User talk:Abecedare

SOAP?

I am very much convinced that discussions such as this and this, which are circular, meandering, WP:IDNHT, etc., are actually WP:SOAPBOX activities. All of them have the same pattern—a novel and fantastic interpretation of a sentence or a phrase, ignoring everything else. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Sorry for the late response. I see that Homogenie has been indeffed for edit-warring in the meantime. I have also dropped a note on User talk:Homogenie so that any future ROPE/SO unblock doesn't memory-hole the problematic history. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE Block?

Can we get a block for Jhy.rjwk (talk · contribs)? They have moved on from The Kashmir Files article but with edits such as this (Special:Diff/1091713179) with a edit summary claiming it is unreferenced when it is not (see cited source) and this (Special:Diff/1092595364) where he omits suicide as the cause of death and leaves a implication that the subject had something to do with his wife's death. It's pretty clear by now that they are only interested in POV pushing and not building an encyclopedia. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. The edits and source misrepresentation at Atal Bihari Vajpayee are egregious, and in light of those, it is difficult to assume good faith with regards to the edits to Chander Mohan and elsewhere. It is clear that Jhy cannot edit neutrally in this topic-area and, for now, I have issued a topic-ban. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, the edits is a direct neutral quote from the source "Gujarat riots had a nationwide impact and the Opposition had politically manoeuvred the issue", so it was a good faith edit. For how long I should edit outside Indian politics in order to appeal the topic ban? Jhy.rjwk (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding [1]: ...the previous Wiki text was not found in the source:

• The previous content at Atal Bihari Vajpayee that you replaced: "...Vajpayee admitted that not removing Modi had been a mistake."
• First sentence of cited article, Not removing Modi was a mistake, says Vajpayee: "The former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee,..., admitted that not removing Narendra Modi as Chief Minister after the Gujarat episode was a big mistake."

You are welcome to appeal the sanction at any time you wish but the point of indefinite topic/page-pans is that the editor has an oppurtunity and onus to demonstrate through their editing of other topics that the problems that led to the sanction are unlikely to recur. Personally, I like to see at least 6 months of such activity though there is no formal requirement. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Block Review of Cbinetti

Would it be possible to open a block review for Cbinetti? I had a somewhat hard time figuring out that you had indefinitely blocked this editor including from their own talk page. I agree that something beyond the previous page block was needed. I think that at this point the community should be asked to review the matter.

I see that the blocked editor began the controversy back in December 2021 and then in February 2022 by complaining that European colonization of the Americas was biased, and by removing parts of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My block was not really related to any content issue they had, which wikipedia has ample processes to help resolve. It was instead precipitated by the editors repeated assumption of bad faith, personal attacks, and insistence that discrimination and bullying (of which there was no sign of!) because of their identity as a Catholic, Italian, and disabled person was the actual reason for their edit being opposed. Many editors and admins (including you), tried to disabuse them of this. But, despite sometime seeming to take a step back (for example, by saying that they were discriminated against in real life and therefore tend to see it elsewhere) Cbinetti kept backtracking and returning to that well, including in their appeal at UTRS. This refusal/inability to listen made continued discussion of content virtually impossible IMO. The reason I blocked talkpage access too was because in their more recent comments the editor had begun to escalate the accusations to charging illegal conduct.

Frankly, I have not much hope that the editor is a good fit for wikipedia or that further discussion with them will be more productive than previous ones, but I am happy to have the block reviewed. In fact, any admin is welcome to undo or modify it unilaterally without being worried about wheel-warring, and if community input is preferred, we can discuss it at WP:AN. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Abecedare - I know that your block had to do with conduct and not content. I also agree that the block was in order, due to the personal attacks. I happen to think that the editor should be unblocked on his user talk page only, so that he can appeal in a visible forum rather than with the closed process of UTRS. I think that you are right that this editor and Wikipedia are not a good fit. I just think that a block review at WP:AN is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there have been exchanges that I haven't seen. I don't know what User:DeCausa has done to enrage Cbinetti (maybe nothing), and I haven't seen the accusations of illegal conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Here are the diffs about the alleged illegal conduct: [2], [3]. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Those are thinly veiled legal threats. I was thinking of a different sort of allegations and thought you meant something else, but I agree that those are thinly veiled legal threats. I still don't know what he thinks DeCausa has done. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that when he says that he is an expert, what he really is is an academic with a non-mainstream (maybe fringe) viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole thing was just bizarre. The situation, originally, was a pretty standard one of a newbie with a bee in their bonnet trying to edit war a pet point (removal of the term settler colonialism). I don’t know much about what he wanted - just that what he wanted to take out was supported by cited RS and no ther editors supported his position. (My involvement in the issue was really just one day - on 11 June.) Doug Weller and I reverted him, and I tried to get him to understand WP:RGW, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and consequences of edit warring. He then suddenly announced that we were opposing him because he was a disabled Italian catholic and that not letting him take the phrase out of the article was bullying. Of course, neither Doug nor I had any knowledge that he was a disabled Italian catholic until he announced it and why he thought we would want to stop him making his edit becuase that’s what he was…I have no idea. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and DeCausa: I have seeded a block review request at WP:AN. Feel free to comment there. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Bima Bharti

I wanted to create an article on Awadhesh Mandal. But, i saw that a redirect has been created from that article to this one Bima Bharti. Can you tell me, was it there in past and deleted later on or redirected to Bima Bharti.?Admantine123 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123: No, there wasn't a previously existing article for Awadhesh Mandal before the redirect was created on April 27. If you do decide to create a stand-alone bio, do be aware of WP:BLP1E abd WP:BLPCRIME; I haven't researched enough about the subject to have an opinion on whether Mandal is notable enough to write an article on but am pinging Tayi Arajakate in case they have additional thoughts. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Both these policies donot apply as he is not known for single event and has been convicted, not merely accused. How to remove the "redirect"? I want to start it soon.Admantine123 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Block needed

Seeing you after a long time. Hope things are going fine with you.

Can you take a look at the overall conduct of Mr.nothing anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This account had nearly all of his edits reverted and his talk page has only warnings or the messages that only speaks of poor communication by this user. Lorstaking 13:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Nice seeing you around too!

At a quick glance the number of warnings and rule violations are concerning but the editor also seem to be editing in good faith. So will take a deeper look in a few hours to see if the former outweighs the latter by enough to admin intervention, or if further guidance would help. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Blocked for a month given the persistent nature of the errors, and unwillingness/inability to improve. Lets see if their conduct changes after this block expires. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Kamarupa

Hi! This --> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamarupa#Under_attack_again ) isn't true. If you think my edits were incorrect, update them according to your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

2409:..., I protected the page to stop the incipient edit-warring since this has been a regular source of disruption at that article. Please use the time to discuss the proposed edits with the other editors on the talkpage and gain consensus for their inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

AE

Replied with more details and diffs. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved to my own section. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Have completed my review of the previous and updated evidence. Will add my concluding remarks in a few hours (RL intrudes). Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Might be stray but anchor "re point 6" is empty. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed (I had created it to note use of the astrologer's book as a source but then decided that was too trivial to make an issue of.) Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Noting it here that overall I don't see a major issue with the analysis you have posted but I would like to echo that the 13 instances that were posted took place throughout the period when I made nearly 1,500 edits and I have continued to work on improving my editing. I just thought of letting you know this before you post the result. Thanks. LearnIndology (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: I realize that being put under such scrutiny cannot be a pleasant experience but my (unsolicited) opinion is that perhaps editing in areas about which you don't have strong pre-existing views will be less fraught and more pleasant. Anyway, I have posted my thoughts at AE; lets see what other admins deem appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to abide by a topic ban from anything related to India. I wouldn't have a problem in case you want to impose one right away. LearnIndology (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Need your very urgent attention

Dear Sir, it is very urgent that you go through this [[4]], and the kind of attempts are being done by certain editors. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look at it later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)