Hi Abecedare, I know you're inactive on Wikipedia for the time being, but I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this report [1]. You know HaughtonBrit and the tricks he employs, how he acts like, and his campaign against me-you've dealt with him, your input would be immensely appreciated here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Abecedare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Suthasianhistorian8: I looked over the two recent SPI reports and the behavioral evidence is indeed suspicious. I have requested Ponyo to take a look to see if CU findings can support this suspicion. Will follow up once they (or, other admins/CUs) have weighted in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Abecedare for looking into it. It doesn't look like CUs are going to look at RR at the moment but in due time I'll file a SPI (although this message may finally deter RR from interacting with me any further so a SPI may be redundant). Your input will tremendously help if/when I file it. I also hope I didn't bother you too much while you were inactive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suthasianhistorian8: I would suggest holding off on filing another SPI report at least until the current one is resolved and not to do so unless there is fresh evidence that supports sockpupptry specifically. If the evidence is regarding disruption etc, it may be better handled at ANI/AE since that can be addressed regardless of whether an account is new or an LTA. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" I would suggest holding off on filing another SPI report at least until the current one is resolved"
Yeah, I'll definitely wait until the Historian2325 case is resolved before filing anything new.
"and not to do so unless there is fresh evidence that supports sockpupptry specifically"
I'm a bit confused about this; for example, would the votes on the Battle of Michni and Battle of Haidru AFDs be considered evidence of sockpuppetry since they align with HB's POV and one of his former SPAs? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abecedare, I saw your comment on RegentPark's t/p - it was unclear whether you're going off the email/SPI report back in March/April or if you checked the recent SPI case, which is many times better than the former. If you haven't, I really, really think the RR/Festivalfalcon873 reports will convince you. Apologies if you have looked at the current version.
The evidence is far stronger than the Elifanta23 case, who didn't even have a CU check run on him, but was rightfully blocked as a DUCK. RangersRus took it multiple steps further than Elifanta, and only began his AFD mass votes as an obvious reaction to me, having ~1000 edits, 5 months, and zero participation in AFDs before my first nom of 2024, made his first vote 3 hours after my nom, his first 3 AFD votes were clearly DUCK like with one having 4 votes made by HB's IPs, sabotaged multiple of my AFDs, was created one hour after his other sock was blocked with both accounts making the same edits to movie articles etc etc. In conjunction with the FestivalFalcon case, there's undeniable proof of sock accounts vote stacking.
@Southasianhistorian8: I had taken a look at the Apr 6 report last month but haven't read through the May 10 one. Will go through the Festivalfalcon873 part of the latter later today and see if there is enough behavioral evidence to reach a definitive conclusion. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there is strong behavioural evidence for Festivalfalcon, which even Drmies implied to, stating the smoking guns in the report were reason for him to check. I'm not too familiar with this, but given that you're one of the only admins who knows HB best, perhaps WP:IAR might apply when dealing with his sock accounts, especially since they are creating an enormous amount of disruption. I also added some new evidence for RangersRus in the May 10 report and made the SPI far more articulate than before. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southasianhistorian8, as I commented recently at RP's talkpage I don't think trying to prove sockpuppetry for these accounts is the most productive direction. Just evaluating Festivalfalcon873's contributions on their own would have been IMO sufficient to sanction them under WP:ARBIPA. Note though that it is essential for the editor to be aware of the contententious topics designation for them to be sanctionable under WP:CTOP. I have just done so for Festivalfalcon873 and would highly recommend doing so for any account editing in this particular "battles" niche from hereon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what am I supposed to do in AFDs where 2-3 sock accounts vote? Or one of my AFDs in which RR tries to undermine, I don't think I can take those votes alone to ANI or AE...Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just !vote on the merit since AFD is not a vote counting exercise, ie, either list a few WP:HISTRS compliant sources that discuss the battle in significant detail if you think the article should be retained or ask others !voting keep to list the three best sources. I realize that this will not always work (c'est la vie) but IMO it will work well in surprisingly many cases since many of these battle articles are based on on-wiki OR, ie, editors read a single sentence in a (often, dated/hagiographical) source that there was some skirmish at, say, the foothills of Alabanada in year 1523 and create a newly designated "Battle of Alabanda (1523)" complete with Infobox with flags, combatants, commanders, casualties and declaring their favored side the victor. You , of course, are well aware of this but in case any TPS'ers believe that I am exaggerating see the aforementioned interaction with Festivalfalcon873. Unfortunately, there are dozens (hundreds?) of dubious articles on wikipedia, esp. relating to Mughal, Maratha, Sikh and Afghan "battles", that follow this formula.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that you ignore HB sockpuppetry from hereon. Only that there are several tools and processes on wikipedia to handle disruption and in some cases, instead of just relying on admin/CU's (limited) ability to confirm sockpuppetry, just ask admins at ANI/ARE to address the disruptive behavior head-on. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, one of the sockpuppets in the SPI, Alvin1783, has been following me around in 4 separate cases now: Maratha-Patiala clashes, Battle of Chenab, Guru Tegh Bahadur (within a few hours-days of my edits) and now on the Battle of Wan. In addition to the similarity in names with Festivalfalcon873 and the latter emailing the AFD closer on a page that Alvin1783 created, this is what HB keeps on doing time and time again; you were there for it during the summer last year. If this trend continues, what am I to do? His hounding is not something I can tolerate. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that he only he comes back after his "hiatus" and the very first things he does is to try to undermine articles that I PRODed? He's obviously taking advantage of the laxity surrounding his SPIs to continue his harassment campaigns? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I'm incredibly grateful to you, one last thing; this might be of interest: [2]. Festivalfalcon873 comes back within minutes after Alvin1783's block to update the article, then backtracks when he likely realized that he messed up. It undeniably proves they are both socks. Bizarre stuff. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked.
As with the Koli sockmaster, if there a set of articles in this area that would benefit from protection, feel free to list them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was alluding to another prolific sockmaster who is active in the Koli-caste area. One approach to dealing with them besides the usual whack-a-mole is to EC protect the articles most commonly targeted by the socks. For example, search for my Aug 4, 2023 comment in the GSCASTE log. A similar approach can be tried wrt to the HB socks (under WP:ARBIPA instead of WP:GSCASTE). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will definitely employ page protection in the future in case HB continues his hounding, and I understand that it's easier than filing a SPI. Thank you once again. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: page protection is not an alternative to SPI. While the latter is an effort to identify and block socks, the former is an effort to prevent disruption at an article by future sock accounts. Page protection makes it less fruitful for sockmasters like HB to divide their editing among dozens of essentially throwaway accounts; the accounts instead have to build up enough of an editing history, which both makes it easier to identify behavioral patterns and is a greater loss of effort for the sockmaster if the account is blocked. But admins will apply page-protection only to articles which already have a history of being targeted by previously identified sockaccounts and not merely because an editor believes that some currently unblocked account is a sock. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but by "archiving" I just meant doing this so that there is a greater disincentive to add further comments to the already voluminous discussion. I don't want to the move the ADL RFC off the main WP:RSN page yet, even though it is making the board hard to view and edit, because doing so prematurely is likely to only lead to further confusion and meta-discussions. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault. I myself was searching for the correct word to describe my intended action because both archiving and closing could be misinterpreted. Hence wrote it up as "archiving" with the scare quotes. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abecedare, hope you are fine. I would like to request you to have a look at this SPA (if not a caste warrior), RobertJudeson trying to push their POV with no intention of achieving consensus! The user is also engaged in edit warring in contentious caste articles in spite of being aware of the discretionary sanctions and even after warnings. Please check the revision history of the article on Karhade Brahmin and the user talk page! Moreover, it doesn't seem that they are a new user, rather they seem to be a sock from the sockfarm of User:Joshi punekar. Before I could file an SPI, another editor has already done so; you may check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have full protected Karhade Brahmin and left the editor a note. Should at least give everyone some breathing room to calmly discuss the content issues and deal with the suspected sockpuppetry (I may take a look at that later but no promises). Let me know if the edit-warring continues or spreads to other articles. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Abecedare. You have done everything to protect these articles and revert to the last clean versions. I would like to thank you once again for being here; you truly represent an ideal admin! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undiscussed page moves and hijacking attempts by TSJ/Bensebgli/Anujror sockfarms[edit]
I saw that you blocked the TSJ's range and protected the redirects.[3] I'm wondering if it's possible to undo the damage they've done by moving these long standing redirects by renaming back to their original name or merging their histories or deleting them. I tried but I got a error that states "page of that name already exists". These are the redirects that I'm talking about.
@Ratnahastin: Done except for Chokar Kalan / Chhokar because in that case I couldn't figure out where the article actually belongs and what its content (if anything) should be; several sockfarms seem to be involved; and, a few good-faith editors have weighed in (likely w/o being aware of the socking issues)making it ineligible for G5. I have protected the two pages so that non-sock knowledgeable editors can fix the content as they see fit.
Hey Abecedare, I want to bring the articles Nsibidi and Ekoi people back into a more neutral and fact-based shape, since CHI-Research has been spreading their POV there as well. Can you keep an eye on that and maybe lend a helping hand, if needed? Thanks, Gawaon (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gawaon: I don't plan to edit those, or even the Igbo people article, myself but I have watchlisted Nsibidi and Ekoi people to keep an eye and provide talkpage input from a disinterested viewpoint, if needed. In case there is disruption on the pages that I miss, feel free to ping me or drop a note here. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikifulness: I have submitted your draft for review so that an AFC regular can take a look, provide you feedback, and move it mainspace when ready. You can continue to make improvements to the draft in the meantime. For example, on a spot check not all the facts in each para seem to match up with the specific reference cited at the the the para's end. You should take another look and make sure that everything is verifiable and properly cited. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Regarding long ongoing vandalism in Maratha Confederacy article[edit]
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 [57]). The article prior to my most recent edits [58][59] 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.
@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 [60] and [61]) 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:
Get back to the article talkpage, and use WP:DR if needed
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.
Also consider whether all that detail belongs in the article lede (again, as Flemmish Nietzsche suggested previously)
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)[reply]
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 [62] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The thing which started the whole situation was PadFoot's rewrite of the entire lead [63] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
