism was not reverted, this was the time this happened and editor Doug Weller using it. The tactics are not only vandalism and they also use stalking, threats of report, stonewalling, repeated edits meant to make editing very difficult for others to improve the Encyclopedia and probably others. I would like the committee to revert that vandalism as mainstream scholarship and science locate Punt in the Horn of Africa and do something about their tactics which undermine the improvement of the Encyclopedia. Thank you.Dalhoa (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Seafaring Expeditions and the Land of Punt: Long-distance Trade in the Red Sea during the Middle Kingdom

Sofidelonia has been tagged CSD several times as a hoax. The creator keeps removing the tags and blanking their talk page. MB 02:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i already write in the top that my article is not real (From The Creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanopegs (talkcontribs) 02:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain or if it goes here. I am doing this fast because 500+ a day US viewers have lost access to an important page. I am notifying the editors involved but they haven't had time to reply yet.

"School bus" was deliberately US/Canada subject specific. It was about operating US./Canada school buses in the US/Canada. No other countries. It was getting 500+ views a day. There was a "worldwide view" flag that I should have removed. The problem is the name of the article, the article itself is excellent.

The article has been made effectively invisible. Without a move discussion it was so that anybody in the United States who searches for "School bus" gets . The United States is the major user of "School buses" and we can't find them. Who would search for "School buses in North America"?

This should have had a Request for move and should be reverted until that happens. Thank you.

Edited in for clarity: Should this move have been made like this? If not can we go back to a stable version and then talk about it? Sammy D III (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, looking at the , I don't see anything close to 500 views per day before the move (just an average of 3 per day over the past 90 days).
Thank you for your time. If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country" which has nothing on the US. Are you looking at the page views for "School bus" before the name change? I got over 500 on "Bus" and 50+ on "by country. I might be wrong, but I think you missed the name-change.
If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country". Could that be the difference between the US and where you are? Do the search engines work differently?
A was made without any discussion. I have no idea who did what, I know that the move was made without discussion and it was in fact contested.

I also linked the page to School bus by country#North America as the main article on the subject for that section. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Pinging Sammy D III because I forgot to do so in my reply. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the page move, Wikipedia:Move review is always an option for you.
So, "School bus" itself no longer exists and the URLs that used to lead to that article, the content of which is currently in "School buses in North America," now lead to "School bus by country."
So this is really more than simply about a page move, but involves an entirely confusing redirect, along with the smallest hint of Talk page discussion that seems to have been quickly left behind.
Not sure how "School bus" got redirected to "School bus by country" though
Is it inappropriate to boldly revert a redirect change and request discussion? I honestly don't know and don't want to piss a bunch of people off by doing it.

THIS IS SO OFF-TOPIC. My question was should this move have been made and if not can we go back to the last stable version and talk on it's talk page again?? This move has been opposed for years. I think most of this stuff should go on that talk page.

Wow!!! After all this time it looks good in a couple of hours. Who cares what my topic was, the end results work. Sorry if I was a pain. Thank you everybody. Sammy D III (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, the worldwide issue in question has been brought up over for at least 12 years now and a general consensus has been reached into the article wording; it has also led to the creation of the School buses by country article (which has nearly doubled in size since its creation). While the move was made through proper channels (making a request)

I have never seen any recommendation to moving or renaming the article and the current move was done with nearly no discussion. While the move was made through a request (the proper channels), this was definitely a controversial move instead of an uncontroversial one. Over the past 12 years, the worldwide view issue has followed the article (not going to make a thread out of that); it has lead to the creation of School buses by country, split from the article. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have been happy to let this go but the editor has tripled down on their rude and uneccessarily crude behavior.

It started with diff:[], which while not policy breaking was a tad rude.

I reverted back here diff: , explaining why it should be temporarily pointed to the North American page and opened a talk page discussion diff:

Long Time Active Editors do not get some special pass to be rude. Especially when the cleanup of the 3 involved pages will take some work. Slywriter (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is not ready for mainspace (ie. Shouting, empty sections, ect...). I moved it to draftspace and the user moved it . Not what or if anything can/will be done. The user account is over 4 years old with 128 edits, but the editing pattern is that of a newbie. Just want to bring this to some admin's attention. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User is still creating accounts with userpages disguised as genuine articles. They attempted to insert a link for one of the previously created userpages into an article so as to mislead readers (as they had done previously). Later did the same with an article draft regarding a fictitious event.

I believe the three above accounts are created by the same person since all of them have edited this draft.
Alivardi (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: You might want to file at WP:SPI. They are better suited for this sort of thing and have magic glasses.-- Deepfriedokra 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just blocked MikaelaArsenault (talk · contribs) from Terry Jones after they continually changed his date of death without any source or edit summary, despite being reverted by multiple editors. I did this because the article is being updated rapidly (as you might expect from a very famous person who has recently died) and their edits are trampling over others right now. As I have been editing the article to clean it up, I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED, and hence I am bringing the block here for review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 for some reason is sure that he is allowed to edit warring if he endlessly repeats “We must respect historical sources” or something like that: . And he just repeats the same thing on the Talk Page: .--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city... Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census).

was brought to ANI previously by myself but sadly due to inactivity, the report was archived. Now 3 months later this person continues with additions to Depeche Mode articles despite a multitude of final warnings on their talk page, personal pleas by other editors such as SnapSnap to refrain and to date shows zero indication that they ever intend to communicate. Please could an admin look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do these edits look familiar to anyone? I don't follow the pro-kiddie porn trolls much. Guy (help!) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went with a 3-month sitewide block, which as lenient as I could stomach (lenient in terms of mitigating other individuals who may end up using the IP, that is). Simply put, these users are not welcome on the project and the risk of missing an article in a partial block is too great to wager on. The reputation of the project is at stake when it comes to how (unequivocally) we deal with these sort of users. El_C 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes are needed at this talk page for an actress who tweeted what I see as an ambiguous comment about asexuality. The most lengthy and contentious section by far is "Coming out on Twitter" but the controversy is discussed in other sections as well. I am being accused by Neutralhomer of an overly strict interpretation of BLP policy and would appreciate feedback here and input on that talk page. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, more moving would just make this worse at this point, it was more a general observation for future reference. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the editing through full-protection in the BLP context to restore a pre WP:EW version, no opinion on the merits of the content dispute itself. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, this drama has extended to Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle. Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Wikipedia ( ). This was twice reverted by Bastun ( ), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue ( ) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to . Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page ( ). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).

However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus ( ) while threatening anyone who opposes them ( ). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "", "", and , in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (), allegedly on the basis that ""; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR ( ) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them ( ).

Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT ( ). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met and no discussion is required . Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days ( ), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.

(in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable)(considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article)

Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking ( ), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop ( ).

I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).
Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.
to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated
A perusal of the archives around the Admin parts here shows that Impru is a regular user of Administrator appeals.
If I were myself a perennial in this part of the wiki it would be because I was clearly unable to reach a civil accommodation with my fellow editors and to respect their work and our occasional differences, which differences are clear on the self same talk page that is the subject of the complaint(albeit further down). It is incumbent upon us, as editors, to manage these differences without battering each other with a soup of policies and obtuse e walls of text. WP:WeAllHaveBetterThingsToDo comes to mind. I would find that embarrassing to be honest.
A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [80]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook.
Please. That is quite enough Impru20, thank you in advance for stopping now. 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JAYSUS Bastun please stop, please. There is quite enough here already with no further input required from you or from Impru20 . Let this be an absolute end to it the pair of you. Wikimucker (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The limericks drew
a chuckle there
but the thread's
closed now
take them elsewhere

The requirements for the ongoing section of WP:ITN is "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information". Removal is done with a nomination at WP:ITN/C to build consensus that the article either meets or fails to meet the criteria. I read the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article, determined that it no longer met the criteria and . User:DBigXray made several updates to the target article -- this is wonderful. User DBigXray then in the nom at ITN/C and used that as evidence that "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". Being called a liar, especially when using fraudulent evidence meets the criteria of a personal attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here asking for bans or sanctions or anything of the sort, just for someone who is uninvolved to point out to User DBigXray that such conduct is inappropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray supported his concern with a series of diffs (declaring them "fraudulent" puts you in the same category of DBigXray, so consider the irony). A personal attack usually involves unsubstantiated claims. I'm unpersuaded by the evidence here, and actually a little more concerned with the behavior of the OP at the conversation in question. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Dif, please.-- Deepfriedokra 14:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actullay, the word is ";lies" in the dif. @DBigXray: C'mon, man.-- Deepfriedokra 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a laser with the audacity
to accuse the x-ray machine teh Big X of mendacity'-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)'
called mendacious in turn
it too felt the burn
both trouted for alleging a lack of veracity incivil capacity-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
+1 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

--2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which unfortunately didn't really scan because it had too many syllables
DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs.

Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been related to this disruption, with being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece , , , . This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on , hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should , which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 wrote, “I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism.” An objective look at my contributions to the Gurbaksh Chahal article will show that my contributions are well-sourced and fair-minded. The problem here is that friends and paid friends of the subject want to bury his past as a domestic abuser. Chisme (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PC07 has been give more than enough WP:ROPE. We've seen repeated accusations of vandalism (which required numerous warnings to stop); mass-canvassing of admins via email; pointing to a blocked spammer (joydeep ghosh) as the editor they want to imitate (which should be a NOTHERE version of the duck test); repeated accusations that other editors are paid and/or editing in concert; telling other editors to AGF while blatantly assuming bad faith of those same editors; the list goes on. This behavior is IDHT and NOTHERE, in addition to being reflective of an individual who is entirely out of touch with how Wikipedia works. They've learned some basic Wikiterms, but they can't/won't use those terms correctly. This is exactly the pattern of behavior that I have previously observed from other meatpuppets on the Chahal page, which leads me to strongly believe that this editor has some undisclosed connections to the article subject. Enough is enough and it's time to show them the door. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
User:RyanRReider7795 editing radio station article he/she is employee of

I would like to bring to your attention, User:RyanRReider7795 who extensively edited KDSJ on 22 January, 2020. This user is an employee at the radio station, per edit. The edits to the page broke formats and removed citations. The edits also inserted a bit of original research. The edits were generally disruptive. I would say this justifies a conflict of interest. Thanks! ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 04:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

On 22 January 2020, in connection with a BLP content dispute, the following incidents transpired. I list them in chronological order.

I request that an administrator admonish Neutralhomer to immediately stop using Twitter or any other off-wiki medium to publicly impugn his fellow Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have once again received a Meta email from blocked sockmaster Zenkaino lovelive regarding his block:

"Dear SlitherioFan2016, I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked indefinitely because of abusing multiple accounts, but block evasion is occurred because of someone's misjudgement about This is mobile IP which I didn't use. Block evasion is misjudgement. How can I appeal the checkuser decision that was made and what is the best way that I can do? If you want to reply, please respond via talk page or email."

After receiving this email I went to check for a sockpuppet investigation on and rather interestingly, found nothing about this particular IP. Furthermore, the only edit I found linked to this address is .

As a side note this user sent me Meta emails a few months ago regarding their block for sockpuppetry and changing WP:SO's period to 2-3 months, so I filed a thread at to discuss this. The result was for this user to appeal to the Arbitration Committee should they wish to appeal their block. --SlitherioFan2016 (Talk/Contribs) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure where exactly to take this as I have a number of concerns so please redirect me if necessary. I spotted Disney1999 yesterday when I was doing pending change review and, as they had edited an article about the Disney company, I raised a WP:USERNAME concern (qv). There has been no response to that.

Subsequently, Trivialist has reverted several edits by Disney1999 and has spotted a similarly named new account called DisneyMan1999‎ operating . It seems obvious that these are by the same person and, as they work exclusively on Disney-related articles, I think there is a conflict of interest. I have another, wider, concern that the edits are those of an experienced site user because there is nothing careful about the way they have leaped in. I suspect that these accounts are clones of each other and also of some master account operating elsewhere or previously blocked.

I'm advising all parties of this on their talk pages. Please let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The 'Birth name' given on User:DisneyMan1999 matches that of an account recently blocked for vandalism. (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted by and thank you, @Yamla:. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am submitting a recent block I made for open review. The blocked editor is questioning whether or not the block is appropriate, so I am seeking further input. On 17 December, Alex Devens was warned for violating the NPA policy, based on comments calling another editor "asshole" and "creep" . He acknowledged reading that warning . Yesterday, he called an editor . Since he persisted in using personal attacks, despite being warned, I blocked him. Today, he responded, questioning the legitimacy of the block. I will also leave a note for him to put any comments he has about the matter on his own talk page so that I can copy his responses here. I submit here for review the block without further comment. Thank you all. --Jayron32 14:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor has made a lot of personal attacks against me and I think this is enough. Even after he got unblocked he is still making personal attack.

-You can see all the discussions in this talk page Talk:Qasem Soleimani. I have been civil to this editor all time except that time when he mentioned my grandfather or my parents, I told him that he is not mentally capable of having a civilized discussion that time but that's after he said all of these insults to me. The editor got blocked but is still making personal attacks. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)