Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
: If someone on [[Jio]] is being disruptive, you might consider page protection over blocks. Customers on Jio often bounce around on very wide IP ranges, like a /36 or a /32. I don't think I'm familiar with that SPI case, though. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
: If someone on [[Jio]] is being disruptive, you might consider page protection over blocks. Customers on Jio often bounce around on very wide IP ranges, like a /36 or a /32. I don't think I'm familiar with that SPI case, though. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for the thoughts, [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]]. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. Geolocation shows the IPv6s as using [[Reliance Communications|Reliance]] and the regular IP as using [[Bharti Airtel]]. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 03:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the thoughts, [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]]. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. Geolocation shows the IPv6s as using [[Reliance Communications|Reliance]] and the regular IP as using [[Bharti Airtel]]. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 03:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Reply from the person I emailed: "Range is too active for a range block. Protection is likely your best option." -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 03:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:48, 28 July 2020
India: Assam Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
India: Assam Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Map
Would it be appropriate for me to add the map from Assam here? It's probable that a lot of readers would benefit from visual information on the region's location. I'll do so in the next several days if there are no objections. Adlerschloß 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I support the idea of putting the map of Assam.
Deepraj 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic Group
Is the "ethic groups" of the Info box complete? What about Mising, Rabha, Tea Tribes etc? Bikram98 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The entire section as well as that part of the info box should be removed. I shall do it if someone else does not in the meantime. I am just stuck with some other work. Chaipau (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Currently the ethnic groups section is very wrong. It has very loaded political statements. It is best removed in the current form. The issue of ethnicity is complex and conflict ridden in the case of Assam. An editor should be able to reflect the complexity without pitting one ethnic group against the other.
- Bikram, of course the section is incomplete. Be bold and add more information yourself. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is very biased against Ahoms... Had they been so cruel, how come other castes and tribes so easily integrated into one community? The ahom even honoured Brahmins by giving the post of Phukan of Ahom/Assamese kingdom. They peacefully assimilated Barahi tribe into Ahom, and many people from other tribes and castes including Kalita, Brahmin etc. The last names (Bora, Borua, Saikia, Hazarika, Phukan, Gohain) of different tribes, including Muslim people states it pretty much, how similarly they were treated along with the Ahom subjects ...
Where's the reference of these claims against Ahoms?
Assamese society and culture no doubt is from pre-historical era, but, it is quite well know, how the todays integrated Assamese society and culture came to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.236.210 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Assamgirl.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Assamgirl.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Assamgirl.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
Merger proposal
I propose that the page Assamese people be merged into People of Assam. Both the articles are discussing same topic. Marlisco (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Clarification
Well, the intent of both of the articles need to be first understood!
Assamese people is an article that speaks about people from Assam region - Brahmaputra Valley, whose primary language is Asamiya or Assamese and thereby, the lineage is determined by the spoken first language Asamiya. It includes Assamese Brahmins (Indo-Aryan group), Ahoms (Indo-Mongoloid group), Kalitas, Assamese Sikhs, Assamese Muslims and all other groups whose first language is Assamese that in turn associate them with the culture, tradition and history of Assam. These groups may be migrant from different regions in the ancient period however, all of them had imbibed this language and commonly associate with it without any ambiguity. e.g., Assamese Sikhs don't even know a word of Punjabi as the common language they associate is Assamese and follow the Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress. But they are aware of their Sikh identity and do wear the five Ks.[1] In fact the Sikh community went in search of their history to Punjab however, their lineage is more embedded with Brahmaputra Valley as for the language - Assamese. The same analogy also applies to Brahmins, Muslims and others who speak Assamese.
People of Assam is a categorization within which 'Assamese people' (Assamese language speakers of Brahmaputra valley) constitutes a part. 'People of Assam' is an aggregate of Assamese people along with people from other regions of mainland Assam hills and plains - Barak Valley and Hill Districts who may strikingly differ both ethnically and linguistically. e.g., Bodo tribe speaks Bodo within the autonomous district of Bodoland, Mising, Motok, Sutiya have their own dialect variants and traditionally don't identify themselves as Assamese, as they don't contribute to the language family of Asamiya nor they may follow Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress. In Barak Valley, the primary language is Sylheti in spite of it being in Assam where the first official language is Assamese in most of the regions.
Thereby, 'People of Assam' is anyone belonging to the state of Assam that constitutes the Brahmaputra and Barak River Valleys, and the Hills; and the article cites anyone irrespective of the language family as a representative of that region.
There's no categorization under Wikipedia category as Asamiya or Assamese people unlike Tamilians or Punjabis with the justification that unlike other regions of India, Assam owing to its mixed demographics everyone is not Assamese and tribes and sub-tribes along with a few other communities identify themselves as separate and non-assamese as they may not align with the traditions and culture of Brahmaputra Valley, in general. Though that categorization existed, it was deleted with that reasoning!
So, as an approach; either a categorization be created like 'Bengali people', 'Gujrati people' and then remove the 'People of Assam' article or else retain both the articles as it is now. You cannot mix everything up! No categorization and also merging articles - both cannot be done! Undo one of these to do the other.
For Assamese people a Wikipedia categorization in the same name makes sense because of the groups who associate with the language family - Assamese and are a part of common Assamese code of conduct regarding food, social discipline and dress of Brahmaputra Valley. It is unfair not have a category for them and have that for every other community in India.
Please think! It's easy to put a proposal however, sometimes make an effort to understand the crux of it. I recommend to create a Category as Assamese people and not to merge these articles!
--Rex86 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the merge tag, it was disputed and no further discussion in two years. Fences&Windows 10:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
References
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
HbE frequencies
The HbE frequency tables are not relevant in the article, since the frequencies are determined by other factors (rainfall etc.) and interaction with other alleles. I am parking the tables here for a discussion, if needed. Here is an example of how HbE could increase in a population from less than 10% to more than 40% in about 50 years. "An increase in HbE among the Totos of Assam-West Bengal (from 0.099 in 1962 to 0.438 in 2013) with the high incidence of consanguineous marriages may also support the present conjecture." (p256)
S.No | Population
from Assam |
N(Sample size) | HbE
Frequency |
Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ahom | 125 | 0.304 | Balgir 1995 |
2 | Boro | 131 | 0.549 | Das et al. 1980 |
3 | Chutia | 62 | 0.3 | Deka et al. 1980 |
4 | Garo | 135 | 0.5 | Das et al. 1980 |
5 | Karbi | 110 | 0.227 | Deka et al. 1988 |
6 | Koch Rajbongshi | 164 | 0.35 | History of Assam by Edward Albert Gait 1906
Das & Deka 1980 |
7 | Mishing | 318 | 0.403 | Sharma and Mahanta 2009 |
8 | Sonowal | 106 | 0.396 | Deka et al. 1988 |
9 | Tiwa | 27 | 0.315 | Balgir 1995 |
S.No | Population
from Assam |
N(Sample size) | HbE
Frequency |
Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Assamese Brahmins | 98 | 0.051 | Deka 1988 |
2 | Assamese Muslims | 155 | 0.158 | Ahmed Das 1994 |
3 | Assamese Sikhs | 107 | 0.209 | Sharma Mahanta 2013 |
4 | Kaibarta | 101 | 0.133 | Deka et al. 1988 |
5 | Kalita | 104 | 0.115 | Deka 1988 |
6 | Sut | 22 | 0.023 | Balgir 1995 |
Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Other factors decrease the mutation frequency, it cannot create new mutations. Study biology first. External factors cannot create any mutation. Presence of mutation means presence of AA genes2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
- Read the article. The O2a1‐M95 is already mentioned, and you can check presence of this haplogroup in others. HbE is just not the right measure here. Look at the example of the Totos. Chaipau (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Your viewpoint doesn't matter. This is a public platform. All studies are to be included. As already stated, HbE mutation was generated in the AA population. External factors cannot create mutation in any random population out of thin air. If that were so, all ethnic groups including caste Assamese groups living in humid Assam should be having the mutation.2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
All research has equal value. Someone's POV doesn't matter here. 2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Toto is a Tibeto-Burman group with AA blood as well. Thus, it is mentioned that frequency in Totos have increased due to consanguineous marriages. Mutations may increase due to consanguineous marriage or can decrease due to environmental factors. But, the fact remains that HbE mutation is linked with AA genes. Like Totos, most Brahmins or other caste Assamese groups also undergo consanguineous marriages due to which their frequencies haven't increased. On the other hand, most of the Tibeto-Burmans have maintained their numbers too.2409:4065:E96:261F:4C97:65EB:A420:C75A (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Even if HbE is of AA origin the frequencies do not indicate how much of AA is present in a given population. The example of the Totos is an indicator. The AA portion of their population could not have increased from less than 10% to more than 40% in 50 years. If we are to then look for the presence of AA then nearly all populations have shown HbE, including Brahmins and Sikhs of Assam. So your claim, that the presence of HbE is a "detector" (your coinage, not found in the article) gene, is not just WP:OR, it is also wrong. Moreover, many linguists and authors have said the Boro-Garo languages have spread due to language shifts, not population replacement. People_of_Assam#cite_note-32. So your claim is also wrong on this count. Chaipau (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with User:Chaipau, the additions by the IP editor are a blatant misrepresentation of the source, e.g.:
- pseudo-quote by IP: "Hb E gene is a gene which is exclusively found in the Austroasiatic race and resulted as a mutation. This is actually a detector gene to show the Austroasiatic heritage of different tribes."
- Source (abstract): "A probable origin of hemoglobin E among an Austroasiatic population of Northeast India has been postulated"
–Austronesier (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Independent research
https://www.academia.edu/38616517/A_Genomic_study_on_Austro_Asiatic_and_Tibeto_Burman_Speakers_in_Northeast_India_pointing_towards_late_Neolithic_to_Bronze_Age_dispersals_from_South_East_Asia, Though it's independent research, it's useful to understand the past. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Migration timeline
1. Upper bound for all other groups and lower bound for Tibeto-Burman group isn't neutral point of view. 2. Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone. Assam is directly connected to Himalayan range. Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land. 2409:4065:D8E:665F:540F:2AF:684E:4F1D (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Yunshui: I believe this is WP:BE. I have proactively struck this through. They edited the page [1] and then reverted the edit [2]. Chaipau (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey complain box. Resolve these issues otherwise you'll be blocked. 2409:4065:D83:29BB:D997:D4C:B9A0:9A85 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's surely a self-made unsourced diagram. I reverted it because i wanted to discuss about it. 2409:4065:D83:29BB:D997:D4C:B9A0:9A85 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- AFAICS, the diagram is simply a visualization of the prose, which has loads of sources. On the other hand, what are the sources for this statement:
"Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"
? –Austronesier (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- AFAICS, the diagram is simply a visualization of the prose, which has loads of sources. On the other hand, what are the sources for this statement:
First of all, This is not diagram of neutral point of view. Lower limit for TB and upper limit for others isn't acceptable. Secondly, Assam is link between Tibet and Burma. If you can draw a diagram based on other sources than you can also infer "Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"
from geography and other sources. Thirdly, Everybody evolved from Out of Africa people. Tibet is much closer than southeast Asia. 2402:3A80:DD5:E3B2:CAA8:B7A3:66C0:91D9 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- For every dot in the diagram there is a source in the text. What are the sources for this statement:
"Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"
? –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)- This isn't a diagram of Neutral Point Of View. Seriously, Now you need source for discussion also. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:F944:D4C4:A4FB:74E5 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Don't waste our time. It's all in the article, e.g. the Tibeto-Burman date is based on DeLancey 2012. And so on. BUT: what are the sources for this statement:
"Assam belongs to Tibeto-Burman zone [...] Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"
? None, right? –Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Don't waste our time. It's all in the article, e.g. the Tibeto-Burman date is based on DeLancey 2012. And so on. BUT: what are the sources for this statement:
- This isn't a diagram of Neutral Point Of View. Seriously, Now you need source for discussion also. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:F944:D4C4:A4FB:74E5 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Why lower bound for TB and upper bound for others ? You have no answer, right? Don't waste your time in Wikipedia to spread lies. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Expected upper bound for TB is 4000-5000 years ago. Bhaskar varman claimed to come from China 4000 years ago. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Point 1. was original problem. Point 2. is just for imagining the situation. 2402:3A80:DD7:DA77:371E:2316:C228:FDBA (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bhaskarvarman also claimed to have descended from Narakasura, a mythical character, some 3000 years before him. Chaipau (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 is already answered, point 2 is moot, because earlier you said:
"Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere. They are already in own land"
, and all of a sudden you produce another unsourced and contradictive claim for TB having migrated from outside of Assam at 3k-2k BCE. –Austronesier (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Comolain box Chaipau, Go check original copper plate. Bhaskar Varman claim his origin from Cakrabhrta or Visnu God. Austronesier, People who came from China must be Chinese, not Tibetan. Bhutan was also part of Tibet. Tibet and Assam is closer than Southeast Asia and Assam. Bhaskar Varman is from 7th century. He claimed 4000 years ago. It means 700 A.D - 4000 = 3300B.C. , My question is why lower limit for TB and upper limit for other groups. It's biased and against TBs of Assam 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC) You two are sock puppet of each other. You'll be blocked very soon by unbiased Admins. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Any unbiased person will say that Lower limit of one group and Upper limit for other groups is biased edit. 2409:4065:E93:4B7B:CD94:D737:5E09:7724 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I don't think we need to engage in a discussion here with these blocked editors. Neither are these WP:CIVIL, but they are definitely WP:BE. I have gotten over my WP:AGF fixation; engaging with them are not at all productive; I have very serious doubts about their . Chaipau (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: Thank you for reminding me this time :) If things get bad in the main page, then PP will be the most handy solution. –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If you're incompetent to give any justification for your biased and useless edits then don't waste time here.2402:3A80:DC1:21A0:31E9:5ADB:C2E0:9685 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely, long unproductive discussions are not useful for anyone. Any claim supported by atleast two modern reliable sources can be included in mainspace. If it has been contradicted by other sources, should be attributed. Older sources and isolated sources can also used through attribution on the ground of author having own wikipedia page.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bhagawati: FWIW, sources can only be included if they are reliable sources per WP:RS. And no, older sources do not simply become reliable
"on the ground of author having own wikipedia page"
. A detailed WP page is dedicated to Athanasius Kircher, and yet his Oedipus Aegyptiacus is not a reliable source for a proper understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Older sources are reliable if their content is critically reviewed and corroborated by modern scholarly peer-review sources. –Austronesier (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bhagawati: FWIW, sources can only be included if they are reliable sources per WP:RS. And no, older sources do not simply become reliable
Indeed, Chaipau, you have engaged with these people admirably and at great length. Page protection would be a good start. Further admin intervention may be required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Simple English sentence - Upper bound for other groups and lower bound for Tibeto-Burman group isn't neutral point of view. 2402:3A80:DEC:75A8:5127:D6E4:1200:73B0 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC) If you ( @Austronesier: , @Richard Keatinge: ) are not biased and blind then can you ask Chaipau for this ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/960416740 ) type of disruptive edits. He removed sourced and historical fact. Yesterday, Chaipau also agreed that Boro were known as Mech ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/960538538 ). Why is he so much against Boro people ? All of his edits go against Boro people 2402:3A80:DD6:7520:4E45:E0F4:F188:F00C (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
On a whim I went checking—it seems I started Boro people some sixteen years ago. It will be sixteen in about three weeks. That was my third edit on Wikipedia. This was the version then: [3]. My second edit on Wikipedia was to correct the definition of the Bodos—then it was defined as a rebel group and I think I corrected it to mean a people [4], who were struggling to maintain their language and identity. I probably created the Bodo (community) page after creating the red-link in the Bodo page, which later on moved to finally rest at "Boro people." Much water has flown down the Brahmaputra, it seems. Now we have a sock declaring "All his edits go against Boro people". My only regret is that even after sixteen years, Boro people is in a very sorry state. It has the look of a battlefield where terrible wars were fought, the grounds soaked in blood—what we wanted instead was a lush green field with nice trees, or maybe a few beautiful buildings. (Sorry for this bit of nostalgia---the curious thing was then, in 2004, we didn't know much about references and citations!) Chaipau (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Huh, 16 years ago , You tried to increase your edit count but now you become a dominant and arrogant. You're also attacking the Identity. It's clearly visible from your edits. Now, same goes for your community , Read Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India by Yasmin Saikia. 2402:3A80:DC4:2D56:589B:4E6D:5BA:987C (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) We're not struggling to maintain anything. Languageless cultureless communities like Chaipau's community are fighting against Boro to erase our History, Language and Culture. It's because they have taken everything from us. Mastermind like Chaipau are creator of all the conflict in Assam. 2409:4065:99:BFAA:BCFA:5B83:6DE6:76B4 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the above justifies admin action. Austronesier, what is your advice? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Richard Keatinge: these WP:CIVIL and WP:PA issues in the Talk space, though against WP policies, I am ignoring for now. I think with a little push we could get the article ready for an RfC(?) to get the cleanup tag removed. Chaipau (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If you can't be unbiased then don't waste your time. 42.108.36.85 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the cleanup tag. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Richard Keatinge: indeed it does. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the cleanup tag. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Personal attack is not acceptable in any case. The editor is in two minds, e.g. he stresed above "Tibeto-Burman don't have to migrate anywhere.They are already in own land", also claimed "Boro means great man, Borofisa means Son of the great man. We were Chinese immigrants".भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- To see edit warrings between Bhaskar Bhagwati and Chaipau , Just check edit revisions in Varman dynasty. They are most rival editors to push POV in kamarupa kingdom. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- That diagram give speculated upper bound for others but lower bound for TBs. Editor should give speculated upper bound for TBs. I consider that diagram as biased and against TBs of Assam. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you really care about reliability then remove all the doubtful references from Assamese pages. In fact, Books published under government of Assam are also biased. To know more about biased scholarship in Assam , read Searching for Historiography of Kamarupa by Jae-Eun-Shin. 2402:3A80:DD2:B5FC:92A4:A278:A484:C34F (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sock edits
@Drmies: The ew IP is most likely a sock of User:Sairg. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I agree. Pinging MelanieN. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Shifting IPv6, not worth tracking down or blocking. I semi-protected for two months this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, we might could block this and this. It's not just our disruptor on those ranges, but a few spot checks I did showed nothing but poorly-written and unreferened throwaway edits. Conversely, we can semi-protect the talk page--but what I'd like to see also is a re-assessment of article quality (last done 8 years ago) and a good scrubbing (I just made some copy edits to the lead), because the better an article is the more easily I can justify semi-protecting a talk page. I'm interested in your and other editors' thoughts. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting you should suggest that, Drmies. I recently sent an email to a checkuser friend, wondering about rangeblocks, but they haven't gotten back to me yet. I communicated by email because I know you all can't publicly link IPs with user names. I'll send you the same email. We have recently had five IPv5s and one regular IP here that all seem to be singing out of the same choir book. I agree the article is far from high quality, and the same is true of several related articles, but I don't know enough about the subject to contribute constructively. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, well, never mind - I see you took care of it already. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, not all the Wikipedia emails make it through my university's filter. I've only blocked one IP, the most recent one, basically for dickishness, but I have not placed the rangeblocks. I am perfectly happy being guided by whoever your CU friend is. BTW I have not run CU, but I can have a look at the SPI, if there is one. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is so much on these ranges, I don't know what to look for and I don't see anything obvious. I need some backup here--maybe from Materialscientist, L235, ST47, NinjaRobotPirate, Callanecc, AmandaNP, TonyBallioni--all of them have run CU on these ranges... Maybe we should just block half the subcontinent. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- The SPI is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sairg/Archive. The most recent named sock was Logical Man 2000, in May 2020. Since then they seem to have decided to use IPs. By my count five IPv6s and one regular IP. They all have identical geolocation; the regular IP lists a different provider. Should I list them? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, we might could block this and this. It's not just our disruptor on those ranges, but a few spot checks I did showed nothing but poorly-written and unreferened throwaway edits. Conversely, we can semi-protect the talk page--but what I'd like to see also is a re-assessment of article quality (last done 8 years ago) and a good scrubbing (I just made some copy edits to the lead), because the better an article is the more easily I can justify semi-protecting a talk page. I'm interested in your and other editors' thoughts. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Shifting IPv6, not worth tracking down or blocking. I semi-protected for two months this time. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- If someone on Jio is being disruptive, you might consider page protection over blocks. Customers on Jio often bounce around on very wide IP ranges, like a /36 or a /32. I don't think I'm familiar with that SPI case, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts, NinjaRobotPirate. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. Geolocation shows the IPv6s as using Reliance and the regular IP as using Bharti Airtel. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)