User talk:Abecedare

Biased user

Ratnahastin has an anti-BJP and pro-INC bias, and engage in edit war. Their edits are a mix of content removal (sourced), POV pushing, censoring, and misrepresentation of sources. Refer the edit history and talk page of Enforcement Directorate in early April this year, also check the edit warring in Katchatheevu from 31 March where the user tag-teamed with Rzvas for content removal without even providing a valid explanation. The problem in those articles still prevails.--27.63.235.6 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

IP, at a quick glance the edits at the two articles you mentioned appear to be routine content disputes that can and should be settled through talkpage discussion or dispute resolution; I cannot determine if you have tried that approach while editing through another IP or account. If there is anything particular you are concerned about, you'll need to be more specific (ie, provide diffs etc), and WP:ANI or WP:AE may be a better venue to ensure a broader and more timely response. Pinging The Doom Patrol who was involved in both those disputes in case they wish to follow up on this complaint at those boards. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding long ongoing vandalism in Maratha Confederacy article

Hi,

A user Padfoot is repeatedly removing sourced content (WP:RS) from Maratha Confederacy article without any valid reason. He is telling any editor to have a discussion or consensus if they wanna add any information in the article. Moreover he is not accepting the statement of reliable sources and when I am asking him to provide any sources for support of his statement or views he isn't (see this [1]). The article prior to my most recent edits [2] [3] has numerous failed sources and wrong information in the lead, when i am correcting it, he is reverting my edits, removing wrong information and changing it to correct information doesn't require consensus or discussion. I have even quoted from the sources so that other editors could easily verify it. Kindly see to it.

Regards Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mohammad Umar Ali and PadFoot2008: I don't know offhand which of your preferred version is superior or has consensus but I can second the advice Flemmish Nietzsche has offered several times on the page (eg [4] and [5]) that edit-warring and arguing about what the article lede should state while the discussions are ongoing (or on hiatus) is unproductive. Until clear consensus is established, any "correction" you may make to the article is going to be unstable. So I would suggest that:

1. Get back to the article talkpage, and use WP:DR if needed
2. Break up the problem into addressable chunks because it is unlikely that you will be able to settle all the differences seen in this diff at one go.
3. Also consider whether all that detail belongs in the article lede (again, as Flemmish Nietzsche suggested previously)
4. Stop reverting each other in the meantime!

Note that if the current conduct continues, page protection or page blocks are likely. Hopefully, that won't be necessary though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That discussion was just about one line and Flemmish didn't remove it after I added it see this but the rest of what I added see this [6] is supported by reliable sources. While the previous version prior to my edit has wrong information, it's that sources say one this but lead contains entirely different information. I already had a discussion with him but he is providing no sources random statements of any user can't be included in the argument. The main problem is that he isn't accepting information stated by reliable sources nor he is giving any reliable sources for support of his claim. So please help me out. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I wanted to point out one more thing, Padfoot often ignores the discussion once he revert my edits you could see this from the many discussions me and Padfoot had on article's talk page. Now as he has restored the previous version he will likely not answer or delay the discussion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mohammad Umar Ali: reading the discussions on the talkage, it is difficult for an outside observer to even determine what proposed addition or deletion is being argued over in which section. That is why I suggested the above steps. That way, even if you/PadFoot2008 cannot see eye to eye, you can point to the specific section where the particular edit was discussed and other discussants weighed in on one side. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have asked him three simple questions now, if he answers that well and fine but I am sure he can't so he will ignore my msg that's the problem. Just please ensure he discusses that specific points nothing else. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing which started the whole situation was PadFoot's rewrite of the entire lead [7] which many people did not receive well but PadFoot reverted and responded to with "the lead was too long", despite that a deletion of the last paragraph in the former lead, which was indisputably not necessary for the lead, would shorten it enough. MuA (Mohammad Umar Ali) has since fought over the inclusion of different areas of greatest extent of the Marathas' borders (farther south and north than the ones in the lead prior to PadFoot's rewrite), which have peculiarly gotten increasingly southward throughout this dispute first change, "Karnataka in the south" to most recent change, "Tamil Nadu in the south". There has also been disputes over the neutrality of PadFoots new lead, which has stayed (I personally don't really care either way, except for the border situation which I think it would be better just to stay what the stable borders were) as of now. The first talk page discussion on this dispute was this one "WP:RAJ claim misunderstood by Rawn3012"; and has continued in most of the following discussions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, Flemish. I tried to read-through the changes that have been made since the page-move but the diff is hard to follow. Barring support for mass-revert, which I haven't seen so far, the best course forward may be to address any proposed changes on their merit without regarding the current version as necessarily having consensus behind it either. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Helping Birds

They seem like a sock of Thakor Sumantsinhji Jhala, for example see this edit war over a redirect hijacking [8] between them and an IP , I think they were edit warring while logged out with themselves to create an illusion of them not being TSJ because they reverted the IP only a minute later.

