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.
I'm imploring you to not allow his sock puppetry give him an unfair advantage over legitimate users. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
@Southasianhistorian8: I just realized that I have previously interacted with Festivalfalcon873 over content issues and so cannot weigh in as an admin. That said, taking a look at their editing history (esp. including the many deleted contributions) shows a consistent pattern of poor sourcing/content and POV-pushing despite feedback from several editors. Festivalfalcon873 hasn't edited in a couple of weeks but if they return and continue in the same vein, it would be worthwhile to request at least a TBAN from Indian & Afghan history or IPA. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 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]
Really glad to see you back! Ekdalian (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ekdalian. Not back back yet. For the moment doing occasional drop ins if something catches my eye or to help where I can. Hope you are doing well on and off-wiki. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
