User talk:Baangla

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

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]

Continued violation of ECR

[edit]

@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]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Baangla! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

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]
Here to help you 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 Berēdēvarā, 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]

WP:ANI

[edit]

Information icon 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]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Baangla! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Responding to responses on the Talk page of Extended confirmed protected articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Some friendly advice

[edit]

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]
Please see the comments by LordCollaboration at ANI.-Baangla (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: I have not indulged in vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming, editing with a conflict of interest or having a prohibited username. There was talk of a topic ban at ANI and suddenly, you come and block me indefinitely. Please give me the reason for skipping the topic ban and directly blocking me indefinitely. Novalite82, a now blocked user, came and requested an indefinite block and I just asked why a new user should request it - I don't think that that should elicit an angry response from the admins'. Can you at least change this indefinite block to a topic ban?-Baangla (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no anger in my decision to block you indefinitely. I will not unblock, so you'll need to convince ANOTHER admin to do it. The ANI thread was created to address to examine your prior bad WP:PGAMEing and that behavior was addressed by removing your automatically granted EC. So you've already been convicted, so to speak. It all would have ended there but you kept saying things. I took about an hour and read every one of your contributions to date. Wikipedians naturally assume good faith because it's a central pillar of our movement. But in that ANI discussion you abuse that good faith, especially after ECP was removed. You did game your permissions. But you were still using sarcasm with an uninvolved admin after they suggested an indef block. So the OP's suspicions were validated, and User:Mfield's interpretation of the situation was validated. I'd be willing to consider a lowering of block duration, but you'll need to admit to wrongdoing. So far you misunderstand your situation rather badly. BusterD (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: I apologise for any wrongdoing. At the ANI, the other admins were suggesting a topic ban and I had agreed to it. I was shocked to see you come and impose an indefinite block, without first imposing a topic ban. Please lower my block (as you suggested above). I promise to abide by the rules (and please let me know the rules I need to follow, especially what to avoid after a topic ban - if that is what you lower my block to).-Baangla (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baangla - the best route to get unblocked is to make 6 months of useful contributions to another language Wikipedia. Then come back, having shown that you can be a net positive contributor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for correcting you, but the best route to get unblocked is to file a proper unblock request and make an appealing case. I've already stated my lack of willingness to unblock. In a taunting claim to MField at ANI, Baangla claims to have read the blocking policy. This is all up to Baangla now. BusterD (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In their unblock request below, Baangla ignores my desire to see them admit to specific misbehavior. Once again they have made a blanket promise of reform in order to obtain their ends. I call that gaming behavior as well. Given proven accusations of gaming and previous grand statements they'd act more responsibly, it's fair to request admission of specific errors they have been made aware of making. BusterD (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deign to boldly make one last attempt at explanation: I did not offer to change your indefinite block to a ban of any kind. That action is beyond the power of any admin, as your reading of WP:TBAN has surely shown you. In my offer ...to consider a lowering of block duration I suggested the need for trust between you and I to be demonstrated BEFORE I helped you. If your appeal to me is successful, then I'd be reducing the block length from indefinite down to 30-90 days. You'd still be blocked. For background I've been blocked and hated it; being blocked did not calm me down. It made me angry. The community has yet to decide on the TBAN matter, and their decision will be made without your (or my) further input. To get unblocked you need to convince me or an uninvolved administrator we can trust you. That means admission, repentance, and demonstration of willingness to change behavior. I see editors in the ANI discussion who seem to have more abundant good faith in you than I now do; perhaps one of them might one day offer to mentor you as an alternative to blocking or banning. From this point on, your block request will be answered by another trusted servant of the pedia. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: Okay, please reduce my indefinite block to a block of 30 days. Please also let me know what rules I need to read up before I start editing here again. Anger will only make my Blood Pressure shoot up, it will not harm others, what is the point of getting angry? I have mentioned what all I am apologising for below in my unblock request. I apologise to you, specifically again.-Baangla (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: I believe you are going to relax my sanction, so should I delete the below unblock request?-Baangla (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should breathe normally. I ask you to take the day off editing. Nobody's stopping you from just reading. And I have given you a reading assignment below. If I wake up tomorrow and everything looks as peachy as it looks now, I'll unblock. I may hold back access to some articles and spaces at my discretion. We will focus on not wasting the community's time ok? Volunteer time is Wikipedia's most valuable resource. One day when you and your new mentor(s) become WP:Administrators you'll feel the same way. At this moment I've got huskies to walk. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Baangla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologise for any wrongdoing. At the ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming_the_system_to_achieve_extended_confirmed_status), the other admins were suggesting a topic ban and I had agreed to it. I was shocked to see BusterD come and impose an indefinite block, without first imposing a topic ban. Some editors have also opposed my indefinite block at the ANI discussion I have provided a link to above. One of them believes that the Cban is excessive as per WP:BITE and WP:ROPE must be extended to me. Please lower my block (as BusterD has suggested above). I promise to abide by the rules. In fact, I will ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse before making any edit that I feel will get me into trouble. BusterD in a response to my unblock request, typed above that he wants me to apologise for specific misbehaviour. I apologise for it - essentially, I pointed out to an admin that they should not take action against me if they are involved as per WP:INVOLVED which upset him. I apologise for it. Thanks!.Baangla (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You have been unblocked. See bottom of the page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to an editor who is willing to consider mentoring you

[edit]

They're processing it and may drop by. This discussion will be between you and the other editor, not you and Wikipedia. If you two can come to agreement I have promised to consider some immediate relaxation of the block, based on that discussion. This is their first mentorship offer so be nice. Don't beg; this a regular user. I can get you started but I won't keep you out of trouble; only your future choices will do so. Don't expect miracles. Be nice. Good luck. I'll watch. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all this is happening is nothing short of a miracle for me. Thanks a lot. When will this block relaxation happen?-Baangla (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baangla, maybe stop focussing on 'when will I be able to edit whatever I want' and focus on 'how can I become a productive, nondisruptive editor'. The first will only happen as a result of the second, so focus on the second. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK.-Baangla (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

[edit]

Hi Baangla,

At the encouragement of another editor, I am happy to mentor you if you are open to that. I have never mentored anyone before, so this would be a learning experience for both of us.

To give some background on why I got involved in your discussion and why I would like to do this, when I started to get a bit more involved on Wikipedia, I happened to edit in an area that was XC protected, which I didn't even know existed at the time (removing some material that had no reliable source because the only two reliable sources I could find said the opposite). This is when I started getting hit with ECR stuff. Like you, not knowing the "gaming" rule, I decided to simply make more edits so I could contribute wherever I wanted to; I focused on typos and grammatical mistakes... And so was hit with the "gaming" rule. Mine ended up concluding as not gaming because my edits were considered constructive; I think yours being mostly macrons and having revert disputes is what got you in trouble.

I still don't know the rules here perfectly, but in general, my advice is to be constructive, be collaborative, and avoid annoying other users (and I should follow that last one more...). The rules are meant to establish a collaborative, constructive, and civil environment; even if you are right on the precise wording of a rule ("wikilawyering", as people call it), if most people don't think you are contributing to this, you are still going to get hit. Before knowing the rules better and how they are applied here, I would suggest just listening to older users when they tell you how they are applied.

If you are open to being mentored by me, I want to get to know you better, and hear honestly what you are looking to do here. If your goal is to contribute to controversial areas that interest you, we can work on making constructive changes first until you understand the environment better and then get back ECR. This will show users that you can contribute to the project constructively.

All the best! LordCollaboration (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am open to all the suggestions you can give me. Can you start by letting me know what rules I should read up? If my block is relaxed, do you mind if I ask you if an edit is fine (not silly ones but only those I think will get me into trouble)?-Baangla (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about the rules yet. I think that's partially what got you in trouble here in the first place, too much focus on the wording of rules and then arguing over it. Everyone knows you are a new user, so it's okay to make accidental rule mistakes, the issue is arguing over it/reverting back/etc. Just focus on making constructive changes and collaborating and listen and apologize if someone says you messed up; over time, you will learn the how the rules are applied better.
Absolutely, you can definitely ask me that anytime. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Five Pillars that BusterD posted explains this much better than me, and I would definitely suggest reading it closely. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.-Baangla (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your answers are a really good start. On the video game question, I would reread the first pillar though, and click through the links. Consider as well if you got a physical encyclopedia what you probably would and would not see, and why. LordCollaboration (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are just the right person to be my mentor. Thanks.-Baangla (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many versions but they all say the same thing. This means we are all here for the same reason. To make a book. The biggest book you can imagine. A book so gigantic it will never be complete. A book which lists everything a human being needs to know about every topic. A book written in every language. A book which is free to everyone who can find it. One of the most important books ever written. And you were editing it.

I take that seriously. And so do my many friends.

If you feel mad right now because you were blocked, I feel your pain because I was blocked once myself. But you were blocked because you were interfering with the Purpose of Wikipedia, not because you were making mistakes. The people you want to help, my friends the wikipedians, had to spend time on you and your disruptive edits. That was taking them away from making the book. Do you think mankind should have a book like the one we're all building together? If you do, read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Don't just go there, read it. Read it again. Click on every link and read every one. Then go back to The Five Pillars, and read it again. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a quiz. BusterD (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration and BusterD: I have read what you people told me to. The gist of it is that wikipedia is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point Of Vies with multiple viewpoints, to be civil and assume good faith - my favourite was what is written at WP:NOPA and every thing has to be paraphrased to avoid plagiarism charges and written with reliable sources.-Baangla (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: One single revert doesn't constitute an edit war, does it?-Baangla (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with paraphrasing. Close paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. WP:FIXCLOSEPARA has excellent advice on how to properly rewrite information to avoid copyright issues. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unusual in the extreme, unless there's parallel activity on related pages. This is a good start. Thanks for your willingness to let us rehabilitate the situation. Questions (open book; please sign each answer):

  • 1) Why is it we strive to assume good faith, even when the user has been disruptive?
A:
  • 2) Why does English Wikipedia avoid game playthrough articles?
A:
  • 3) What's the difference between acting WP:BOLDLY and editing disruptively?
A:
  • 4) Why are we helping you even though I blocked you earlier?
A:
This is a lot for your first day. Feel free to discuss these queries with LordCollaboration (or any other editor you choose). We'll talk in the morning. Long, long day for me. Thanks for making my day worthwhile. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answers:-
  • 1) Why is it we strive to assume good faith, even when the user has been disruptive?
A: "That person probably just doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards of guidelines and policies, so it is good to assure good faith."-Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a multitude of reasons users are disruptive. Some users still lack clue, some users get careless, some users make mistakes, some users disagree, some users are under stress, some users may have made difficult choices as best they can, some users may be bad actors. In each and every case, an application of WP:AGF will have a better chance to promote a harmonious outcome. Even in the case of obvious trolling (which I see most days) it is best to show good faith every step of the way. Bad actors are going to act badly. Don't be that person. Wikipedians can read. Admins can act. So don't act badly and you will fit right in here. BusterD (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Why does English Wikipedia avoid game playthrough articles?
A: Game playthrough articles are guides that detail how to complete specific levels, quests, or the entire game and may lead the makers of the game to sue wikipedia for hosting such information. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly correct. BusterD (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) What's the difference between acting WP:BOLDLY and editing disruptively?
A: Disruptive editing is removing sourced content, adding content without sources or adding tags where unnecessary in a partisan, biased way, while bold is doing what conforms to the rules, boldly - fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc., ourselves -Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For today this is a good answer. Some day soon you will understand this with more subtlety. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) Why are we helping you even though I blocked you earlier?
A: To rehabilitate me and make me a good editor and avoid future disruption/s.-Baangla (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We only have about 120,000 active wikipedians. We are getting older. My granddaughter's generation doesn't spend as much time with text in school as I once did. My entire goal here to is to cultivate at least two more wikipedians I know I can trust. In addition to helping you, we'll help your mentor(s) as well. I'm helping you two because together we can choose to make the planet a better place. Today I'm here. I can't promise tomorrow. Please go read Wikipedia community. Thanks. Good answers, all. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Mentorship and similar arrangements

[edit]

In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place.

People learn in different modalities. Some best get material through reading, some pickup quicker with visuals, charts and descriptive images. I like things explained to me. Because there are so many possible ways of learning, it's useful to try several to see what works best for you. I like the mentor-mentee relationships. I choose to exercise my behavior based on models which which work for others. I look to editors I admire, usually people who have demonstrated trust in me.

While most of us try to keep our real-life identities quiet, it's not because we are afraid of outing (a serious concern especially for youngsters). I choose to use a pen-name, a Wikipedia-only name, to keep my focus on principles, not personalities (I think this is a twelve-step thing.) I'm not here for the glory or any merit badges; I'm here for the labor, the work. In this, I reveal my idealism, which I think a healthy approach (again, especially for youngsters).

So I have offered to connect you with other editors who may be able to assist you in learning to act in a manner expected of wikipedians. We will need to settle on terms. You will choose to refrain from editing rashly, and your mentor(s) will choose to assist you with day to day questions. If you make an error, any editor may talk to you about it. You will choose not to be suspicious or hostile. You will make an effort to listen to the merits of the complaint. During your mentorship you will not be alone; your mentor will be able to help you. I will remain available as a supervising mentor. You will learn to trust other editors; you will ask them politely for help. You will do kind things for other editors, but you will be especially careful to abide by the 5 Pillars you read yesterday. You will be cautious in talk spaces NOT to disparage/insult editors or their comments. Three of us will co-sign this section, to formalize our agreement. You, me and your mentor. When all three of us have signed, I will unblock you completely. Don't let us down. I can reinstate the block if necessary. Please don't put me there.

I cannot promise the community will go along with this 100%. There is the pending ANI discussion and the community is still considering how to deal with one previously misbehaving user. I will ask the discussion (if they agree on a topic ban) to postpone the application of that ban while the first phases of our mentorship agreement are in place. I cannot guarantee they will do so. So you may be prevented entirely from editing South Asian topics. This may be extremely challenging at first. I will contend that a working mentorship agreement will make any TBAN unnecessary. My proof will be in your daily behavior.

Your mentor and I are sticking our necks out for you in the hope there's a real wikipedian sitting at your keyboard. Demonstrate through your actions we are not wasting that effort. In return, you'll learn more rapidly than if you mentored yourself. Do you understand? BusterD (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read every word you typed, twice. So, what about the agreement and lifting of sanctions?-Baangla (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LordCollaboration, I think you are British, so we can discuss the UK or perhaps, football.-Baangla (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am American, although have family in Indonesia as well. Mostly I’ve been reading about Indonesia and Ukraine (although the latter probably gets too close to your current XC restriction) recently, but I am okay with any topic you are interested in. Do you have any articles in particular that you are interested in improving? I will look around for some possible stubs that could use some work as well. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Great. The US is even better. I hope you can mentor me about Basketball and Baseball. The NBA should be a good place to start.-Baangla (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think US basketball/baseball might be rough unless if we go very local; I don’t have any knowledge on the topic (or sports in general) and I suspect there aren’t many stubs in that area. I think focusing on something you are interested in that isn’t deeply covered here might be best, although I understand that might be difficult if the CT/SA restriction holds. When you mentioned football before, I was looking into football stubs in Indonesia, like Persid Jember. But I think ideally something you actually want to read about would be ideal, otherwise it probably won’t be very enjoyable doing the research on it. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can work on history of the US/history of the Democrats/history of the Republicans.-Baangla (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hawaiian Islands, especially Lanai are also interesting.-Baangla (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to read this a couple of days ago.-Baangla (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: Do you suggest I ask LordCollaboration if an edit is fine before I actually edit the article?-Baangla (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lanai and its subtopics might be good to give a swing at. If we can’t find anything to add, we can switch to a different topic. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay away from any contentious topics, okay? BusterD (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the two of you work out your own routine. I may have something to say. Mostly, I'll want you to impress me with good and responsive behaviors. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LordCollaboration: Can I ask you if an edit is fine before I actually edit any article (that will mean you have to check this Talk page of mine frequently)?-Baangla (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. You can ping me anytime and I will get a notification. I also have your page on my watchlist now and we will be collaborating a lot, so I should see anything quickly. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship agreement

[edit]
  • We the undersigned accounts, User:BusterD, User:LordCollaboration, and User:Baangla make this statement: we will commence a mentorship agreement today between LordCollaboration (the mentor) and Baangla (the mentee). Baangla & LordCollaboration will both agree to stay out of disputes to the best of their ability. Baangla, I'm going to ask you as part of this agreement to a voluntary 1RR restriction, that is, one revert per article (or talk page) per day. If any topic bans are applied to Baangla's account, they will obey them without question and not request ban removal for six months. As supervising mentor, I take responsibility for any damage to the pedia for any misbehavior of the three of us. Signing below will have the effect of committing to the agreement.

Being right isn't enough

[edit]

Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

New wikipedians should focus on page content, not behavior (except for their own). We utilize several strategies in search of page improvement, but one successful model is WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Strangely, being a good wikipedian includes disagreeing with lots of people all the time. Disagreement is the normal state. Folks that have been around for a while have more competence in NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY. Don't get me wrong, I don't love being corrected, but I do appreciate it when somebody tells me my pants are down. Someone who points that out to me is an ally, not the fashion police.

What should a proper wikipedian do when they are accused of being wrong? First, listen to the feedback. Feedback is never about the user, it is about the assertion. The assertion may have merit, or be only partially correct. Even if the feedback seems inappropriate, assume the good faith of the commenter's assertion.

Don't personalize; it's a waste of effort. Focus on the argument, the position, the sources, the pillars, policies and guidelines, but don't attempt to be a rules lawyer. Don't concern yourself with others' behavior at all. Just attempt to make a cogent argument. Wikipedians are smart. They can draw their own conclusions. BusterD (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Do not climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. That's an order. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot!-Baangla (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! Go forth and do good. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

[edit]

@LordCollaboration: Can I ping FieldMarine, Ggonnemm, AlsoWukai, Kwamikagami, Jeffrey34555, Robertsky, Gowser, Professor Penguino, Smallangryplanet and Quantling on the Talk pages of the Kauai and Lanai articles to add an audio pronunciation for all the Hawaiian Islands?-Baangla (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean an audio file for the pronunciations? And do you have it and want to add it or would you be asking them to do it? I would avoid pinging for the latter personally.
I was thinking it might be good to find reliable sources and issues in the articles (grammatical issues, outdated information, etc.) and improving them. For example, on Lanai, I noticed Ellison’s managing company (Pūlama Lāna’i) is never mentioned, despite being in a lot of reliable sources; that might be worth adding. Here is a recent article I read. https://alohastatedaily.com/2025/06/11/a-new-bowling-alley-more-workforce-housing-planned-for-lanai/ What do you think? LordCollaboration (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an opinion piece or a citable reliable source?-Baangla (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is citable LordCollaboration (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I add this, According to a local Lāna‘i islander, the island, which was once a fully dedicated pineapple plantation, now has two hotels, but as people drive through town, many things still look the same as they did when he was growing up—children walking to school, neighbors watching out for one another and so on.?-Baangla (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t add anything until we have more sources. Wikipedia also requires things to be given due weight; one person’s opinion wouldn’t qualify there, even if the source quoting them is reliable. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In the, "Houses" section of Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives, can I add, The houses are supposedly haunted.[1]?-Baangla (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Baangla (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good one. I would reword it (the current wording implies it is plausible that they are actually haunted), but you can definitely include the myth. Maybe “according to urban legend”? LordCollaboration (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say, "urban legend." Is there anything wrong in adding, "supposedly"?-Baangla (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe “local lore” instead, as the writer of that article is a folklore writer. You can add other sources too, like https://moonmausoleum.com/the-haunted-hawaiian-mission-houses-historic-site/ LordCollaboration (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the Michael Jackson article, I wanna add‍, "His ghost has been spotted outside his mansion.[2]"-Baangla (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Baangla (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely do not add that in Wikivoice. See: Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY Even if the source is reliable (I don’t think the Mirror is?), we can’t add extraordinary claims like that. And it has to be taken with context; a folklore writer writing that a house is haunted is implicitly doing so under the implication that it is folklore, not reality. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, can the sentence be, "His ghost has supposedly been spotted outside his mansion.[3][4][5]"-Baangla (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not without establishing that it is due, particularly for an article like that. Multiple good reliable sources talking about it. Also, the reason I am not a fan of “supposedly” is because it implies plausibility to me; I would always put “according to urban legend” or similar language. But it is common in other articles, so seems to just be a personal preference for me. Not a requirement. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think we should stick to less major articles for now. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kapanui, Lopaka; Kapanui, Tanya (2025-10-22). "Unseen visitors at the Mission Houses". Aloha State Daily. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
  2. ^ Humphrey, Erin Rose; Green, Simon (2024-10-29). "Michael Jackson's 'spirit speaks' in chilling ghost hunter footage". The Mirror US. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
  3. ^ "Michael Jackson's ghost spotted at Neverland: fans". Gulf News: Latest UAE news, Dubai news, Business, travel news, Dubai Gold rate, prayer time, cinema. 2009-07-07. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
  4. ^ "Michael Jackson's 'ghost' caught on camera?". the Guardian. 2009-07-06. Retrieved 2025-10-22.
  5. ^ Varma, Arjun (2015-06-01). "Michael Jackson's ghost spotted in Neverland? Potential buyers of the singer's estate warned". International Business Times UK. Retrieved 2025-10-22.