User talk:Shaan Sengupta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thank you!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, Shaan Sengupta,

I just wanted to thank you for putting together such a comprehensive SPI case. It turns out that the socking was more extensive than we thought and goes back further in time. This sockmaster doesn't seem to be able to stay away from editing on the project and since you edit in the area of Indian politics, I hope you'll file updated cases if similar behavior regarding elections and small political parties reappears. I believe the SPI case will be merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007 so this might be where you need to go in the future. Thanks again for your time and effort to stop the disruption that was occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I thank you for your appreciation. I always look to work collaboratively with newbies and take guidance from seniors to engage well and make this project more better. I believe I could have made more contribution regarding these disruptions but its just that I am always under attack (sometimes even from senior editors) bcoz of my political ideology, so I prefer to just step back from those types. People notice my ideology on my userpage but never go through my contribution history which shows that I have always kept apart my edits and my ideology. Maybe the community (with my work) will someday understand this and be a little less harsh. Thanks again and Cheers! ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tamil Nadu elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks for your understanding.

The next period of protection will probably have to be a month and the one after that, I imagine, can go through to the election. If you like, feel free to ping me since I'm aware of the backstory (though I'd still probably register a request a RPPI). Chetsford (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I would surely register a request at RfPPI, maybe can consider pinging you as you said you are aware of the backstory. Thank you again. ShaanSengupta^Talk 12:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Shaan Sengupta User Maphumor is continuously seen to contest in edit warring. He is imposing his orginal researches and probably is seemed to uplift or suppress particular political ideology. He is reverting sourced edits (or previously sourced). Please do something. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706 I have seen that but maximum that you can do is, first warn them with WP:NOR notices at their talk page when you revert their edits.

• First revert Template:Uw-nor1
• Second revert Template:Uw-nor2
• Third revert Template:Uw-nor3
• Fourth revert Template:Uw-nor4

If they still don't stop and continue with it you can report them at WP:ANI. But be sure to atleast serve two warnings before going there. As that platform is for behavioral issues and not content disputes. You need to show that you have tried engaging with them but they are not ready to collaborate. On a second thought you can actually go to ANI now also because they already have received so much disruption notice before. You might know all of this but this is what I can suggest right now. ShaanSengupta^Talk 10:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we run a CU?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello @Ivanvector and @Spicy couldn't decide whose talk page should I go to so I chose mine. A strange thing happened moments ago. Someone tried to impersonate me with Shaan Sengupta 2.0. And they went further with trying to get my account blocked by filing a request at WP:ANI here. I saw that and immediately requested to get'em blocked which they are. Their userpage is deleted which they copied completly from mine. I suspect that this might be in response to my recent involvements.

• May be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007/Archive where the last sock was blocked by Spicy. Now the reason to suspect this us bcoz I have been involved in getting 6-7 of their sock accounts blocked.
• Or maybe this has something to do with disputes going on at Talk:Bangladesh genocide and Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War where I have been targeted frequently and have struck nearly all of the block evasion comments. Here the last set of socks were blocked by Ivanvector.

Can we run a CU to see if this was a try by anyone of these? Pinging other involved Admins/CU mostly with Bangladesh article IP evasions. @Isabelle Belato, @Robertsky and @Vanjagenije ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ohk. Meanwhile I was writing this, Spicy has already found that this was a try by the sock. My doubt was correct. Thank you so much. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archival of RFCBEFORE material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it really Wikipedia:Gaming the system to prevent very relevant WP:RFCBEFORE material from being archived? In fact, I'd argue that forcing its archival is gaming the system. Frankly, 30 days is too short. But I'm happy to get an opinion from an admin, if you like. Malerisch (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Robertsky, who dealt with a similar dispute over archiving at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Shaan Sengupta has reverted this diff of mine, which was meant to prevent the archival of Talk:Bangladesh genocide#Disruptive edits by Lionel Messi Lover, a very relevant WP:RFCBEFORE thread that directly led to the ongoing RfC on that talk page. The archival period of the talk page is only 30 days. Was my comment reasonable? Malerisch (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch I never forced its archival. I just did what should have been done naturally. You clearly mentioned that you were commenting only to prevent the discussion from getting automatically archived. This shouldn't be done by an experienced editor like you or me otherwise the new users or IPs will also start doing same to stop threads from being archived. Also by your actions it is quite possible that if the thread doesn't see any action again then you might post a comment like this in future to prevent further archiving. Till when can it go like this? Is this correct. I am not against keeping or archiving. I just want proper method to be followed. As for 30 days, we are not the right people to decide. I agree to ask an admin. Since you have pinged one I shall leave it to them. Let's listen to his point before moving forward. ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I just think that it's WP:COMMONSENSE for WP:RFCBEFORE material to not suddenly be archived in the middle of an ongoing RfC, and I thought that leaving a comment would be the simplest method to accomplish that. I'm fine with the thread being archived after the RfC ends. But I will accept whatever the admin's opinion is. Malerisch (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Look that discussion is inactive bcoz of a reason. It was filed bcoz someone thought someone is being disruptive. That thing ended and the thing which replaced it was the content which should be there of the page. And this is already being discussed in the RfC. So I don't think that to discuss the same thing multiple threads are needed. Previous threads were all sandwiched that's why new RfC was started which again is sandwiched. So previous ones with little to no activity can be archived so that fresh discussions can be held. It would be helpful for newbies also is backlog is clear. This will prevent their point of view to be influenced by others. Rest I too am willing to leave on the admin. ShaanSengupta^Talk 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1. If anyone thinks that 30 days is too short and boldly set to a longer archival period but was reverted, per WP:BRD, open a discussion on the talk page about setting a reasonable archival period.
2. By the way, there are more elegant ways to temporarily delay automatic archival, such {{DNAU}} template (of course, please pair it with {{pin}} or {{bump}} with an appropriate explanation for other editors explaining the delay in archival). With this template, one can delay the archival in a more granular manner, i.e. instead of 30 days, you can set it to be archived in 2 or 3 weeks time.
3. If you are involved in a current conversation... Just let the bot do the work, lest others accuse you for trying to influence the discussion in one way or another, unless the thread to be archived is noncontroversial, i.e. a relatively inconsequential edit request.
4. I have not looked in depth the content of the two sections. But are there points from the earlier section that are not already in the RfC? If so, let it just archive itself. If not, you can also leave a note to the closer somewhere in the current conversation that there is an archived thread to be taken into consideration. An experienced RfC closer may then look at that archived thread. (Personally, I prefer that the early conversation being archived as the page size of the talk page is getting heavier as the RfC rolls on.)
5. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any rules or guidelines against archiving WP:RFCBEFORE material while the RfC is ongoing. A lot of RFCBEFORE discussions starts on non-related talk pages actually, i.e. at the various Village Pumps, user talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc, before moving to the relevant talk pages for the actual RfC. These threads end up being archived even early in the RfC conversation. And either the participants have a list/index of relevant prior discussions in the current discussion, or the references to prior discussions in the current discussion would be a clue to look for them in the relevant archives.

– robertsky (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept letting the discussions automatically archive themselves. There are points I've made in that thread that I haven't mentioned in the RfC, so I'll add a link to the thread in my !vote once it's archived. Malerisch (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is solved. Shall I close this now @Malerisch? ShaanSengupta^Talk 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Malerisch (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.