User talk:EarthDude: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Please stop flooding this page with requests to preemptively protect these articles. The intention isn’t to place every single article under this CTOP restriction into permanent indefinite semi-protection. This is highlighted by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history#Preemptive_protection_GSCASTE; “Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles…” It doesn’t say they must be protected. Your requests are overwhelming that request que and are unwarranted unless you can demonstrate “…when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption”. You’ve not demonstrated it with those requests. I’m inclined to remove all of these requests. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An admin told me to do so. I had originally only filed a single entry and requested indef extended confirmed page protection as per WP:ECRCASTE. @Daniel Case had told me that it would be better for me to file an entry for all subsequent articles individually. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the intention of the restriction. The number of articles potentially subject to this number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Please stop, at least for now. @Daniel Case: Would you please comment? —Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted. Its around 160 to 170. I am only linking entries that have been put in the List of political parties in India. Anyhow, these political party articles are regularly vandalised by IPs and other editors, and this protection is needed especially as this is a contentious topic EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show how All India Hindustan Congress Party was the subject of disruption? It hasn’t even been edited since 2024. Further, the restriction applies to “all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal”, not just your targeted list. If we’re going to do this, the numbers of articles are quite huge. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single one has been, but most have. Take for instance, the Aam Aadmi Party. One of India’s biggest political parties, its page was severely vandalised, and the vandalised version stayed in place for over a week. WP:ECRCASTE very explicitly states that all articles related to “social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal” have to be placed under indef extended confirmed page protection. The section below it further states that, if admins deem so, articles falling under GSCASTE can be placed under full protection as a pre-emptive measure. The entire point is that it is a must for articles falling in this category to be placed under indef extended confirmed page protection. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT what it says. WP:ECRCASTE does NOT say “placed under indef extended confirmed page protection“. It says extended confirmed restriction, which is linked to WP:ARBECR. ONE of the tools available is protection. It is not the only tool. You are misinterpreting that statement. Many of these articles are barely touched. Bahujan Mukti Party, 1 edit this year by a bot. Gondwana Ganatantra Party 1 edit this year by an IP that made a link. Goa Suraksha Manch, 1 edit this year…by you. Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, 7 edits this year last being in May, which reverted the first 6. Not major disruption. Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh, 3 edits this year none of which are disruptive. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic is under extended confirmed restriction, that fundamentally means only extended confirmed editors are allowed to edit. The enforcement of extended confirmed restriction primarily and preferably occurs through extended confirmed page protection, and in ECRCASTE, that has been the norm as well. You may not be familiar with South Asian contentious topics, but this field of articles continues to face a level of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, WP:SOAP editing, and disruptive editing, and edit warring at a level unheard of in, say, European political articles. Having pages related to South Asian social groups be indef extended confirmed page protected is basic procedure. Why do you think even extremely obscure articles like Gihara have been indef extended confirmed page protected? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 22:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude, it’s certainly not “basic procedure”. I came here to ask you the same thing as Hammersoft. Please, this is filling up the RFPP queue and making it much harder to determine what in there is actually urgent. If an admin observes that a whole series of articles need pre-emptive protecting, they can do that themselves. Otherwise, please keep the requests to articles where there is some active disruption. — asilvering (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a little late to the party — I had some work responsibilities. I asked EarthDude to at least make these requests individually since he had thought that the way his request was worded, I would have understood that he meant all the listed political parties. So I suggested he ask individually in the expectation that it might lead to some clarification like this.

I did not think this was unreasonable, given the volume of requests we’ve dealt with regarding this same restriction in PIA articles since January’s ArbCom decision. I really think ECR is useless … it’s just a prelude to the eventual ECP, and thus more work for those who work on RFPP (a group that could always be larger). I should have read the decision text more closely … yes, it said ECR.

However, at the same time, in PIA articles we have not hesitated to ECP pre-emptively in primary-topic cases where no disruption is presently occurring. And while going through RFPP today I now learned that CT/KURD has the ECR restriction, which led to two articles about World War I battles in that theater being ECP’ed indefinitely. So it didn’t seem unreasonable, especially given that we expanded IPA to SA a couple of months ago and merged SASG (where we had already been ECP’ing indef at the slightest sign of disruption, and apparently with good reason) into it.

That said, if we said quite clearly something like what we’ve said with PIA that there is a distinction between primary topics likely to invite disruptive POV editing and other articles in the topic area but not likely to be hijacked (Quilting in Israel, say), I would be happy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bar is pretty low for the “reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption”. I’m thinking “is all belief that this article will be targeted unreasonable?”. That said, page protection is pretty mindless work, and I only have so much juice in my drudgery tank. EarthDude, if you’re willing to identify sets of twenty or so articles at a time and present a rationale for their potential disruption (recent edit warring, vandalism within the past few months, repeated unsourced editing, obviously non-neutral edits within the past few months, etc.), I’m willing to handle a couple batches a week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case @Firefangledfeathers @Asilvering Should I remove entries for political parties which are unrecognized by the election commission of India and which have had no major history involved, as basically all of the recognized or major ones have indeed had some form of disruptive editing if we see their edit histories. That with the exception for unrecognized and minor articles which have also had disruptive editing. Thoughts? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria should be simply whether the article has seen recent disruption. The requests need to be removed until they can be demonstrated to meet Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/South_Asia#Preemptive_protection_GSCASTE. That’s the criteria. Taking the inverse of that criteria in the hopes of adding clarity; “Administrators are not permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE[a] when there is not a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.” (emphasis mine). —Hammersoft (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I’d recommend removing all those requests from RFPP. If you paste the list here, I’m willing to look at it once you’ve removed the unrecognized/minor parties as you describe. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into the two new sections [“Corrupt politicians in Akali Dal” & “Casteism by Akali Dal and its Leaders
“] added in Shiromani Akali Dal added by Sandpacks. They seem to violate WP:UNDUE. PanthPunjab (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , I will change the heading of paragraphs….. Sandpacks (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV for a political party article to have sections dedicated to corruption like this. The only time I see that as DUE is if corruption has been the primary subject the party has had coverage for. As for the controversial activities section, most of it is either too minor or, in the case of caste, too ubiquitous for Indian political parties. Especially, the Opposing Simon Commission part. These two sections should be removed. If you still wish for them to be added, opening a discussion at the talk page to gauge consensus would be a better way to handle it. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]