User talk:ADWikiax

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to know the name of the user who locked the page for The Bengal Files? ADWikiax (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It's visible in the page's edit history. But also, you are unlikely to be allowed to comment on anything relating to The Bengal Files until you hit 500 edits and 30 days, as explained above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend reading WP:ECREXPLAIN to better understand this restriction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read through the advice carefully, and don't attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER, as you did here. As specified at WP:ECR, The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, which includes talk pages. The only exception is for properly formatted, non-disruptive, non-controversial edit requests, which are a narrow exception, not an invitation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: It is for that exact reason I opened this dispute — because no one on the talk page is willing to listen to the evidence provided. On what basis did you decide to close the dispute discussion?

Also, your invocation of WP:CT/SA in the disputes page appears to be a misapplication. That guideline does not bar editors from participating in discussions simply because of their origin or identity; it is about topic bans and conduct issues. Using it this way to dismiss an editor’s standing is not correct and undermines the dispute resolution process. ADWikiax (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I am definitely applying CT/SA correctly here. There is a blanket prohibition on non-XC accounts from engaging with Indian military history or Indian social groups topics. Since you clearly are not going to take my word for it and there's not much use in repeating myself, I'm going to ask that you reach out to the teahouse or a recently active admin for further advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Recently active admin here! Rosguill, could you briefly explain the article's connection to either social groups or military history? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, the dispute that ADWikiax has attempted to discuss, and then bring to DRN, relates to the content of the film The Bengal Files, which is about Direct Action Day, and directly focuses on intercommunal violence in the lead-up to the India-Pakistan partition. The content that ADWikiax wishes to discuss is directly related to the film and article's portrayal of violence in relation to Direct Action Day, and thus is related to both Indian military history and to Indian social groups. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; a quick check confirms that analysis. ADWikiax, your commentary on this subject does indeed fall under the extended-confirmed restriction. As stated by others, you can post constructive edit requests at article talk pages, like Talk:The Bengal Files. You can not comment or edit on matters related to South Asian social groups or Indian military history at any other page. You've violated this restriction, first unknowingly and then repeatedly after multiple warnings. The next violation will lead to a block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand that my commentary falls under the extended-confirmed restriction. I will ensure that any further contributions on this topic are made only through the appropriate channels, such as the Talk:The Bengal Files page.

As per contentious topics guidelines and the dispute resolution process, I would appreciate guidance on the proper way to address the current inaccuracies and false claims on that article while remaining within the scope of the restriction. ADWikiax (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The proper way is to wait until you have 500 edits. There is no other method. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

then Wikipedia will keep on showing a false claim? ADWikiax (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You say it's false, others say it's true. We don't deal in truth, we deal in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

then give me the scope to present my evidences. Please. ADWikiax (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You'll get it when you reach 500 edits. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:CT/SA designates Indian Military History and social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal under the extended-confirmed restriction due to past disruption in the area. You are not extended-confirmed, and therefore are not allowed to discuss the topics until you meet the 500 edits over 30 days that WP:ECR specifies. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

how to resolve the inaccuracies then? Please guide me on the alternatives. ADWikiax (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to know the name of the user who locked the page for The Bengal Files? ADWikiax (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That information is provided in the logs for that page. However, you are not allowed to contribute about this topic yet(see above). 331dot (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@331dot

I am not sure how that is acceptable. On the talk page I have already provided evidence to support my claims, but no one there seems willing to engage with alternative views. In addition, the DRN request was closed, leaving me with no clear avenue to resolve this issue. As per Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process, could you please advise on how I can address and rectify the false claims currently present on the The Bengal Files page? ADWikiax (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I already have advised you. You are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia in this topic area until your account is 30 days old and you have 500 edits. While your account is old enough, you only have 47 edits. I will note that edits made simply to reach 500 will not be counted(such as editing your sandbox one letter at a time) per WP:GAME. Your issue will have to wait. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for the clarification regarding account restrictions. Could you please advise on alternative ways to address and correct the false claims currently on the The Bengal Files article? This could be pursued through the DRN page or on the talk page, provided editors are willing to engage with the evidence. It seems counterproductive to allow inaccurate content to persist solely due to edit count restrictions, so guidance on proper procedure would be appreciated. ADWikiax (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Not 331dot, but no you can't post about this at DRN, and maybe you can post about this at Talk:The Bengal Files. The only allowable post at the talk page would be a constructive edit request. Please read WP:ER for specifics on what requests should contain and how they should be formatted. Most importantly, edit requests are only for specific changes that are either uncontroversial or supported by existing consensus. Check the existing topics at the talk page first to see if your request has already been posted and rejected, as that would indicate that the change is controversial.

There is certainly some inaccurate info currently on Wikipedia that persists because of the draconian ECR. The only reason the ECR is in place anyway is because the disruption rampant in these topic areas was so severe that the harms of ECR were seen as a worthwhile trade-off. Please trust in the wisdom of experienced Wikipedians, and please consider editing in other topic areas while you become one of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else I should raise this besides the talk page or DRN? I have already posted this multiple times on the talk page and will tag you there where I have provided the evidence. It seems that some editors are treating recent random newspaper articles as “facts” rather than considering reliable sources. ADWikiax (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There's nowhere else you can raise the issue except talk pages (not DRN!). Your multiple posts at the talk page were ECR violations, and your newest post was as well (hence the brief block mentioned below). You're welcome to continue asking questions about the restriction here, but comments made here about the dispute itself or its participants—like "some editors are treating recent random newspaper articles ..."—are themselves ECR violations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

(ec) I can't say it any differently than I already have; your issue will have to wait. Even edit requests must be simple and uncontroversial(as a practical matter that is limited to spelling/grammar fixes)- it's clear that what you propose is not uncontroversial. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Can this be discussed in DRN or in the Talks page? ADWikiax (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No- non- nein- nada- I can't say it any other way. You cannot edit in this topic area. Full stop. The blocks will get longer if you persist or otherwise demonstrate you will not abide by these rules. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations of the extended confirmed restriction (WP:ARBIMH's restriction on Indian military history and South Asian social groups), you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

ADWikiax, you emailed me with a message that was both an appeal of this block and a repetition of your argument regarding The Bengal Files. For the appeal: I only consider email appeals in exceptional circumstances, and this isn't one of them. There's information in the block template above that tells you how to appeal and what a good appeal looks like. I'm concerned about the repetition of your argument because I worry you're emailing it to other people. Use of email to further your argument about content, if done while you are blocked or otherwise prevented from editing directly, is disruptive. See WP:PROXYING. Lastly, your email asked about the proper, ECR-compliant way to pursue this content dispute. The answer to that has been given to you many times now, and it is disruptive to repeatedly ask the same, already-answered question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Bengal Files Computeracct (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)