• IP hijacks redirect at 17:35, 12 July 2024
• revert by Helping birds at 17:36, 12 July 2024 Ratnahastin (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, they could have been edit-warring with themselves. There are so many LTAs in the caste, esp. Rajput, area that it is hard to be sure of who's who and what mental games they are trying. Blockworthy in any case. Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems my suspicions were correct , they indeed are a sock of TSJ. [9] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this draft [10] ? It seems like one of TSJ's creation. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Probable. Lets keep an eye for now. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Haribhakta10

Would you have a look at User:Haribhakta10? I'm thinking they are the return of User: Viratvini11 (sock of User:Vinayvinyill) who you blocked yesterday. Their account was created today and they have the same focus on Darshan, same interest in adding/improving photos, same habit of going to user's talk pages to ask them (while pinging others) for improvements to be made. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Iam not a sock, First time I create wiki , when I start to edit, first I see all users how they are contributing to article, so I add their reference, If any doubts me, investigate me I can clarify all your doubts.

Thanks Haribhakta10 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: Thanks for spotting this/ Blocked as WP:DUCK. Abecedare (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Duck again. User:ದರ್ಶನ್ ಅಭಿಮಾನಿ Zinnober9 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Admitted socking for User:D boss worshipper. Sigh. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Another duck. Note the similarities of previous and current. Reordered it a little, but same focus, same phrasing, same links. Zinnober9 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, Bbb23 got them. Thanks all the same! Zinnober9 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 is omniscient. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Return of a sock

Hello wiki admin, i found the sock of User:Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala, User:Mulraj Jadav is pushing koli POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4085:D46:1B42:D563:5D1A:960E:21A1 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Matthew Crooks

Making the protection indefinite seems like overkill, Somehow i doubt this is going to be a controversial topic in a year Trade (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: Indefinite does not mean forever. Things will hopefully settle down although it's too soon to know exactly when since there is so much real life uncertainty due to the unknowns of the case itself, the upcoming elections etc. If and when the on-wiki activity/disruption falls, the protection at this and related articles can be lowered by asking the admins who applied the protection or posting at WP:RFPP. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sock/NOTHERE user

Hi Abecedare, I hope you're doing well. I would like to request action against this user SantwinderSingh who is vandalizing various pages-[11], [12], [13]. This user is also a sock of GuruRavidasPuttar; all these accounts are being operated by a user who for the past 2 years, has been a menace in various South Asian related pages, they've been vandalizing pages through IPs which geolocate to Italy, making random changes to census figures, aggrandizing their religion and the Punjabi language, and trying to engulf various sects as part of his religion. After this ANI report, where many of their ranges were blocked from the pages they often target, the user switched to using accounts. SantwinderSingh is clearly this user's sock account. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8: Would you mind adding this to the GuruRavidasPuttar SPI so that there is a consolidated record of the sockmaster? Pinging Dreamy Jazz from there may also help, esp. if the new account is still editing from Italy. At a quick glance the edits to Dera Sach Khand look suspicious but will need to take a deeper look before I can act; will do so in the next day or so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, while I'm certain the account is a sock of GRP, the account is disruptive enough to warrant a NOTHERE block, so I don't think admins should go through the trouble of doing a sock investigation, or at least a behavioural evidence check, especially when this case involves hundreds of IPs over the course of 2 years. A block for persistent disruption was what I was hoping for. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A look through their edits makes me even more inclined to think that SantwinderSingh is indeed a sock of GuruRavidasPuttar but for now I have blocked them from article space to stop their disruption while leaving open the opportunity for them to use talkpages to present sources and explanation for their future edits. Have also ECPed Ravidasia. Malerkotla State could use some more eyes. Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to increase protection

Wikipedia articles such as Branches of Rashtrakuta dynasty and Baglana are being vandalised by an IP. Can u please increase protection of both the pages. Hashid 17:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hashid Khan: I have semi-protected the article for a month to stop the repeated unexplained deletion and to encourage discussion of any issues on the talkpage. That said, on a quick glance, some of the article's content and sources do seem iffy and require a deeper review from knowledgeable editors. For example, this self-published essay by Jyotsna Kamat is unlikely to qualify as reliable source. This can be discussed on the article talkpage and hopefully, the IP will participate and spell out their particular objections. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, Hashid Khan is himself a sockmaster and likely a sock as well; the former claim is already confirmed and the latter is awaiting a checkuser. For some reason, Hashid Khan was indeffed for disruptive editing but was unblocked via an unblock request even when there was already a sock likely confirmed to him. Even if he is not confirmed to R2dra in the latter report he should still be indeffed for sockpuppetry, no? The vast majority of users going to admins talk pages and requesting protection or blocking for a Indian milhist related issue are themselves socks who have some greater motive, and I don't feel this case is an exception. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that background Flemmish Nietzsche, which I wasn't aware of. See this. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest extended confirmed protection for the article Mughal-Rajput wars? There's been substantial editing by the socks in this sock conflict in the past few months, and this page is one of their primary places to "own" each other. The most recent example of this is Hashid Khan (falls into side A) reverting the edits of Dooblts (recently confirmed sock of side B) and restoring a more "favorable" diff of the article. Normally this amount of disruption wouldn't warrant EC protection but I feel it's necessary here as these socks can very easily become autoconfirmed, and have shown that they are very determined to do so; my motivation to request this is amplified by both Dooblts' and new account Masterliverwort's requests on my talk page for "assistance" on restoring back said article to a state which favors their side's (see my subpage for more info) views, the latter account of which suspiciously came running to my talk page to request the exact same edits on the exact same page the day after Dooblts was confirmed to be a sock and blocked. You're free to block Masterliverwort (or forward it to a checkuser) if you feel my evidence clearly makes them a duck, but if not I'll make another SPI report. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche: I have blocked the Hashid account and ECPed a few of the affected pages. Chose to indef ECP the Mughal-Rajput wars under WP:GSCASTE since, given the Rajput related subject matter and the various socks involved, that's its only hope of being cleaned up and then being stable. Thanks for your vigilance. Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi @Abecedare I have recently a wikipedia page which I have forgot with my ip adress. I want to know whether I have to mention it on my talk page or not and If yes as I have forgot the wikipedia page I had edited so can you please tell me a way to do it.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012: If it was an isolated or occasional set of edits made while you were logged out, and you have no concerns about them possibly being linked to your account, then there is nothing you need to do; see WP:EWLO for details. However, in case you believe that if these edits are ever linked to your account then they may:

1. Raise privacy concerns by revealing your ISP and geolocation, and/or
2. May raise suspicion of evasion

then you should get in touch with a checkuser and they can guide you on whether the IP information can be deleted from the article histories and whether you need to mention the edits on your userspace. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sock check

Can you check if Chauthcollector is a sock of DeccanFlood or User:Malik Kafur 2409:4085:78A:C8AD:CC95:A812:DDDB:2917 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Abecedare is not a checkuser as far as I know, only an administrator. I will file an SPI report for Chauthcollector when I have time today, or you could yourself if you provide sufficient evidence. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, an SPI would be the way to go if there is suspicion of sockpuppetry. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle1990

That took a strange turn with the random harassment. There were several red flags around their perms requests, but I wasn't expecting that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I came in from the opposite direction. Saw the the harassment. Blocked etc. And then followed the trail to stuff at, and linked from, the permission request pages. Weird indeed. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Now looking at the full trajectory, it looks like a more standard meltdown in response to repeatedly failing to have clue about appropriate pace and boundaries on Wikipedia. I hadn't seen the part where David Gerard initially got involved, so from Twinkle1990's contribution history it looked for a moment like they abruptly decided to lash out at David out of nowhere. At this point, I suspect that the initial UPE concerns were unfounded, but the high-speed low-clue attitude is clearly a problem and I agree with an indefinite block until they've calmed down and can promise not to drag David into this again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have puzzled about could explain the editor's conduct today and at the permission request pages over the previous months, and have come up with nothing entirely satisfactory. Lets see if they file an unblock request after a break and what they say. (small fix: Doug Weller, rather than David Gerard). Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Jadaun (clan)

Hi Abecedare, hope you are fine. Would request you to look at the revision history of the article on Jadaun (clan). Persistent caste related POV pushing (disruptive editing) by IP and unexplained reverts have become a regular issue. Please intervene. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Done. Btw, you may want to double check the version you reverted to since this edit since your previous version removed {{qn}} and {{full}} tags w/o providing that information and added a citation to this 1900 book. Always difficult to know which of the versions is preferable when its two apparent socks reverting each other. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt action. Let me check the issues! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockwork

Hi, it is regarding this. Note that this might be a sock of YilevBot, new SPI case here. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks for that info. Not familiar with the sockmaster myself but several CUs (Drmies, Spicy and Ponyo) seem to be. So hopefully, the SPI will be resolved soon w/o needing a deep dive into the behavioral matches. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)