User talk:Abecedare - Wikipedia

Upcoming travel will limit my access to and time on wikipedia. Back on Sep 5th.

.

Hi, This user User talk:Pradeepchhatani is inserting his own name in various films Articles [1] , [2] , [3] ... Its really very hectic and time wasting exercise to clean up this mess.. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE... Can something be done?? Thanks -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Adamstraw99: Left them a message about wikipedia's promotional editing and COI policies. Lets see if they continue after your warning and this. Many persons don't even realize that they are not supposed to update wikipedia entries to document their life/careers. Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your action --Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think someone might have to personally explain privately to both 'the new Mrs Sheikh' and Lord Sheikh, individually, that the House of Lords and the College of Arms (the College are a non-governmental department within the Royal Household (ie Buckingham Palace) which also administers the membership list of the House of Lords) demand and require, per protocol (set out by the Palace in consultation with the Home Office and the House of Lords, and recorded in the likes of Debrett's), that the previous wife (as she still sits as a trustee and a director of Lord Sheikh's personal and family charity, according to the filings released online by Companies House and by the Charity Commission) ceases the use of the title 'Lady' upon the remarriage of a life Peer, and that might cause 'some difficulties' (to put it mildly!) in terms of relationship between Lord Sheikh and his daughter (possibly also a trustee and a director), for one thing! Lord Sheikh and Muradova probably went off to Pakistani-administered Kashmir to undergo a 'customary Islamic marriage ceremony' in 2015, thinking that it doesn't count back here in England as 'wife' for the purpose of the College and the House authorities. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked at the particulars of the subject's marriage(s), which are best discussed, along with supporting sources and awareness of due weight, by editors on the article talkpage. In the meantime, I'd suggest that you too stop speculating about the motives of the various persons involved and insinuating that the IP editing the page is one of those persons. See WP:NOTFORUM. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Peers of the Realm (such as he is, as a life Peer) are entitled to 'enroll' their (family) 'pedigrees' in the College of Arms and they generally also have the likes of the details of their marriages etc recorded and entered separately in the likes of Debrett's [4]... only those would suffice and nothing else, what I am really saying is! (The burden of proof has to be such, because the wife of a Peer, provided that the marriage ceremony (wedding) is known (and was legally valid in the first place, and the ceremony validly held), is automatically entitled to the style of (to call herself and requires herself to be called) 'Lady'.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

87.102, discussion of what sources would be acceptable is pre-mature until someone actually digs up some potential sources for the marriage(s). I am not particularly interested in the topic, so I haven't searched for sources myself. In any case, all this is best discussed at Talk:Mohamed Sheikh, Baron Sheikh, where interested editors are more likely to see it. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That would be too libellous (I suspect you might in fact be based in India rather than here in England, but who knows and also that's 'by-the-by'!)... look, here in England, copies of the latest (or reasonably modern) editions of Debretts are generally available at the British Library and 'all good' University libraries and reference libraries. This is what we (generally) go by (rely on), for things like that. (And any future discussion should bear this (discussion) in mind.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at the recent edits to Susta page. Thanks. – Jakichandan (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jakichandan and Raju Babu: The current version can perhaps be improved/split to make the distinction between the "Susta rural municipality" and the (disputed) "Susta village" territory clearer, but overall it looks to be a marked improvement over the previous versions (eg, this immediately prior one). The remaining issues can be discussed at Talk:Susta and, if needed, more editors from the India- and Nepal-wikiproject can be invited to help. Abecedare (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Abecedare: I was wondering if the Nepalese government uses the term "Susta rural Municipality" to refer to the same disputed territory or "Susta Village" and the "Susta rural municipality" is different? Moreover, the currently cited sources apparently don't give the exact detail of who currently controls the disputed territory.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

(after ec) Yes, it is confusing! Let me start this discussion on the article talkpage where more editors interested in the topic can see it, and perhaps we can figure it out. I have watchlisted the article and will chime in after I have read the sources properly, and if I have something useful to add. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Will it be okay to move this discussion from here to Talk :Susta via copy paste or should a new discussion be started there? Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jakichandan: See this. Since the above conversation between us is short enough, IMO it is easier to just repeat the pertinent bits on the article talkpage, instead of copying the whole. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have repeated on the article talk page. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Jakichandan: To address your "I was wondering if the Nepalese government uses the term "Susta rural Municipality" to refer to the same disputed territory or "Susta Village""

Possibly, although since the area and population of the municipality is larger than those of the disputed region, it may only contain the latter. But I'll need to read the source(s) in detail before I can comment with any certainty. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Jakichandan and Abecedare: According to the former administrative structure susta village (east of Gandak river) was part of Tribenisusta village development committee (ward no. 4), after restructuring of the administrative divisions (after 10 March 2017) Susta village is part of Susta rural municipality of Parasi District. Susta village has approximately 5000 acres of area only but Susta Rural Municipality has 91.24 sqkm area. The Susta village is surrounded by India from north, east and south, Gandak river flows from west whenever, Susta Rural Municipality (mainland) is situated other side of river connected with Nepal.--- 👤Raju💌 17:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Check it on google map, showing susta as a part of Nepal "Susta" (Map). Google Maps. Retrieved 17 August 2018.--- 👤Raju💌 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Raju Babu: Thanks for the additional notes. I'll take a look and comment at Talk:Susta, perhaps over the weekend. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

needed here, appreciate if you can help to take care of it. thanks. --DBigXray 18:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for catching and reporting it. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some more revdels needed from the same user Special:Contributions/Gyanigurmukhsinghkhalsa --DBigXrayᗙ 16:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks again. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick query/suggestion regarding "Any policy change proposals should be taken to WP:VPP," which seems to imply that such a block is according to policy. Were you alluding to WP:POLEMIC? A few argued that it was applicable but a significant portion of the support was seemingly due to users thinking it was the right thing to do with little mention of policy. I think the word "change" is the issue. Strike that word and the implicit assertion that such a block is according to policy goes away. I could, however, be reading more into it than is there. Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Godsy: As you suspect, you are reading more into it than was there. I simply meant that any general discussion about whether wikipedia's P&G should further codify what content, userboxes, images etc are/aren't allowable on userpages belongs at VPP.

FWIW, I believe Tony's block was entirely proper and flows directly from what wikipedia is and is not (see esp. WP:NOTSTUPID). Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, WP:NOTFREESPEECH could be argued as well. I think the block should have been based on, likely justly, the editors talk page and article contributions. I just do not think that the bare application of File:Black Sun.svg to one's userpage warrants a block as some other users seemed to believe, especially when e.g. userboxes like User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Neo-Fascist exist and are in use. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is possible that an editor may add the File:Black Sun.svg image for innocent reasons, in which case a block would be unjustified. But I don't think that hypothetical is of much value in this particular instance.

Historical aside: Back sometime in 2006-2008 there was a big wikipedia-wide debate on whether (IIRC) the Wikiproject Hinduism's welcome template should continue to include the swastika. The project members, of course, used the symbol entirely without any allusion to Nazism but that wouldn't have always been obvious to a new editors not familiar with the symbols use in India/Hinduism. Somewhere on wikipedia that debate must still be archived, and will provide all the pro-and-con arguments about such image use. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you have a few hours, read through this and this; and that was far from the only place the debate was happening. Happy reading! :) Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Since I was pinged: Yes, I’m more vocal in my belief that we should block on sight for stuff like this (and I’m willing to be the guy who makes the blocks when needed), but our pretty consistent practice for the last few years at least has been that we block people who openly display Nazi propaganda images and Nazi iconography on their userpage. NPOV (which is the principle that is usually being appealed to indirectly when these blocks come up) does not mean we have to treat the Nazi like we treat other editors: the principle mandates that we treat him in a way that is consistent with the ideals and objectives of our project and movement as well as the policies of our local community. Displaying an image like he displayed with the clear intent that he had was in itself an act of violence (emotional and mental) against a significant part of the editorial population that Nazis and white nationalists think would be better off murdered and dead. That action is inherently incompatible with everything Wikipedia stands for: it is a form of harassment against Jewish editors, editors of colour, Roma editors, LGBT editors, and anyone else that evil ideology has in the past or currently wishes dead. Such an act is disruptive because it impacts the ability of Wikipedia to function as a collaborative project, and admins have long had the discretion to block for disruptive edits not formally codified in policy but which are a detriment to the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@TonyBallioni: Perhaps that has been the practice as of late. Other than that, I largely disagree for various reasons. However, I am not willing to defend the placement of abhorrent symbols or ideology userboxes on userpages unless the need arises. The day an editor making unquestionably constructive edits (i.e. clearly leaving their ideologies out of their editing) wants to put such things on their userpage, should it ever arrive, is the day we can cross that bridge. That clearly was not the case in this instance; as I made clear at AN/I: my problem was with the block reason, not necessarily the block. Best regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the point is such a day will never come as that is an inherently disruptive action. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

This conversation reminds me of this which I recently noticed, there used to be only one tranclusion to the user's page, now none (Special:Permalink/853300451). I also just tagged this for notwebhost... Something more interesting and likely fine is this other user box. —PaleoNeonate – 09:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The closing was easy. Reading it was hard. Coffee needed and appreciated. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Toward the end Participating in it got very coffee-requiring. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Son of Kolachi (talk · contribs) started out his Wiki editing with edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir, and even after coming back from a arbitration enforcement block,[5] he still edit warred[6] on that article that it was protected by EdJohnston and now only extended confirmed users can edit it.

He is still edit warring as he edit warred on Pakistan by reverting two times[7][8] without starting or participating on talk page before 2 reverts,[9] and now that page is protected by EdJohnston and only extended confirmed users can edit it.

Son of Kolachi seems to be a sock of Mfarazbaig.

• With both exclusively working on "photo" on Pakistan,[10][11] Mfarazbaig added enough images on Pakistan.[12][13][14][15] Son of Kolachi is edit warring to restore images.[16]
• Both updated 2017 Pakistan Super League spot-fixing scandal with same reference style,[17][18] and have special interest in Pakistan#Sports.[19][20]

These similarities comes after the SPI.[21] While I note that "unrelated" result takes things into a different level, this sock farm is made up of paid editors and socks often come as "unrelated" while completely matching the behavior. It is more clear in this case that Mfarazbaig is behind this account.

Last year, when Mfarazbaig was socking as IPs,[22] (see Bearen Hunter's note on blocking this IP range) the IPs geolocated to the same area as they do with the IP, 39.57.170.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was abused by Son of Kolachi on this article before he started using his account to continue the edit war.[23][24]

In the case of Son of Kolachi, the case is clear that this is not a new user at all, he is too focused with edit warring on subjects where he is defending rather poor edits and indeed disrupting this subject by turning less controversial articles into extended confirmed protected articles and he apparently knows he should not do this. Lorstaking (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lorstaking: If you think User:Son of Kolachi should have been blocked instead of the Pakistan and Human rights abuses in Kashmir articles being edit-protected you should discuss that with the concerned admin, User:EdJohnston, although my guess is that Ed chose page-protection because the problem at those pages is not limited to one user. The rest of Son of Kolachi's recent edits should be handle-able through the regular BRD process.

As for potential socking, that is best discussed at WP:SPI. I have learned to be not-surprised at the extent of sock/meat-puppetry in this area and therefore can imagine it happening in this case too; however, given CU's "unrelated" finding at the earlier SPI filing, behavioral evidence would need to be particularly strong. Abecedare (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bbb23: @Ivanvector: You guys investigated this and the result came "Unrelated". I don't even know this guy and had no interaction with Lorstaking. Yet they tend to level an accusation against me. I don't know what to make of this. Son of Kolachi (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Abecedare, thanks for handling this. Bbb23 and I have both already declined admin action with this set of evidence: Bbb23 ran CU on Son of Kolachi against Liborbital (the sockmaster of whom Mfarazbaig is a confirmed sock) and found the accounts unrelated, and Lorstaking's behavioural analysis (the same one they've offered here) was and is unconvincing. Ed also evidently saw that the disruption is not limited to one user and saw fit to protect the page instead, which was a wise response. Lorstaking is just here adminshopping, in the same pattern as I noted ([25]) in the NadirAli topic ban thread: that Lorstaking's allies in the India-Pakistan topic war agitate through whichever venues have not already rejected them, seeking sanctions against their editorial opponents in order to "win" content disputes.

This request is harassment and it's clearly intended to be harassment. If I see any more of these repeat investigations and/or adminshopping from this group of editors, I'm going to block them. I'm done warning them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ivanvector: Read WP:BLOCKING for understanding when blocks are made. Read WP:INVOLVED for understanding that you are not allowed to block editors you feud with. Violation of either can lead to desysoping. My above request was intended to get rid of disruption and there are multiple concerns raised here. You are replying this 30 hours old thread after following a ping made by a disruptive account for continuing your WP:BATTLE and it speaks against you only. Overriding an admin call where you are WP:INVOLVED is in fact worse. Your clear assumption of bad faith only makes the problem worse. You are not allowed to protect any editor from being reported even if you weren't WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 didnt declined the report but left it open for behavioral analysis. Who told you that Mfarazbaig is a confirmed sock of Liborbital? He is unrelated to Liborbital. Which "NadirAli topic ban thread" are you recalling? There has been no such thread. Given the factual errors in your brief comment, I don't have to explain things any further but acknowledge that you can easily err. I strongly recommend you to familiarize yourself with the policies and work in a collegial environment. Alternatively, you can stay out if your presence has been completely unhelpful like here. Lorstaking (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of all this war of words and threats? If there is a specific issue, that can be dealt with at the right time and venue. Else, lets just spend the time improving some article or, you know, otherwise enjoying the weekend! Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you check here why some are restoring uncivil comments?

"If you just want to bitch about WP, go write a fucking blog and leave the rest of us alone to actually do the work of writing an encyclopedia"

Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.234 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)Reply

Thanks 109.225 for reporting that 9-day old edit. But while WP:AGF may sometimes make us appear naive, it doesn't make us stupid. Abecedare (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

My question is, is it breaking WP:IUC or not? since copying that comment in the talk page got it autocensored so you had to modify it when you quote it there. now if there is an autocensor on a comment, if that is not a rulebreak comment then what is?

Can you tell me what part of that sentence has to do with changing the article?

On another note, I suppose it does not break the Palestine vs Israel arbitration, since faith goldy did attend in Israel and was pro Israel, so them calling supporters of Israel neo Nazis is not NPOV then either or? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iJqp0sNVCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.169 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

And my question, which I'm going to look at more, is how many blocks these two IP ranges have had since at least 2012. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Evidently one, now blocked, range. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please have a look at the edit summaries of this page history -->> [26] , I Think the edit summary dated 08:09, 24 August 2018‎ is very abusive and disturbing and should not be visible on wiki... thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) I revdeleted one edit and its summary. If there are more, please report to ANI for faster response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was waiting for your to return per your notice above. It seems that I am not really going to edit enough for some days and that's why I thought of leaving the message here.

Last time Nauriya wasn't provided a systematic block and you had said you will intervene in future if there is any more "socking/copyvio/proxying".[27]

The log shows that he has violated copyrights 2 times on 23 August 2018.[28] I would remind that the overall record was found to be horrible when investigated last time, i.e. "deletion of 52 out of 118 uploaded images deleted for being copyvio". Lorstaking (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Evidently the problem is more bigger than what I have noted above. Meatpuppetry most likely occurred after the warning.[29] I tagged his most recent article as copyvio [30] and seeing more recent issues. Given the past two indef blocks[31][32] for this problem have clearly failed to resolve this disastrous issue, I believe an ANI thread would be worth it. Lorstaking (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly, @Ivanvector: did warn you against this behavior. Son of Kolachi (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

(responding to ping) I revdeleted the copyvio contribs on the linked page, which Nauriya had already removed. Regarding the August incidents, courtesy ping Diannaa. Lorstaking, if you think this is part of a pattern of inappropriate editing then do consider making a report at ANI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

He's had several warnings. I will add him to my list of people to monitor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply