 | Jhy.rjwk is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
DS alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
RFC at The Kashmir Files
Jhy.rjwk, I have reverted your recent changes to the header of the RFC at Talk:The Kashmir Files. As you'll note, proposals for the RFC were invited nine days back and reminders sent 4 days, 1, day, and 2 hours before the RFC went live. After editors have already started commenting on these proposals, it is not okay to change the underlying content of the RFC.
If you wish, you can introduce an alternate proposals as a comment in the Dicussion section , and others are free to express their views on it. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, started a new section for more RFC. Also note, No content of the previous Proposals was changed. Thanks. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- This edit was disruptive. I have reformatted your addition so that your comment is correctly attributed to you and time-stamped. Please note that any continued disruption to the RFC may result in discretionary sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reformating and reminding the Signing, but please let me know why you consider that edit disruptive. It was a good faith edit including an alternate proposal as suggested in your last message. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The part I objected to was the addition of the section heading "Lead RFC Continued" since it broke the structure of the RFC, drew undue attention your proposal/!vote, and gave the mis-impression that the (unsigned) content that followed was a fundamental part of the RFC rather than a user comment. As you are well aware, the page has been a venue of frequent disruption and heated debate (even the subject of the lede sentences has been discussed at such great length that it occupies >four archive pages). So, as I hinted here and at the note at top of the Survey section, edits that are likely to (even unintentionally) derail or disrupt the current process to reach a consensus are likely to see a swifter and stricter admin response than a "regular" talkpage.
- PS: You may wish to move your !vote for Proposal D (not the proposal itself!) to the Survey section, though it is also fine as it is since the RFC closer is unlikely to miss it in either case. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that information. Sorry, about the confusion due to RFC continued title, which was not appropriate. Thanks again. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reformating and reminding the Signing, but please let me know why you consider that edit disruptive. It was a good faith edit including an alternate proposal as suggested in your last message. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- This edit was disruptive. I have reformatted your addition so that your comment is correctly attributed to you and time-stamped. Please note that any continued disruption to the RFC may result in discretionary sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are indefinitely topic-banned from any article or discussions related to Indian politics, broadly construed and specifically including any controversies of a political nature.
You have been sanctioned for POV-editing, including misrepresentation of sources, as illustrated by various notes previously dropped on your talkpage (including by me) and, most egregiously, your recent edits to Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, 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 of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)