| Revision as of 20:33, 14 November 2024 editSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,344 edits →An offer outside the bounds of arbitration: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:40, 2 December 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,760 edits notify of arbipa topic ban | ||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban== | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=The following ] now applies to you: | |||
| {{Talkquote|1=You are topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed for six months ''and'' 500 edits. This topic ban explicitly includes India's foreign relations and Sikhism.}} | |||
| == Khalistan movement == | |||
| You have been sanctioned as a result of . | |||
| Please read ]: by reverting to add a large quantity of content unrelated to the subject, you're causing the whole situation to adopt a significantly non-neutral point of view. Since your talk page archives have plenty of NPOV warnings, it's clear that you're familiar with our policies, so if you repeatedly restore this content, I'll request a block. ] (]) 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. Please read ] to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. | |||
| :Hey @]. Thanks for your message here. I'm hoping we can have a respectful discussion on the article's t/p. I will not revert your latest edit there, but I disagree with your characterization of the removed content as "irrelevant", because it clearly is, at least to some extent. ] (]) 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi SAH. Firstly, I have to agree with {{u|Nyttend}} that your edits to ] are not directly related to the subject of that article and skews the POV of that article. The subject of the added content is furthermore already covered in other articles. | |||
| ::Second, tonight to ] follows the same pattern of using the article's subject as a ] to add information on unrelated topics in order to skew a POV. Please confirm that you understand that you cannot use Article X to write about content that belongs in Article Y and that further NPOV violations will result in escalation. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 08:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], please stop posting on my t/p, it's clear that you're piling on my t/p over a topic that does not concern you as a form of petty bullying/harassment and revenge. I will report you to the admins if you continue this behaviour, you've already been warned multiple times of your harassing edits including following another editor to antagonize them on Twitter. ] (]) 08:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction/topicban.--> ] (]) 12:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. The thread is ''']'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == An offer outside the bounds of arbitration == | |||
| Arbitration is generally not a place to settle content disputes. I put a clarifying statement up regarding ] but I don't want the arb page to turn into a back-and-forth between us about what ] and ] mean. This is actually an area of Misplaced Pages I care about a lot because of the associated privacy considerations so if you have further questions about it I'd be happy to talk with you about it but we should probably move the discussion to user talk. ] (]) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup, let's take to this to the t/p of Hardeep Singh Nijjar please. ] (]) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would prefer to discuss this ''here'' because what I'm trying to explain to you is that there are ''policy reasons'' why it's inappropriate to be discussing the accusations against a ''legally innocent'' person on a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you please point out where it says that we're forbidden from reporting on ''any'' allegations of wrongdoing from a person who is accused of a crime, but not convicted. Say a celebrity was accused of something, wouldn't Misplaced Pages update the accusations levied against them from reliable secondary sources, because a trial often takes months or years to complete. ] (]) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A celebrity ''is a public figure''. So is a politician. A plumber from Surrey isn't. ] (]) 20:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Basically when deciding if Misplaced Pages should report on an accusation of a crime against a living person we have a three-step method: | |||
| :::::1) We ask whether this person is well-known for reasons other than the accusations against them. If so we can proceed to report on it. | |||
| :::::2) If they are not well-known for reasons other than the accusations against them we ask if they have been convicted of a crime. If the answer is yes we proceed to step 3. Otherwise we do not discuss them. | |||
| :::::3) We determine whether the crime that person was convicted of meets ] or ] notability standards. In this case we can write about the crime, including the convicted party. ] (]) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, for instance, ] allows us to report on ] because ] is ''independently notable'' as a musician and producer. ] (]) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Basically, to determine if ] applies, take away anything to do with that person being involved in criminal activity and see if there's enough information about them remaining to make a ] compliant article. ] (]) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:40, 2 December 2024
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed for six months and 500 edits. This topic ban explicitly includes India's foreign relations and Sikhism.
You have been sanctioned as a result of this AE report.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at arbipa#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)