User talk:NomanPK44

DS Alert[edit]

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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 Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid19 sanctions[edit]

{{gs/editnotice}} Doug Weller talk 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this was to formally alert the editor, but as this isn't an alert I'm going to put it in {{tl}} as this template can't be subsituted and in a few hours this usage will cause an error. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Hammad. Your recent edit(s) to the page Muhammad Ali Mirza appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Hammad (Talk!) 02:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

indefinitely topic banned from editing anything related to the WP:ARBIPA (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) topic area, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned, per this AE complaint, including this almost-unbelievable revert regarding ThePrint (diff). Basically, you have proven to be a liability for this fraught topic area, so all of that stops now.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. 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 the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 15:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal[edit]

NomanPK44, your arbitration enforcement action appeal has been declined at Special:Permalink/1008160805 § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44. Please remember that your topic ban covers all India-, Pakistan-, and Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, and take care not to engage in any more topic ban violations (such as the edit in Special:Diff/1007087462) for the duration of the ban. Additionally, please review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution, which outline some of the expectations for editing Wikipedia articles in controversial topic areas. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE block[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violation, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. 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.

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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

NomanPK44, since your last edits (which were to your AE appeal) on the 12th, you've made 2 new edits: one to List of wars involving Pakistan on the 16th (diff) and a 2nd one to the Pakistani cricketer Rashid Latif yesterday (diff). What is going on? Please note that from this point on, the block length applied to any further violations of the topic ban is likely to become prohibitive. El_C 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Sorry I thought that my topic ban only covers wars related pages, so sorry. I am going to be quiet from now on. Thank you for clearing me and Good bye NomanPK44 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It seems like all edits made by this user after coming off from this block violate his topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. NomanPK44, even after a block for violating the topic ban, even after the scope of the ban was reiterated (by me) and acknowledged by you, topic bans violations on your part persist. I honestly don't know what else to do at this point, save this.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NomanPK44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to bring to your attention that my Wikipedia account was blocked three years ago due to my disruptive editing. After that, I admit that I continued editing on the platform by creating multiple accounts, but this only resulted in more blocks due to Sockpuppetry. However, after numerous account bans, I realized that this approach was not right, and since then I stopped engaging in such activities. For the past 1.5 years, I have refrained from any sockpuppetry and have learned a lot about Wikipedia like identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in controversial topics. I am confident that I can now contribute positively to Wikipedia and request that you consider my appeal. NomanPK44 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were so abusive, you are now considered banned by the community under WP:3X. Additionally, based on CU data, I can confidently say it has not been 1.5 years since you last edited. You've engaged in WP:LOUTSOCK more recently than this, albeit not in the past few weeks. I'll also note that your edits violated your WP:TOPICBAN. You are free to make a case for your unban as per WP:UNBAN and it can be discussed by the community. I very strongly advise you to be open and honest, though. False claims like it's been 1.5 years since you engaged in such activities will guarantee failure. Frankly, I think there's no chance you'll be unbanned at this time, given your violations in 2023 and given your attempt to mislead us here, but it's your call. Yamla (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.