User talk:Baangla: Difference between revisions

Line 125: Line 125:

All the best: ”[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]”<small> 11:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC).</small><br />

:Okay, thanks. I feel that it is enough for the imposition of the [[WP:ECR]] and a topic ban is unnecessary but I don’t think I can fight it.-[[User:Baangla|Baangla]] ([[User talk:Baangla#top|talk]]) 02:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Archives

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 14:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Regardless of your detailed explanation for this user,[1] as well as several editors already warning him here,[2][3] he is still violating the condition of ECR for Indian military history by endlessly arguing on related talk pages by misusing edit requests, and is also edit warring.[4][5] To make things worse, he has apparently erased the whole conversation[6] while the same issue is recurring. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 02:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited any article that I am not supposed to. I am allowed to make ECP edit requests on the Talk page of ECP articles. I have not indulged in, “endlessly arguing” on the Talk page of any ECP article. Once an editor says that something is unacceptable, I don’t request them to do it again. I have not erased anything, I have just archived it.-Baangla (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to check, please check all my edits – I have not had the last say in any of them.-Baangla (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request everyone to continue these arguments at one place, that is ZDRX’s User Talk page here as I believe that I am being hounded as per WP:HOUNDING.-Baangla (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are endlessly editing talk pages of the article where you are not allowed to make any edits apart from seeking uncontroversial edits through edit requests. Your edits involve contentious POV pushing if anything. You are WP:GAMING the system.

Also, it is not wikihounding when disruptive edits are being checked. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not POV pushing, Perception312 agrees with my edit request – please read the text after clicking the link you provided just above this. WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, “enforce a specific non-neutral point of view” is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either. All my edit requesys have been answered and I have not had the last say in any of them, so it is wrong to allege that I am, “endlessly editing talk pages of the article”.-Baangla (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will report you for hounding on the Administrators Notice board if you continue to stalk me or revert my edits on Talk pages..-Baangla (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZDRX Users are permitted to remove content from their own user talk page, this is considered an acknowledgement that it was read.

Baangla, I’m not sure that you’ve crossed the line yet, but you are dancing very close to it. I’m looking at Talk:Direct Action Day. Your requests there have not been something that no reasonable person could disagree with, and upon initial rejection you attempted to persuade the rejecting editor, engaging in discussion to achieve a consensus, which you shouldn’t be doing. If you make an edit request and it is denied, you need to move on, not attempt to persuade.

Also understand that reporting other users for viewing your edits is likely to lead to your own edits being examined closely too(WP:BOOMERANG). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baangla, you are close to being topic banned from South Asian topics. For topics that are related to South Asian social groups (castes, religious groups, political parties) or Indian military history, you can only post edit requests at article talk pages. Once you’ve posted an edit request, you need to leave it up to EC editors to evaluate and accept or reject the request. Extended back-and-forth about the requested edit is not acceptable, though a brief clarification every now and then is probably within the spirit of the guidelines. Make sure you are not pursuing conduct disputes related to this topic area at any page, including user talk pages, or asking questions about the topic area at any internal noticeboard. If you have questions about whether an action might violate the EC restriction, feel free to ask me or any recently active administrator.

I encourage you to focus more on matters that are distant by a healthy margin from the contentious topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.-Baangla (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZDRX#Indian_military_history_topics Anachronist has this to say, “What is it about my initial comment wasn’t clear? Non-EC editors are permitted to propose edits on talk pages. The document says nothing about non-administrators taking enforcement actions, so a strict reading would imply that reverting an edit request should be done only by an administrator on ECR talk pages, although it may be likely that the wording is just sloppy. “ and I believe everyone should read that – especially my User Talk page stalkers.-Baangla (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla, some of the stuff you have raised in some of the these ECR discussions is interesting and should be looked into in slow time. Realistically, you are about a month from achieving ECR status. You would benefit enormously from gaining experience in less controversial topic areas. This is something that has been suggested to you several times by different editors – they cannot all be wrong! Please do not turn yourself into a Wikipedia lawyer – it will get you indefinitely blocked amazingly quickly. You seem to be quite a thoughtful sensible person who uses sources. Develop your good attributes.— Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll reach extended-confirmed a lot faster if you stop editing while logged out. Just saying. — asilvering (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done so after I created my account.-Baangla (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Baangla: Stop editing articles in the topic area.~~ —tony 01:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. Please read the message I copied from another editors User Talk page by Anachronist – you are not allowed to revert my edits.-Baangla (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TonySt. Can you help me understand why you saw the Male Mahadeshwara Hills edits as ECR violations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Firefangledfeathers. While doing RCP, this diff came across my AV feed, which appeared to be a non-EC editor changing names and details surrounding a caste association. I can see now that the changes were apparently cosmetic, but in the diff viewer Beredevara was changed to Ber&emacr;d&emacr;var&amacr;, among other similar changes. That encoding is unfamiliar to me — typically glyphs show up normally and aren’t html encoded – and I interpreted it as a more substantial change (in GSCASTE) than it apparently was. That belief was reinforced when I checked this talk page to make sure they were aware of CT/SA and found this thread about their edits in CT/SA, last edited minutes prior to me bumbling into this conversation. I’ll be more cognizant of these encoding types and will err on the side of caution in the future 🙂 —tony 01:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sorry about that confusion Baangla — I’ll strike my comment. Take care —tony 01:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Asilvering, and Firefangledfeathers: It is clear that Baangla is finding ways to cheat the system far too often. He has already gamed[7][8][9][10][11][12] his way to gain WP:ECP. He made no less than 119 such unproductive bot-like edits.[13] His ECP should be removed because it is result of massive gaming. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, “enforce a specific non-neutral point of view” is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either.-Baangla (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the Male Mahadeshwara Hills article are not ECR violations as per TonySt and Firefangledfeathers – see their comments above yours.-Baangla (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is inaccurate. Neither were evaluating over a hundred rapid-fire one-character edits. This is the second time you’ve declared behavior that was “cleared” that has nothing to do with what was said. As I said though, I’ll see what the pinged admins say before considering making an ANI filing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not even the point. Read again what I said above. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say that; it gives many behaviors that are considered gaming. Specifically WP:PGAME which notes “making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level.” I would have not thought it earlier, but after you were told that edits you wanted wouldn’t be made because they weren’t non-controversial, you’ve gone on a massive spree adding one character per edit. Many editors have had ECP removed for doing precisely this. I was considering taking it to ANI myself, but then saw Chronos’ message (and want to see what the pinged editors say, if anything). ECP isn’t just some big technical requirement, it’s to ensure that people have some understanding of Wikipedia processes before they edit very sensitive areas. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me you did not miss the very first sentence that says ““Gaming the system” means deliberately misusing Wikipedia’s policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community.” This has to be the first time I am seeing someone “gaming” over the interpretation of the word “gaming” itself. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, “deliberately misused Wikipedia’s policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community.”-Baangla (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have. First you frequently misused edit requests for evading ECR restricted area, and then you started making unnecessary and repetitive bot-like cosmetic edits to gain ECP. If that is not “deliberately misusing Wikipedia’s policy or process”, then what it is? Not to mention that you are still trying to prove yourself right when you know there is no way for doing so. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMMEDIATELY after getting ECP, Baangla made a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack. I reverted it and was about to give a warning (I did not yet know Baangla had gained ECP. I had also previously warned the user of similar violations). It appears that the user has hastily attempted to game the system and gain ECP so as to tilt the consensus at the deletion discussion (Baangla had also attempted to comment in the same discussion before and had their comments removed by @ZDRX for violating WP:CT/IMH). I do not know if I should re-instate Baangla’s comment or not and am waiting for advice from other editors, or maybe by admins, on the situation, since I have never really dealt with users gaming the system to try and edit in contentious topic areas, so I don’t know how to proceed here. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the message by Anachronist above which says, “What is it about my initial comment wasn’t clear? Non-EC editors are permitted to propose edits on talk pages. The document says nothing about non-administrators taking enforcement actions, so a strict reading would imply that reverting an edit request should be done only by an administrator on ECR talk pages, although it may be likely that the wording is just sloppy. ” and I believe everyone should read that – especially my User Talk page stalkers.-Baangla (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist’s comment was regarding edit requests, not major engagement with articles or discussions. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chronos.Zx, I’m not familiar with whether we normally use macrons in those circumstances, but if we do, the edits are improvements, however small, and so I wouldn’t call them gaming per se. That doesn’t mean I think doing that and then immediately editing something ECR is a great idea. — asilvering (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thumbs up. I do believe that adding macrons help get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation. This source for example, mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits at Faridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted. Please see my request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefangledfeathers#Reverts – Baangla (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not enough to believe that this would be helpful for readers, since we’ve probably had a discussion about that somewhere already and come to a decision about whether or not to use macrons. It’ll be somewhere in the WP:MOS. Or people at WP:INDIA might know. — asilvering (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.— Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you’ve been in some difficulties over the past few days. Wikipedia can be a tricky place to understand. It helps if you try to think about the system from the point of view of the people who created it – it’s likely that you will understand it, and the community better.

It’s like speed limits on roads – everyone understands they are for the safety of all, so most people obey them most of the time. People who don’t… get sanctioned, unless there are very special circumstances. That doesn’t mean driving at the speed limit is always safe or even possible.

So extended confirmed is a rule to protect both editors at large and new editors. It’s applied to some articles where there is a lot of contention. It prevents people trivially creating sock puppets or new accounts just to edit that article, perhaps because they’ve been told to by some partisan group in the internet (these would be single purpose accounts setting out to Right great wrongs). It also prevents innocent new editors from blundering into a minefield. Building your edit numbers to enable you to edit contentious topics without actually gaining experience puts you at risk (as you have discovered) of getting involved in all sorts of disputes, even before you make a contentious edit.

The big question, of course, is how will you handle contentious edits? That’s why a topic ban is being suggested – it looks like, at least at the moment, it’s going to be very hard to build consensus with you. Wikipedia has content on very many contentious issues, including gun control, US politics, Israel/Palestine, where people with completely different viewpoints have come together to create useful, reliable articles. Also in those areas a significant number of editors have ended up either topic banned or denied editing rights altogether. It’s much easier to get to know how these things work before you get involved in editing these topics than after.

Hope that helps.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thanks. I feel that it is enough for the imposition of the WP:ECR and a topic ban is unnecessary but I don’t think I can fight it.-Baangla (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply