User talk:Abecedare: Difference between revisions

Edit war by two suspected sock accounts on Indian rebellion of 1857

Admin, there is continuous edit war as well as disruptive editing on Indian rebellion of 1857 by two suspected sock accounts created just 5-6 days ago. I would request you to look at it. RS6784 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@RS6784: I'm involved as an editor having commented on the content but I see that a whole janitorial team of admins and patrollers has descended at ANI, AEW and SPI to clean up this mess. Thanks @El C, Fram, Black Kite, Mako001, Slatersteven, ScottishFinnishRadish, Czello, and Sajaypal007: that was an impressive group effort to witness! Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Whose the cool rock 'n' roll man now? El_C 15:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you possibly block an IPv6 range, please?

Hi, Abe. I'd love to block a certain IPv6 range for harassment, preferably for a good long time, but unfortunately it's bigger than a /64, so I'm a bit out of my element. See these IP's here:

2402:8100:218c:9275:9da5:c508:df29:4b6b

2402:8100:2188:d0bb:c5a7:3cd8:6c:e9a3

2402:8100:218a:9c22:5dc4:7bc9:b585:fa81

2402:8100:218b:cece:8cbe:8023:71dd:9911

The 218 with a/b/c/8 in the third group flummoxes me. It shouldn't be necessary to block the whole 2402:8100:218X, right? Or am I dreaming? Bishonen | tålk 07:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Can block a slightly smaller 2402:8100:2188::/45 set, which would cover all the IP's you listed (IP range calculator tool to determine that). Lots of caste related edits from that range, which could be from the same user although, fwiw, the range also geolocates to Haryana, a center of Jat population. Let me know if you would like me to apply (a 6 month?) block to the range or if you'd like to do the honors. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hah, now I see that the problematic edits/editor are possibly unrelated to the caste-edits/editors on that range. The activity on that range is still sparse enough that a shorter-term range block could be applied if needed. Alternatively, TrangaBellam let us know if you would like your user-talkpage semi-protected or placed under pending-changes protection. I'd be happy to do either. Have also added it to my watchlist; surprisingly, it wasn't on it till now! Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Arghh.. complicated. Are you telling me the caste editing is not disruptive? Unusual, that. (Why do we have caste pages, again? No no, don't tell me, I know why. It's depressing, that's all.) But I'd appreciate it if you'd place a block on the range and make it as long as your conscience permits. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Blocked range for 6 months. The only substantial recent contributions from that range are the harassing messages at TB's talkpage and edits to Battle of Khanwa (the caste-related edits date back to Aug 2021 and earlier, so I didn't bother to evaluate their quality; not before coffee). Pretty sure that those two sets of recent edits are by the same logged-off user and suspect that the trolling was motivated by edit-disputes in the Mughal-Rajput topic-area, for example as seen at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan where TB had participated in the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, great, thank you very much. Blocking Hindutva harassers is a service to humanity. Let's just hope the [profanity removed] doesn't have access to more IPs. I understand (in the vaguest sense of the word) that Indian IP ranges tend to be difficult for us to manage. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC).

SPAs in Assam ethnic space

Hi Abecedare, I have reached here on the advice of Fylindfotberserk. In general we have seen articles that are related to ethnic groups from Assam coming under attack from SPAs. Occasionally warrings break out and as a result we had a long series of socks—two of which I know are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qwertywander/Archive. These two started around 2017/2019. The socks were generally kept in check by admins such as JzG and Berean Hunter. Now that since they are no longer active I think some of these socks are back and seem to be rather active. I have been trying to get a few uninvolved editors to intervene, but since the number of issues I see now are so high that this mechanism is unlikely to work. I have employed the 3O route, but that too is long drawn out and in unable to keep pace with the POV pushing.

Given this situation, what would you suggest? Ideally, we could have a greater community support, but the subject seems too niche.

Chaipau (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: As I learned during my previous experience with Bhaskarbhagawati, the Assam-history/ethnicity pages are indeed a site of frequent POV-pushing, which can be very difficult for outside editors/admins to adjudicate since most (including me) are not very knowledgeable about the subject or editors involved. So it is indeed a pity when editors/admins who have developed some familiarity with the area become inactive (similar issues are faced in caste-related articles).

Let me take a look at the links you provided to get a lay of the land; may take me a day or so. I'll also ping @Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark: since they have experience of cutting through such Gordian knots. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick question: can you link some of the articles most-affected? Would it help if the articles were ECP-protected? The protection would be possible under applicable general- and/or discretionary-sanctions if the problem is severe enough, and in the caste-area, that is often preferable to playing whack-a-mole with socks. Abecedare (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a quick/small list which has seen most POV pushing; I shall reply on ECP, etc. later as soon as I can get out of RL.

• Koch dynasty
• Rajbanshi people
• Dimasa kingdom
• Chutia kingdom
• Kamarupa
• Boro people
• Chutia people
• Ahom kingdom

Thank you - greatly appreciate your investing time to this. Chaipau (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: I skipped the SPI reports for now since there seem to multiple sockmasters involved and trying to match a sockpuppet to the correct master based on behavioral evidence alone is a time-sink, at least for someone who is starting "tabula rasa". I did review the linked articles and see that all involved editors are extended-confirmed; so ECP protection alone won't help with any of the current problems. The most current dispute appears to be at Koch dynasty and following up on that led me to block the involved editor for a month. I have watchlisted the other articles but feel free to drop me a message if there is a flare up where admin intervention would be of help. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Abecedare. This has been most helpful. I also admire your attention to the details of the case and the quick homing in to the violation. I greatly appreciate your putting these on your watchlist. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

AITUC was chaired by Subhash Chandra Bose

I think you are biased and afraid to reveal the truth. Even though I mentioned a very old archive as a source, you made the mistake of calling that claim baseless, it is not a claim, it is information, it is true. Abcd amureet (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abcd amureet: Here is the link of my cleanup, in which I removed the claim that Subhas Chandra Bose was the President of AITUC from 1 December 1929 - 7 July 1931. I removed it because I could not verify that it was supported by the sources you cited. The archive writeup only said, Stalwarts of Indian freedom struggle like Jawahar Lal Nehru (1889-1964), Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (1897-1945), V.V. Giri (1894-1980) also chaired sessions of the AITUC, which is different from being the President, or even Chairperson, of the organization; there was no mention of the dates or predecessor etc, as far as I could tell. The second source, an opinion column, had no relevant information either. I also had concerns about the source quality and due weight of the claim, as I explained in my edit-summary. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a section at the article talkpage so that other editors interested in the article may also participate. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata element

Hi. Could you link the Wikipedia redirect "Kiev" to the Wikidata item Q111190407? I do not have the ability to do it myself as it is limited to only administrators on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. Ordnerud (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ordnerud: I see 'Kiev' (and many other alternate spellings) already listed under the wikidata:Q1899 entry. Isn't that sufficient? I must admit though that I am not really familiar with the wikidata setup. If anything more is required, can you post the request at another admin's talkpage? Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Procedural violation

(subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard per Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. If I knew I was just engaging with some rando who was backseat moderating I wouldn't have wasted my time. Instead of fighting City Hall I was fighting some dude with anger issues. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry: The topic-ban was placed based on your edits and conduct. Complaining about what AndyTheGrump did, or did not do, is besides the point as far as the topic-ban is concerned. If you believe that their conduct violated any wikipedia guidelines you can report it separately to WP:ANI, although I would highly encourage you to not do so since IMO it will boomerang onto you. Instead spend the time, reading WP:BLP and WP:AC/DS and give some thought to if and when you wish to appeal the topic-ban. Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Andy's still trying to egg me on in the administrator's noticeboard - you might want to close the thread. Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry: Yes, both you and AndyTheGrump should perhaps walk away from that discussion for now. I don't want to close the AN section yet though because I wish other admins to have an opportunity to see the topic-ban announcement I placed there and voice any objections they may have. On a more personal note: I realize that this must be unpleasant and stressful for you. Take a break from wikipedia for at least a few hours; it helps to put all the kerfuffles here (including "sanctions") into perspective. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

joining

how to join the department of fun Quident (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on photos in our caste articles

Might be of interest. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems right on point; will read. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Good points raised in that discussion but sadly it seemed to go nowehere with IMO some talking past each other. Perhaps, as Fylindfotberserk suggested, we need a centralized discussion at WP:INB on use of caste photographs from such 19th century "ethnographic studies". Hopefully, we will be able reach a rough consensus along the lines of what we have for Raj-era sources, or need for self-identification for inclusion on caste-lists. Anyone interested in seeding it? Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, we should be discussing all caste pictures. Should we really be sticking pictures of random people on a web page with a "look, a member of xx caste?" It's one thing to show a ritual, or someone in a cultural setting, or even a well known, clearly identified person of a social group, but to show arbitrary people as if it is useful information seems a tad regressive. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

...and the implicit message behind "look, a member of xx caste?" is "this is what a typical member of the group" looks like. This is of course made explicit in the 19th c. works. Quoting again from Metcalf:

In its initial request for photographs, for instance, the Foreign Department asked the provincial governments to supply likenesses of 'characteristic specimens' of each tribe within their jurisdiction, and to include for each not only the 'peculiar characteristics of costume' but 'the exact tint of their complexion and eyes'.

'Tad regressive' is putting it politely. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

some talking past each other - You are being mild.

Someone went about the agenda of poco historians without presenting any source while someone, since blocked by AC, did not bother to engage since he was certain about my attempt at censorship "go[ing] down like a shot dog". TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I was exposed to this caste photo issue handling edit requests on Talk:Ahir, and after initially closing them as "get consensus," I've removed the image after a bit of discussion at Bish's talk page. I think it's probably worth starting a discussion somewhere to get a concrete consensus on these. While I understand there is likely a place for them in an article, as a historic artifact, having them as the only image in a stubby article is pretty bad, and I can certainly see how it would be hurtful to members of the caste viewing the article. It seems to me like using File:Wilson,_Branded_Slave_from_New_Orleans_-_MET_DP272324.jpg or File:Renty_an_African_slave.jpg as the lead image in African Americans. Sure, it's technically apt, but should it be there? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree on both points: the particular images are inappropriate and that we need to discuss and see if there if there is a consensus for our opinion. Perhaps we can have that discussion the next time Sitush is active but if anyone knowledgeable in the area volunteers to initiate it (at say, WT:INB) before then, that would be fine too. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Portal:Hindi cinema

Hi,

Can you help me move Category:Bollywood portal accordingly? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: Started the speedy-rename process. As I understand it, a bot handles the re-categorization etc details after a 48 hour wait. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for the links you added to your RfA RfC comment, I'm saving them for reading them before going to bed tonight and am greatly looking forward to it. They seem terribly interesting :D I hope you enjoy the rest of your week. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Glad you took them in the spirit they were intended. This article, which provides a capsule history of the topic, may also be of interest to you. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Link much appreciated :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion of Prithviraj Chauhan talk page dispute

Hello Abecedare; I hope you are doing fine; You recently closed Prithviraj Chauhan talk page discussion regarding his territories which a user is exaggerating by including regions from Pakistan, Uttrakhand, H.P etc. I presented counter sources for it but they kept on with original reasearches to push their POV which are prohibited. My main question is:- What wr should maintain about his territories in North or move that to Legacy part altogether. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: FYI, I have also page-blocked Asr99.0979‎ from that article and talkpage for reasons explained on their userpage. But that should not be taken as me weighing on either side of the issues that were being discussed. Any unresolved issues can be re-raised at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan but please keep any discussion focused and be concise as seeing endless lengthy posts just discourages participation by other informed editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for your inputs. You are right; lengthy discussions are not always fruitful. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I tried to reopen a fresh discussion to conclude this argument but end up creating this mess (accidently), I tried it again to no avail diff & diff

I seriously don't know how that happened but it was not in bad faith to remove previous debates. Could you please suggest a solution or Is there a issue in my hardware itself ? Packer&Tracker «Talk» 18:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To open a new discussion just start a new section (click here) with a short descriptive title and then describe (1) what changes you are proposing to the article (or what current content you are discussing), and (2) what sources support that change (or support/contradict the current content). Keep the discussion focused by, for example, not interspersing the issues of king/emperor with territorial extent etc; keep personal opinion of the subject to a minimum; and, don't comment on other editors. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for the suggestion; although my concern was different altogether. It happened again, When I try to add a comment in the section which I started, here Special:MobileDiff/1085214308, that's Why I did a self-revert again Special:MobileDiff/1085214398

I tried to solve the matter by switching to my mobile instead of PC, but the issue is still intact. I think the page is very bulky, which needs a bit of archieving in near future. Could you please help in these regard ? Packer&Tracker «Talk» 03:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: I adjusted the archiving settings for the talkpage to trim it down. But I didn't have any problems editing the page as it stands, so the page-size is unlikely to be the cause of the problem you are facing. Try (1) clearing your wikipedia cookies and cache, logging-in again, and then editing the talkpage; and, (2) if the problem persists, post at WP:VPT describing your system details and the exact steps that lead to the unintentional deletion, and someone there may have an answer. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Much obliged for your response. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 09:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: There are no replies/counter arguments on that talk page from the opposition camp despite being active on other articles pretty much on consistent basis. I did inserted a Disputed tag though. What to do in such cases for consensus?? Please guide. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I read your post at the talkpage and (having not followed the previous discussion too closely) have only a rough idea of what exact changes to the article you are proposing. Perhaps you can make the proposal explicit, as in,

I am proposing to change the article lede text from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet... to consectetur adipiscing elit, sed... and replace the citation from "John (1900)" to "Jane (2000)". Let me know if there are any objections.

And if no one objects in a day or so, then you can implement the change. And if someone does, then at least the locus of dispute is concrete. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Got it. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 23:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure of ANI thread

Hey. Notwithstanding any reflection done by myself or the other parties in the thread that you just closed or another admin reverting the closure, I have a procedural question. As I'm understandably not satisfied with the situation as a whole, what other recourse do I have? Is an ARBCOM request, post closure of the RfA, really the only avenue left to seek any sort of follow-up per WP:ADMINCOND? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: ArbCom is the body empowered to rule on WP:ADMINCOND and take any action beyond issuing a "stern word". But I would sincerely urge you to drop this, or at least, (1) sit on it for a week to see if the issue looms as large at that point, (2) consult with any experienced wikipedian whose opinion you trust and ask them if ANI/ARBCOM is the way to go, and (3) consult with the candidate (preferably, in private) to see if they would like to be pulled down this path. Not all problems on wikipedia are solveable or best addressed through its bureaucratic procedures. Cheers.

PS: Fwiw, I don't doubt your intention or sincerity, and didn't intend the plea-for-introspection part of my closing to be directed at you. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah that's good advice. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what the next steps available are, and not committing to one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Dahlaquist is not a RS

Abecedare - please explain why do you consider Dahlaquist is not a RS , I am sure you are right, I am trying to know better , thats all

greateful if you can explain

appreciation of your explanation CountVlars (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC) CountVlars

I just saw your message, please ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountVlars (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to be continued at Krishna talkpage... Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Admins confirming version of a page

I will be pleased if you let F&F know that admins cannot "confirm" the version of any page. Not the first time that I have seen them resort to such an excuse for edit-warring despite a consensus against. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and TrangaBellam: TB is right: admins don't get to certify article versions or, in general, rule on content. Also, what's with the edit-warring and snippy edit-summaries? The subject of The Kashmir Files is fraught as is; it really doesn't need experienced editors like yourselves losing your minds over it too. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw the lead to its current state of lexical and syntactic resolution, lasting several weeks. The wording is pretty much all mine. It was the result of worrying about little nuances of meaning. Bishonen did not confirm a version of the article, only thought that "widely inaccurate" (my term) might have meant widely thought to have been inaccurate.

The last sentence of the first lead paragraph, which I had originally drafted, was later amended in light of TayiA and DaxS's talk page input and refashioned by Bishonen's interpretation. In this version it had lain for several weeks, maybe even a month, until this morning when TB appeared riding out of the blue like lone ranger and mangled the lead without waiting for a critical mass of input from others.

In the process, they restored my original edit absent one-third. Thereafter they removed another third citing it to prudent objections.

An easy thing would be to lock the lead in the state in which it was last night and give a chance to all the editors who had originally taken part in the discussion to have their say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence had lain unmodified in that phrasing for nearly three weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f, I am not arguing for the merits of either versions of the lede, or even that it was necessarily wrong for you to revert the changes the first time per BRD (although, sometimes it is better to undo only the particular changes one disagrees with so that incremental improvements can be made; I haven't reviewed the changes in this instance carefully enough to judge if this was one of those cases). The main issues I have with the recent article history are:

• the series of reverts and rude-ish edit summaries. Undoubtedly both of you know the preferred process and have pointed it to newbies on innumerable occasions, so I won't patronize you^(plural) by reading out from the rulebooks.
• using the supposed imprimatur of "admin confirmed" to defend an article version. In rare instances, involving BLP and Copyright, that can be legitimate but I would guess that Bishonen too would be surprised at them being alluded to in this revert. I do value Bishonen's input on the grammatical issue of "widely inaccurate" but that is because their argument is persuasive; not because they are an admin.

The specifics of this incident aside: it's clear that there is some bad-blood between you and TB, whose origins I don't know and don't wish to explore. Speaking as someone who is familiar with both your contributions and greatly respects your^(plural) knowledge, command of language, and adherence to wikipedia's content policies, I wish that you both would start treating each other with greater respect. Perhaps think of the other as (real-life) editors, those creatures whose tweaks and critiques are often annoying but nevertheless make ones work stronger. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Info needed

Dear Senior Editor @Abecedare:, I respect you a lot as a very impartial editor here after having some recent conversations with you. I want to bring an odd case to your notice, so that you can have a look at it. Before that this isn't direct accusations so not naming anyone here, I am just asking if all this is allowed on wiki or not especially with accounts which aren't very old. Two editors are unfortunately cooperating like possible suspected meat puppets or tag team. Some possible proof for the same: One editor pinged other editor on his/her talk page twice once on 7th March and next on 13th April [here] the other editor just restored the edit to the desired version of First editor skipping all relevant edits in the duration, and the other editor added his content just 2 hrs late [here], this was on 7th March - 8th March. This was all wrt to a fake image depicting a social group, they tried their level best without countering my points. They repeated same steps three weeks back, it was an attempt not to try to discuss but to insert fake image by any means. In next similar incident, the editor mass deleted the whole content by giving misleading edit summary here-[here]. Isn't this WP:OWN ? Later again on another similar page, the particular editor restored the preferred version of his/her or to the version of his desired friendly editor. It looks like on many pages similar habit is being repeated by the same editor. ( possible WP:Tag team ). And this was done to insert a fake user image. The two editors have already shared the mail IDs when their accounts were very new just a month old, this is not justified as they were and even now are not very old editors. I went through some of diffs and found this just see here - [[1]], they are surely in contact with each other outside of Wikipedia and are here involved to build their similar opinions on many talk pages to have some form of WP:SQS, WP: STONEWALL. They have reverted edits to each other versions etc on lots of instances as their edit history suggests. This is not simple case. I am asking this because I respect you as an impartial and experienced editor, can I take all this up for meat puppetry/ continuous tag teaming ? Because they have shared their mail ID from the first month itself and one is openly saying that he will share private msgs for cooperation. All this was fine, had they were not involved into building opinions to each other views on talk page discussions to others and reverting edits continuously to each other versions. My one question can I take this up for meat/tag teaming. I can share more diffs here- it seems lots of cooperation. RS6784 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

RS6784, this is absurd and defamatory. You start by saying this is not an accusation and then continue to make unfounded accusations. At the very least, please have the courtesy to ping the people you are talking about - @Heba Aisha: and me so we can defend ourselves rather than attacking them behind their back. FYI, I have not shared my email address with Heba nor had any private exchange with her, nor do we agree on all points. In fact, I do not even have an email address attached to my wikipedia account as of today. Don't you think I would at least have added an email address in the last two years so I could privately send messages to Heba? This is common sense. Your accusations are false because I HAVE objected to the Bihari Rajput pic by Heba at times. Check the history on the talk page of Rajput. I also objected to the current pic that Heba has added in the origin section on Rajput and made it clear to you. I suggested another pic. I also disagreed with her edits on Bhumihar and we have different interests.

Heba and I have faced a number of attacks in 2020 from Rajput and Kayastha because sourced content like Shudra etc. was added on Rajput and Kayastha pages. There was some Kayastha(Srivastava) who was constantly attacking Heba and even editing her talk page and redirecting it. BTW, I have reverted to versions by other trusted editors too - like JonathanSammy etc, does not mean we have contact outside wikipedia or are privately collaborating. It means we are fighting caste warriors who delete sources or add fake quotes. The case of 106.* who disrupted the Rajput page is proof. Let me make it clear. I edit independently using high quality academic(generally) sources and have no need nor any interest to collaborate with anyone else outside wikipedia. I do not need support either since the sources are high quality. All my discussion is on talk pages to see. I have no email account as of today-associated with WP. If I ever add an email address to my account, it will only be to access academic publications or communicate with admins. The only external collaboration I have seen is by some Rajputs on a facebook page called "Rajputs against Propoganda"(https://www.facebook.com/WetheKshatriyas/) which mentions wikipedia and names of editors . Are you part of that group or any other similar group? Just asking - not accusing as 30 people have liked that group and I wonder how many such private groups are there. Unlike you who seems to be focused on Rajputs, my interest is "caste/varna mobility" not Rajputs. I do not have obsession with one community. From what I have seen, Heba edits politics specific pages. She seems to have interest in Indian politics and I do not have much interest in either Indian or American politics. Here, Talk:Rajput/Archive_30 I made some edits as per your request. Does that mean you and I are collaborating? BTW, another editor advised me to ignore you in 2021. I guess I should have listened. See Hi @LukeEmily Pls just look at Ahir wiki page and compare it with Rajput page. For Ahir wiki page, newspaper sources have been and no correction has been done, even incorrect states have been mentioned. Why is Norman Zeingler source no mentioned there where older kshatriya had perished by 300 BC. Similar unwanted claims are made on Jat, Gujjar etc pages. RS6784 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC) not* RS6784 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC) LukeEmily, don't waste your efforts until the user actually provides a scholarly source that is criticising Tanuja Kothiyal's work. What they are doing now is known as WP:SYNTHESIS. In fact, I have wasted my time yesterday with their carelessly posted personal views at Talk:Bhati and Talk:Tomar clan. At first, I thought their query was genuine because there was no source in front of them that mentioned Rajputisation of Ahirs, but when I provided an academic source for that purpose,[1] ​they again posted a long, unsourced rant about Ahirs, Bhars, etc. – see here – along with misrepresenting the quoted text from the source. I will post a relevant note on their talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC). If you want to promote the Rajput community, that is fine with me but please do it by adding reliable historic sources.LukeEmily (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:, did I named anyone? I didn't named anyone here. I asked an Admin, that can I take the case as it is a case WP:SPS, and stonewalling by an editor and his/her friendly have shared their email addresses since the start of their editing phase and tried to insert a fake user image to demean a social group and when I called it out then the same group kept on reverting to their version of edits. Rather than questioning me, it looks like the concerned editors are here to highjack a particular page to their pov. I am not here to promote any community, Even my edits on that particular page is very limited. I have added reliable references where I have taken the step. Anyways, I 'didn't named anyone here. I asked a suggestion from Admin that can I take this case further as the two editors are not as old and from the start they are in contact with each other through their mail ID and now continuously supporting each other pov, including cooperation in reverts. I don't understand, how did you thought that this an accusations at you. I didn't named anyone. Surprising, that on an example where I was just seeking suggestions, you jumped over here following me. RS6784 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:I didn't knew the past edits of the editor. I hope you know it is me who requested you to insert Brahmin word in Rajput page wrt reference on Satish Chandra. So, stop making fake accusations and I didn't accuse you here. And, I am entitled to have my views. But if one editor from start is in contact with other editor through email ID and regularly help each other in discussion and debates, including reverts to their version, then I am within rights to ask impartial editor for their suggestions and I had a very odd experience wrt stonewalling just recently, that was happening by reverting to the friendly editor's edits when I asked for verification, editor and friendly editor had no answers. I didn't named anyone here. RS6784 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear @LukeEmily:, I have already shared the diff above where a new editor is asking for mail ID saying cooperation. All that would not be a problem, had the two editors not being involved in reinstating fake image by any means recently, which I had removed after taking it to talk page and the kind of cooperation I had seen in that phase was very odd. This made me to search a bit. RS6784 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

By pointing to our specific edits, is it not the same as naming us? Please can you read my response completely before replying? I repeat, I have NOT shared my email address WITH ANYONE including Heba and do not even have an email address associated with my wikipedia account. She has not shared her email address either publicly(to the best of my knowledge), so how could I even contact her even if I wanted to? Why would I post on her talk page publicly if I had her email? We do NOT continuously support each other as I explained and it is irrelevant on how much we agree or disagree. We agree on certain points and disagree on others like most other editors. I have 100% agreement with Sitush's edits and often quote him. Does that mean Sitush and I are a tag team?.LukeEmily (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

not really, how did you inferred it ? I was asking for suggestions, there are diffs that I found recently through editor's contribution, where mail ID might have been exchanged. FYI anyone can later remove or change mail ID , so don't try to fool this out here. If that diffs is there and is backed by lots of cooperation just recently including a very WP: BADFAITH like that Stonewalling through reverts, it becomes important for me to seek suggestions. I didnt named anyone here, so looks like a case of stalking, fine. RS6784 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have glanced at the above but will take upto 12 hours to respond. Can everyone please hold on to their horses till then. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say one thing. Rajput caste related pages are consistently facing the problem of caste glorification and many users are here from time to time with new accounts in order to glorify that particular caste. Going through the history, we can see that when veteran editors like Sitush were there, these problems were present and it was carried away later too. Regarding collaboration or "Tag Team", a sockpuppet investigation was carried out earlier and it was proved that no such cooperation exists. I specifically edit Bihar related pages and i converge here with other editors because this page is under consistent disruption by caste promoters, who decide everything on the basis of what suits this particular community and what don't suits them. As for example they always challenge the cultivator Rajput image on the ground that it's a raj era image, but they never say the same regarding warrior image in the infobox and any such image. Many admins are also aware of this and you may confirm with Bishonen and RegentsPark . Rest, i leave it to you. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am getting more confused now. I can understand one editor commenting here after stalking my contribution page in detail like " going into further" and even there I didn't named anyone. But this one is surprising, another editor who hasn't got any notice for the same but they also commented. How all this is possible this is the first edit of the 2nd editor after 7 hrs. It is getting more murkier now. I will wait for @Abecedare: response as I respect him a lot and after that I will bit by bit respond to your point, the issue I raised is different not only to Raj-Era image.RS6784 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I will not add more details to every point as we all respect Abecedare and he has asked us to wait, but RS6784, just FYI, you said But this one is surprising, another editor who hasn't got any notice for the same but they also commented.. How all this is possible this is the first edit of the 2nd editor after 7 hrs. It is getting more murkier now - RS6784, you wrote this although you can clearly see that I pinged Heba in the first response to you. Your personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable and outrageous , especially when there is evidence that they are false. This is my last post on this page and will wait for Abecedare. Thanks Abecedare for your patience.LukeEmily (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@RS6784: In answer to your original post:

• I looked through the editing history of LukeEmily and Heba Aisha and what it shows is two editors with distinct but overlapping interests. Each has asked the other (on-wiki) to weigh in matters of dispute on occasions but the response they receive is a considered opinion, which sometimes agrees with and sometimes doesn't with the requester's POV. All this is normal collaborative editing and I didn't find any indication of illegitimate tag-teaming or meat-puppetry.
• Speaking specifically of Rajput and Rajputisation: I see that both Emily and Aisha have reverted your (and some other editors') edits to these pages but that is likely because, for reasons they have outlined on the articles' talkpages, they both disagree with the changes being made rather than a sign of blind tag-teaming or of using "numerical superiority" to avoid discussion. And while I would like to see fewer revert-cycles form all sides, the recent conduct at these pages doesn't rise to the level of sanctionable edit-warring. The main point of current relevance is that all involved editors are, as of now, discussing the issues on the talkpages. Please continue to do so till consensus is reached, using the relevant dispute resolution processes if needed.
• Finally on the image issue at the Rajput article: as you all know I have expressed an opinion on a related discussion at Talk:Koeri. It is okay to consider or even cite that opinion at the Rajput discussion but do not do so in terms of "admin decision". I know it gets confusing sometimes but my opinion at Talk:Koeri, expressed in my role as a regular editor, is just that, and unless and until a project/community-wide consensus for appropriate use of the Raj-era images is established, the issue will need to be discussed at the individual talkpages. (Aside: it is also not useful to label these Raj-era images as "fake"; they often satisfy verifiability and the argument against their inclusion is more nuanced than that.)

To be clear: I am not weighing in on the merits of any dispute involving Emily, Aisha and you; just on the conduct aspects. Going forward I would highly encourage everyone involved to avoid accusing each other of glorification, ownership, meat-pupetry etc during article talkpage discussions since such accusations just obfuscate the underlying content issue and make it harder to reach consensus. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation bombing etc.

Do you think this to be a correct assertion of best practices in Wikipedia? Is there any need to source uncontroversial (and absolutely bland) reading of an inscription to three sources?

If one cites multiple works, one is expected to highlight the necessity unless the sources support piecemeal phrases. Footnotes like "For a queer reading of this event, consult XYZ. For a critique of such approach, consult ABC. For a Marxist perspective see PQR. [And so on...]" are quite common in literature but footnotes like "XYZ, ABC, PQR" are quite uncommon in academic literature. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Will get back with my thoughts but will be a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)