User talk:Southasianhistorian8

Khalistan movement

Please read WP:COAT: 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. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Nyttend. 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. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi SAH. Firstly, I have to agree with Nyttend that your edits to Khalistan movement 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, this edit tonight to Hardeep Singh Nijjar follows the same pattern of using the article's subject as a coatrack 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. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney, 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. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:49, 14 November 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Southasianhistorian8. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  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 WP:BLPCRIME but I don't want the arb page to turn into a back-and-forth between us about what WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME mean. This is actually an area of Wikipedia 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. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, let's take to this to the t/p of Hardeep Singh Nijjar please. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 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 Wikipedia article. Simonm223 (talk) 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 Wikipedia update the accusations levied against them from reliable secondary sources, because a trial often takes months or years to complete. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A celebrity is a public figure. So is a politician. A plumber from Surrey isn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Basically when deciding if Wikipedia 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 WP:GNG or WP:EVENT notability standards. In this case we can write about the crime, including the convicted party. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So, for instance, WP:PUBLICFIGURE allows us to report on Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations because Sean Combs is independently notable as a musician and producer. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Basically, to determine if WP:PUBLICFIGURE 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 WP:BLP compliant article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Arsh Dalla is merely a plumber from Surrey, again on the t/p of the article there are numerous reliable Indian news articles on him spanning years + a very prominent July 2024 Globe report which speaks of a potential connection between him and Nijjar + is on a designated terrorist list and has given numerous interviews in which he himself stated he was responsible for murders/organized crime and who has been arrested for a violent shooting in Ontario

On the Nijjar article, we have the following In 2016, Surrey plumber Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, was apprehended by the Indian police during a visit to Punjab, he later told the police that Nijjar had directed him to commit violent acts against "sect leaders," leading the Indian media to circulate articles claiming that Khalistani "terror training camps" were operating in the British Columbia wilderness.

How is this potential addition India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report claimed that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. fundamentally any different from the paragraph above.

Again I'm not talking about creating separate articles on these people, I'm simply stating we incorporate some relevant details from reliable secondary sources to provide a comprehensive account about "the allegations of Nijjar's militant activites" true to the section's title, which would obviously need to speak about some of Nijjar's associates and particularly the directives Nijjar supposedly provided them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

OK I'm starting to feel like you're ignoring what I'm saying about WP:PUBLICFIGURE - again, to determine whether he's a public figure you have to start by ignoring anything that accuses him of a crime or that says he is accused of crime and then see what's left. And if the answer is nothing then WP:BLPCRIME says we don't talk about them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor an aggregator of newspapers media may comment on private citizens who might or might not have committed crimes. We don't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I read WP:PUBLICFIGURE and it does not say that we need to establish notability independent of any accusations. Please provide a talkquote detailing such.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate part to read is WP:BLPCRIME - WP:PUBLICFIGURE defines who is a public figure, which WP:BLPCRIME then provides guidance. Look for the green text in my arbitration enforcement comment. It's the relevant policy. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm very much of the agreement that applies to low profile individuals, what we disagree on is whether Arsh Dalla fits within that definition of a low profile individual.

You're asking me to ignore any reliable source which reports on accusations levied against Arsh Dalla and to only go by first establishing notability independent of accusations- so could you please provide me with a quote from a Wikipedia policy page that says as such.

Because I'm reading this page-[1] and it does not say anything like that- in fact it states that High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well. which Arsh Dalla has done, see the block quote in the Globe report and the recent CTV article in which he confessed to murders to various mediapeople. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree that this is sufficient grounds to treat him as a public figure. With regard to next steps I would suggest you now review WP:BLPREMOVE. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, you made a bunch of claims stating that it is Wikipedia policy on how to establish whether a person is low profile or not, but have not provided any quotes from a Wikipedia policy page.

So once again I'm asking you to please provide a quote which states that to establish high profile, one must ignore all news reports on high profile accusations and establish notability independently.

See this page, we have a section on the person accused of the murder, they weren't convicted yet, it's quite possible that they may be innocent and determined not guilty. Should we remove the accused's name from that Wikipedia page? Did that person attain notability independent of his supposed crime? Is he not a private citizen? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the George Floyd page, we included that Derek Chauvin was accused of murdering him prior to his conviction, did Derek Chauvin have any notability prior to killing George Floyd? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. per Wikipedia's policy. The fact that Dalla has given numerous media interviews which have been reported in the Globe and Mail In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book. and CTV—"Speaking to CTV News, Ritesh Lakhi, a well-connected independent journalist in India, says Dalla is “a very prominent player, as far as organized crime in the north state of Punjab.” In late October, police in Halton, Ont. posted a press release(opens in a new tab) alleging that two men involved in a shooting in Milton, Ont., had been "charged with discharging firearm with intent" shortly after they arrived at a hospital in Guelph, Ont., because one of them had been shot. While the press release neglected to share the names of those charged, a CTV News investigation has uncovered that Dalla is in fact one of two people charged, and that Dalla has been in custody in Canada awaiting a decision on his request for bail since his arrest. In January of 2023, the Indian government put out a public notification(opens in a new tab) announcing that Dalla had been added to India’s list of terrorists. Dalla is accused of ordering killings in India while in Canada. He's also publicly claimed responsibility for multiple murders, including a targeted hit on a local politician in Punjab. Lakhi says that during previous conversations with Dalla, he even admitted his role in some of the murders, telling CTV News that Dalla “would simply call me up. I did a few interviews with him, and he would tell me why he killed this person. We've been watching his activities for the last three and a half years.” Lakhi goes on to add that in some cases in India, “there are certain gangsters who’ve been designated as terrorists, and Arsh Dalla happens to be one of them.”

This demonstrably proves that Dalla cannot be considered low profile. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. There are numerous reliable published sources speaking at length about Dalla including the Globe and Mail, CTV, and prominent Indian news organizations such as The Indian Express and The Hindu.

Thus meeting two of the criteria for high profile- Multitude of reliable sources + Dalla has actively sought media attention. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

Hello, Southasianhistorian8,

I became curious about your account after seeing your posts on some administrator's noticeboards. When I look at your contributions, it looks like the majority of your recent edits are about disputes you are involved in. This doesn't reflect well on you. You don't want to be seen as a disruptive editor.

Could you work on de-escalating these conflicts and return to regular, constructive editing? I think you'll find yourself more supported by the community if your editing about disagreements is balanced by productive edits to articles. Thank you for considering my advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I am currently look to resolve a dispute in the DRN. But as far as my editing on disagreements, I'd say that conflicts are an inevitability here, and I've worked multiple times with editors to come to an amicable resolution through 3O or consensus on the t/p. However, these disputes were only resolved peacefully because the other editor I was engaged with was respectful, and tried to make relevant arguments on the t/p in good faith.

However, regarding the report at ANI, it seems abundantly clear to me that the editor was inventing Wikipedia policy out of thin air, deliberately straw manning my arguments, and also made petty insults against me once I refused to capitulate to their own personal preferences of what Wikipedia policy should be. In that case, a peaceful de-escalation and arriving at a consensus becomes difficult and I don't think the blame should lie on me for that. Am I not entitled to feel frustrated after I see someone inventing Wiki policy and becoming hostile if I refuse to abide by it? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Wikipedia 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 2024 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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)