User talk:ZDRX/Archive 20: Difference between revisions

Line 1: Line 1:

== Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction ==

{{Ivmbox

|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg

|imagesize=50px

|1=The following sanction now applies to you:

{{Talkquote|1=You’ve received a formal, logged warning about edit warring in the [[WP:CT/SA]] topic area.}}

You have been sanctioned because you returned to edit warring [[The Bengal Files]] immediately after the end of a full protection period.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]’s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics procedure]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2025|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments|the appeal process]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you.<!– Template:AE sanction –> [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

}}

: I considered a block, but I was glad to see you posted once at the talk page during the protection period. This was not enough of an earnest attempt at dispute resolution, but it was something. No more edit warring. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} I posted at least 6 times on talk page of which 4 times was relevant to the content which was being removed by another user with a misleading edit summary.[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=ZDRX&page=Talk%3AThe+Bengal+Files&server=enwiki&max=] How come 1 revert for undoing such an edit for restoring the status quo can be considered “edit warring”? ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 16:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::I said “you posted once at the talk page ”during the protection period””. The point of the protection was to stop the edit warring. Since that didn’t work, I’m trying individual sanctions. Yes, one revert can be considered edit warring. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} But that can be said for anyone at this stage whoever would be reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bengal_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1310767164 this misleading content removal]. I hope you are not saying it was not required to be undone. How could the problem be fixed without reverting in the first place? The misleading content removal remained there for more than 1 hour and 30 minutes and nobody was reverting. If there was 0RR rule in the place then I wouldn’t be reverting at all but it wasnt there. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::::By building consensus for a particular change instead of reverting. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} Then there was nothing wrong with that 1 revert at all because there is consensus on talk page that the sources support the content removed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bengal_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1310767164 this edit]. No rebuttal was ever provided against it. The revert I made was enforcing consensus. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 16:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::ZDRX, if that turns out to be the case, I’ll withdraw the warning and apologize. Could you please direct me toward the discussion where consensus was formed? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bengal_Files#On_Historical_Context_and_Sources discussion] was started by ADWikiax for gaining consensus to remove the word “propaganda”. Not just me, but multiple other editors confirmed that the wording is supported by the cited source. No “reliable source that describe how this movie is not a propaganda movie” was ever provided. If anything, an individually uploaded Youtube video was being offered to show “this guy exposed those newspaper articles calling this as propoganda,”[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bengal_Files#c-RIP_B1058-20250908123200-Computeracct-20250907195100] contrary to [[WP:RS]]. The discussion died out after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AADWikiax ADWikiax] faced a block from you for editing this topic despite warnings that he was not an ECP user as of yet. The discussion justified the wording in line with Wikipedia policies, and there was no consensus to remove the content in question. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 17:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I’ve reviewed that discussion and the rest of what is currently on the talk page. My assessment—while evaluating only the views of extended-confirmed users and discarding comments that are obviously at odds with policy/guideline—is that there is not yet clear consensus for any version when it comes to “propaganda film” and “falsely”. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} If you are going to count only ECP editors, then only 2 editors wanted removal while 3 editors (me included) wanted to retain the content per talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bengal_Files#On_Historical_Context_and_Sources discussion here]. In order to remove the content in question, one is supposed to provide the sufficient reasoning backed with reliable sources as to why the content was not warranted. That did not happen so far, and that’s why I said there has been no consensus to remove it because no policy based reasoning was ever provided to remove the said content.

:::::::::For these reasons, I would still request you to remove the warning. Thanks ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 18:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That’s my count as well. In order to include content, you’re also supposed to convince a consensus of editors that the sources provided are reliable enough to verify the content and show that it is due, and otherwise neutrally presented. I’m not seeing that. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} Those reasons were already provided by EarthDude who specified how the sourced were reliable and that we could rely on their information. Counting only ECP editors, the opposition came offered by Computeracct who believed that there are enough positive reviews thus the movie shouldn’t be called “propaganda” (as if “propaganda” movies dont recieve positive reviews) and RIP B1058 who merely linked to an individually uploaded YouTube video contrary to WP:RS. These types of objections are not in line with Wikipedia policies. Do you agree that consensus was supposed to be achieved before removing the content in question? ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 19:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I had discounted the YouTube argument. I was counting Arorapriyansh333’s view, even though it was expressed in a different section. Your last question is tough to answer. Ideally, all changes that are disputed lead to discussion, then consensus, then restoration. This applies whether its addition or removal. If anything, addition has the higher burden to bear, considering [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} It is good to see that you are giving no credibility to the YouTube link argument, but I would like to know what basis have you found in the messages from Computeracct. His whole argument was that there are enough positive reviews thus the movie shouldn’t be called “propaganda”. He also provided no counter sources that stated that the movie was historically accurate and not communally motivated. How would you consider Computeracct’s argument to be policy-based?

Consensus building through [[WP:ONUS]] means offering substantial arguments, rather than just venting and attacking the article like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bengal_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1310393501 Arorapriyansh333 did]. He also wrongly claimed that a movie having some “positive reviews” means it is no longer a propaganda movie. The user did not provide any sources that disputed the propaganda characterization or the distortion of history by this film. To say that this was argument was relevant to consensus building rather than a misplaced rant is incorrect. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 03:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

:I have considered your points, but I don’t see, as an admin, any reason to discount those views. Since I don’t see a consensus, I am not going to revoke the warning. You are welcome to appeal, with instructions in the AE sanction template. If you are correct about the lack of any valid counterargument, dispute resolution (like DRN or an RFC) is very likely to result in support for your proposed version. I encourage you to direct your efforts in that direction. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

== Indian politics ==

Hello! I see that you regularly engage with articles related to Indian politics, including its political history, political culture, and the like. I really appreciate your efforts. I’d like to invite you to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics|WikiProject Indian politics]], where interested editors can come together and collaborate to improve the quality and depth of Indian political content on Wikipedia. There are dedicated To-Do Lists and Open Task Dashboards, as well as other features to support this work. The talk page can be used for discussions about enhancing coverage of Indian politics, coordinating project activities, or addressing topics such as requested page moves, RfCs, or AfDs related to Indian political content. Keep in mind that the core of a Wikipedia WikiProject is the community, not just the content; how the community organizes and collaborates to improve the project’s focus area matters most. We’d be happy to have you join us and share your input there. Cheers! — [[User:EarthDude|”’EarthDude”']] ([[User talk:EarthDude|”wanna” ”talk?”]]) 09:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

== ECR and Agnihotri films ==

Hi, I see no evidence that [[The Kashmir Files]] and [[The Bengal Files]] are under the [[WP:ECR|extended confirmed restriction]]; the latter page may be EC protected, but that’s not the same thing. The only south Asian topics that are under ECR be default are caste and Indian military history, neither of which covers these pages. Unless you have other evidence that they were placed under ECR, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&curid=1278223&diff=1316301739&oldid=1316295892 this revert] isn’t appropriate. Best, [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} [[The Kashmir Files]] absolutely falls under Indian military history because the movie was all about [[Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir]] and [[Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus]], both about Indian military history. Similarly, [[The Bengal Files]] is also related to Indian military history because the Indian riots which the movie talks about involved intervention of military. Admin Rosguill had earlier cancelled a DRN request involving this movie because it concerned Indian military history.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1310255366] ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 11:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

::That’s an overly broad interpretation. Portions of our articles about the insurgency, the exodus, and the riots, are covered by ECR, but the whole topics are not, and the movies are two degrees removed from any military intervention. {{U|Rosguill}}’s removal of the DRN report was correct, but the dispute being brought there explicitly involved military history in Kashmir. By your reasoning, all articles about violence in which the army was called in would be entirely covered by ECR, which is not an interpretation I have seen anywhere. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 16:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:::I do think that most of the article is covered by either military history or social groups restrictions; in theory stuff like (some) reviews, production details, and box office details are not covered, but in practice the articles have been edit war flashpoints because of their overlap with the contentious topic.

:::Separately, I think {{tq|all articles about violence in which the army was called in would be entirely covered by ECR}} is a good interpretation–what content concerning violence with involvement of the army ”wouldn’t” be contentious to your mind? signed, [[User:Rosguill|””’Rosguill””’]] [[User talk:Rosguill|”talk”]] 17:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

::::The Indian army is routinely summoned to conduct a show of force to quell violence – it is virtually never a participant. I don’t think a [[flag march]] renders an event a part of military history specifically. Most such incidents are likely covered by the social groups part of the restriction, but that’s a different matter. So in my view most of these two pages are not covered by military history ECR. {{pb}} I can accept that the social groups ECR, as written, covers this. “Social groups” is very widely interpretable. There, too, however, I suspect the community is not used to such an interpretation. GSCASTE used the wording “social groups”, but largely in reference to ethnicity, tribal affiliation, and “caste” with its various interpretations. If we extend this to include religion, a very large number of pages immediately come within its purview, and ought to be EC-protected at once. Perhaps this is worth raising at ARCA. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::I’d agree with the flag march example, but I do think that the moment that the military is involved in actual violent activity (whether as target or perpetrator), it becomes part of “military history” broadly construed. I think that particularly in the context of India, religion is a relevant social group because of how it interacts with caste status. signed, [[User:Rosguill|””’Rosguill””’]] [[User talk:Rosguill|”talk”]] 20:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

== Need Some Clarity on your comment ==

Hi @[[User:ZDRX|ZDRX]], I saw your comment on Dispute resolution notice board about me. You said I am still not abiding by the rule but I never edited that draft: Anuradhapura invasion of Chola. Can you explain this? [[User:Ranithraj|Ranithraj]] ([[User talk:Ranithraj|talk]]) 16:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ranithraj}} You are discussing Indian military history,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1316386108] despite you are not an ECP editor. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 17:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

::Actually for that, I didn’t voluntarily discussing about that . Other user has started the discussion. So I was supposed to do it. [[User:Ranithraj|Ranithraj]] ([[User talk:Ranithraj|talk]]) 00:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ranithraj}} I have now updated my DRN message. I would also like to let you know that you can ignore dicussing the topic even if someone else is asking you to do it. ”’THEZDRX”' ([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | ([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]]) 02:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

::::ok , got it . Thankyou [[User:Ranithraj|Ranithraj]] ([[User talk:Ranithraj|talk]]) 03:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

== Gendered pronouns ==

I note that you have used gendered pronouns for me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kautilya3&diff=prev&oldid=1316538868 here]. As it says on my user talk page already, and as I am happy to repeat now as a polite request, please refrain from using gendered pronouns for me. [[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 06:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ZDRX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I considered a block, but I was glad to see you posted once at the talk page during the protection period. This was not enough of an earnest attempt at dispute resolution, but it was something. No more edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I posted at least 6 times on talk page of which 4 times was relevant to the content which was being removed by another user with a misleading edit summary.[1] How come 1 revert for undoing such an edit for restoring the status quo can be considered “edit warring”? THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 16:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I said “you posted once at the talk page during the protection period“. The point of the protection was to stop the edit warring. Since that didn’t work, I’m trying individual sanctions. Yes, one revert can be considered edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: But that can be said for anyone at this stage whoever would be reverting this misleading content removal. I hope you are not saying it was not required to be undone. How could the problem be fixed without reverting in the first place? The misleading content removal remained there for more than 1 hour and 30 minutes and nobody was reverting. If there was 0RR rule in the place then I wouldn’t be reverting at all but it wasnt there. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

By building consensus for a particular change instead of reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Then there was nothing wrong with that 1 revert at all because there is consensus on talk page that the sources support the content removed in this edit. No rebuttal was ever provided against it. The revert I made was enforcing consensus. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 16:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

ZDRX, if that turns out to be the case, I’ll withdraw the warning and apologize. Could you please direct me toward the discussion where consensus was formed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The discussion was started by ADWikiax for gaining consensus to remove the word “propaganda”. Not just me, but multiple other editors confirmed that the wording is supported by the cited source. No “reliable source that describe how this movie is not a propaganda movie” was ever provided. If anything, an individually uploaded Youtube video was being offered to show “this guy exposed those newspaper articles calling this as propoganda,”[2] contrary to WP:RS. The discussion died out after ADWikiax faced a block from you for editing this topic despite warnings that he was not an ECP user as of yet. The discussion justified the wording in line with Wikipedia policies, and there was no consensus to remove the content in question. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 17:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed that discussion and the rest of what is currently on the talk page. My assessment—while evaluating only the views of extended-confirmed users and discarding comments that are obviously at odds with policy/guideline—is that there is not yet clear consensus for any version when it comes to “propaganda film” and “falsely”. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: If you are going to count only ECP editors, then only 2 editors wanted removal while 3 editors (me included) wanted to retain the content per talk page discussion here. In order to remove the content in question, one is supposed to provide the sufficient reasoning backed with reliable sources as to why the content was not warranted. That did not happen so far, and that’s why I said there has been no consensus to remove it because no policy based reasoning was ever provided to remove the said content.

For these reasons, I would still request you to remove the warning. Thanks THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 18:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s my count as well. In order to include content, you’re also supposed to convince a consensus of editors that the sources provided are reliable enough to verify the content and show that it is due, and otherwise neutrally presented. I’m not seeing that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Those reasons were already provided by EarthDude who specified how the sourced were reliable and that we could rely on their information. Counting only ECP editors, the opposition came offered by Computeracct who believed that there are enough positive reviews thus the movie shouldn’t be called “propaganda” (as if “propaganda” movies dont recieve positive reviews) and RIP B1058 who merely linked to an individually uploaded YouTube video contrary to WP:RS. These types of objections are not in line with Wikipedia policies. Do you agree that consensus was supposed to be achieved before removing the content in question? THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 19:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I had discounted the YouTube argument. I was counting Arorapriyansh333’s view, even though it was expressed in a different section. Your last question is tough to answer. Ideally, all changes that are disputed lead to discussion, then consensus, then restoration. This applies whether its addition or removal. If anything, addition has the higher burden to bear, considering WP:ONUS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: It is good to see that you are giving no credibility to the YouTube link argument, but I would like to know what basis have you found in the messages from Computeracct. His whole argument was that there are enough positive reviews thus the movie shouldn’t be called “propaganda”. He also provided no counter sources that stated that the movie was historically accurate and not communally motivated. How would you consider Computeracct’s argument to be policy-based?

Consensus building through WP:ONUS means offering substantial arguments, rather than just venting and attacking the article like Arorapriyansh333 did. He also wrongly claimed that a movie having some “positive reviews” means it is no longer a propaganda movie. The user did not provide any sources that disputed the propaganda characterization or the distortion of history by this film. To say that this was argument was relevant to consensus building rather than a misplaced rant is incorrect. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 03:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I have considered your points, but I don’t see, as an admin, any reason to discount those views. Since I don’t see a consensus, I am not going to revoke the warning. You are welcome to appeal, with instructions in the AE sanction template. If you are correct about the lack of any valid counterargument, dispute resolution (like DRN or an RFC) is very likely to result in support for your proposed version. I encourage you to direct your efforts in that direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you regularly engage with articles related to Indian politics, including its political history, political culture, and the like. I really appreciate your efforts. I’d like to invite you to WikiProject Indian politics, where interested editors can come together and collaborate to improve the quality and depth of Indian political content on Wikipedia. There are dedicated To-Do Lists and Open Task Dashboards, as well as other features to support this work. The talk page can be used for discussions about enhancing coverage of Indian politics, coordinating project activities, or addressing topics such as requested page moves, RfCs, or AfDs related to Indian political content. Keep in mind that the core of a Wikipedia WikiProject is the community, not just the content; how the community organizes and collaborates to improve the project’s focus area matters most. We’d be happy to have you join us and share your input there. Cheers! — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see no evidence that The Kashmir Files and The Bengal Files are under the extended confirmed restriction; the latter page may be EC protected, but that’s not the same thing. The only south Asian topics that are under ECR be default are caste and Indian military history, neither of which covers these pages. Unless you have other evidence that they were placed under ECR, this revert isn’t appropriate. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The Kashmir Files absolutely falls under Indian military history because the movie was all about Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, both about Indian military history. Similarly, The Bengal Files is also related to Indian military history because the Indian riots which the movie talks about involved intervention of military. Admin Rosguill had earlier cancelled a DRN request involving this movie because it concerned Indian military history.[3] THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 11:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s an overly broad interpretation. Portions of our articles about the insurgency, the exodus, and the riots, are covered by ECR, but the whole topics are not, and the movies are two degrees removed from any military intervention. Rosguill‘s removal of the DRN report was correct, but the dispute being brought there explicitly involved military history in Kashmir. By your reasoning, all articles about violence in which the army was called in would be entirely covered by ECR, which is not an interpretation I have seen anywhere. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I do think that most of the article is covered by either military history or social groups restrictions; in theory stuff like (some) reviews, production details, and box office details are not covered, but in practice the articles have been edit war flashpoints because of their overlap with the contentious topic.

Separately, I think all articles about violence in which the army was called in would be entirely covered by ECR is a good interpretation–what content concerning violence with involvement of the army wouldn’t be contentious to your mind? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The Indian army is routinely summoned to conduct a show of force to quell violence – it is virtually never a participant. I don’t think a flag march renders an event a part of military history specifically. Most such incidents are likely covered by the social groups part of the restriction, but that’s a different matter. So in my view most of these two pages are not covered by military history ECR. I can accept that the social groups ECR, as written, covers this. “Social groups” is very widely interpretable. There, too, however, I suspect the community is not used to such an interpretation. GSCASTE used the wording “social groups”, but largely in reference to ethnicity, tribal affiliation, and “caste” with its various interpretations. If we extend this to include religion, a very large number of pages immediately come within its purview, and ought to be EC-protected at once. Perhaps this is worth raising at ARCA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I’d agree with the flag march example, but I do think that the moment that the military is involved in actual violent activity (whether as target or perpetrator), it becomes part of “military history” broadly construed. I think that particularly in the context of India, religion is a relevant social group because of how it interacts with caste status. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ZDRX, I saw your comment on Dispute resolution notice board about me. You said I am still not abiding by the rule but I never edited that draft: Anuradhapura invasion of Chola. Can you explain this? Ranithraj (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ranithraj: You are discussing Indian military history,[4] despite you are not an ECP editor. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 17:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually for that, I didn’t voluntarily discussing about that . Other user has started the discussion. So I was supposed to do it. Ranithraj (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ranithraj: I have now updated my DRN message. I would also like to let you know that you can ignore dicussing the topic even if someone else is asking you to do it. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 02:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

ok , got it . Thankyou Ranithraj (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I note that you have used gendered pronouns for me here. As it says on my user talk page already, and as I am happy to repeat now as a polite request, please refrain from using gendered pronouns for me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply