User talk:Adding The Truth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 28 July 2018

Welcome!

Hello, Adding The Truth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Balochistan, Pakistan does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33--regentspark (comment) 20:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Balochistan, Pakistan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I have explained to you [1] [2] that the quote you keep inserting repeatedly is not from a reliable source, but you persist in reinserting it. Please stop immediately, or you risk being blocked form editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting the other side of the coin which is being presented? The founder of “Voice for Baloch Missing Persons” who lives in Pakistan has claimed that if there'll be a referendum, Baloch people will vote for independence. Why do you not want people to know the other side of the story? The article is not neutral until both the sides have presented their side of the story. I had earlier posted about a prominent Baloch leader Mir Suleman Dawood Jan who is the Khan of Kalat has been living in exile claimed that 90% of the people will vote for freedom. That one got deleted too. Of course they can't hold an official survey in the region. They won't be allowed to. The sources of the edits are reliable, maybe not to you. What's wrong with presenting the other side? [Removed misleading signature added by mistake here.]

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/over-90-per-cent-baloch-willing-to-vote-for-freedom-says-khan-of-kalat201709190553550001/

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/if-there-is-a-referendum-in-balochistan-people-will-vote-for-independence/article5768400.ece

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/pakistan/baloch-people-want-freedom-says-ruler-of-former-princely-state/articleshow/60743469.cms Adding The Truth (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find your edits are being reverted, try posting on the talk page of the article. Suggest your changes there and see if you can get consensus. A few other suggestions: WP:RSN for checking if a source is reliable, WP:NPOVN if you're concerned about neutrality, and WP:DR if you need help resolving a dispute. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add a discussion on the talk page of the article what I said above but it doesn't seem to get published. [Removed misleading signature added by mistake here.]

Adding The Truth (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have a problem. Click on Edit (or the + sign if you see that). Enter a subject and then your suggestions in the text box below that. Once you're done, remember to sign and click Publish changes. The talk page is not protected (assuming this is Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan) so this should work fine. --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried it the third time now. No luck. [Removed misleading signature added by mistake here.] Adding The Truth (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a placeholder thread for you on Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan. See if you can edit that. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, regentspark. Please look into it. I've explained myself there.

Adding The Truth (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are making lots of high-speed edits that are getting increasingly reverted. I think you need to slow down, discuss the issues with the other editors, and understand what is going wrong with your edits. If you persist the way you are going, you are likely to get blocked. So, slow down and discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are apparently getting reverted back since I'm making the articles neutral. Presenting what the other side claims as well with verifiable sources. This article currently only tells what the Pakistani government claims and not what the people of the area, the Baloch leaders claim. Adding The Truth (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we should state what the scholars say, and not any leaders of any side. The problem is that there is not enough reliable information available about Balochistan. You are welcome to raise issues of neutrality on the article talk page, and I will be happy to look into it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article only mentions what the Pakistani government claims which is half truth and not neutral as well I've tried at least 8-9 times to add a discussion there but nothing seems to get published. I have posted above what I was going to post there as well. It's under June 2018. Look above. I have posted reliable links. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, let us look at this edit for example. You added "as claimed by Pakistan", but the information was from a survey done by an independent agency. Then you added Mama Qadeer's claim, which is a private opinion of an individual. It cannot be used to contradict a scientific survey. Your edit was indeed not proper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'After Independence', the last paragraph states that "Home Minister Sarfraz Bugti accused India's prime minister Narendra Modi of openly supporting terrorism. Bugti implicated India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of being responsible for recent attacks at military bases in Smangli and Khalid, and for subverting the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement.". How is this not an opinion? What proof does he have? Nothing. He claimed that which was reported by news agencies. Similarly, the Khan of Kalat claimed the referendum thing that got reported by the news agencies. Isn't it? Adding The Truth (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an opinion, and it is attributed. Since Bugti represents the Government of Balochistan, it is completely WP:DUE. If you have a source or notable opinion that contradicts him, you are welcome to add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By law, a government minister is authorised to speak on behalf of the state. Look, Wikipedia has specific rules as to what can be included and how. Either you learn them and follow or you won't be allowed to edit. It's that simple. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Suleman Dawood Jan is a ruler of former princely state, Kalat. Is he not authorized to speak on behalf of what he claims is his country/land? Is his opinion not notable enough? So basically I can't post anything claimed by the Balochistan independence activists? I'll look for other sources if that's the case.

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/pakistan/baloch-people-want-freedom-says-ruler-of-former-princely-state/articleshow/60743469.cms Adding The Truth (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He can surely speak for his own state.

There is also a huge problem with his words: "If there will be a referendum by the United Nations, I believe 90% of Baloch will vote for freedom". The main problem is that 90% of Baloch can't vote because 30% of Baloch are children. Then, from the remaining ones, a lot of women do not vote in Balochistan.[3] I have no idea how this leader arrived at his "90%" but certainly it had nothing to do with maths. That's one other reason not to keep this citation in. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is with his math, right? Claims by the Baloch activists can be posted if the math adds up? Or not?

Adding The Truth (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear enough: he can perhaps speak for his own princely state (not on statistics, ideally) but certainly not for Balochistan. For statistics claims, you definitlely need a reliable source - a research agency, etc.

Look, this is already getting too long. I am breaking here and recommend you to read all the links listed above by me and Kautilya3. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regentspark

1) I had edited the Kulbhushan Jadhav page which currently says he was arrested from Balochistan which is Pakistan's claim and is disputed. India claims he was abducted from Iran. Do you mind looking into it and figuring out why my edits were reverted?

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kulbhushan-jadhav-kidnapped-from-iran-no-evidence-against-him-says-india-1679674

2) A United Nations report slammed Pakistan for trying civilians in military courts. This got reverted back that as well.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/un-report-slams-opaque-pak-military-courts-let-civil-courts-try-jadhav-like-cases-says-panel/articleshow/58691305.cms

Adding The Truth (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding The Truth add one sentence at a time with reliable source. Wait for two days. See if any editor has a concern, discuss with them. Yes, it is that slow. This is an unfriendly place for newbies. There will be lot of editors willing to revert you with cryptic links to long policies (like npov, go figure) because you have little edit count. This is how it is. There would be helpful editors too but few will have time to help with large edits. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've figured that in the last couple of days that making an article neutral with reliable sources and adding facts is not easy here on Wikipedia. A lot of these 'editors' (except for very few) having edited for years now won't really allow to make an article neutral giving all sorts of unimaginable excuses making articles biased. Won't be trusting Wikipedia fully from now on that's for sure. Thanks for the advice though. Really appreciate it. [Removed misleading signature added by mistake here.] Adding The Truth (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 'Kashmiri' user, do you mind explaining a little before coming on hard out of nowhere? I thought I had tagged the other guy while replying to him. Telling newcomers how they should tag the other guy would be helpful rather than asserting your superiority with ALL CAPS. Thank you! @Kashmiri: A friend has helped tagging you. If it isn't working still, tell me first before deleting anything.

Adding The Truth (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see HELP:TALK for guidance on how to write talk page posts, indentation, signing, pinging etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signing and pinging

Hi, Adding The Truth. I understand that you add the signatures of other users at the end of your own posts in order to "WP:ping" them, but the result is unfortunately confusing on the page, because it looks like the other person had signed your post. Especially when your own signature then comes on a separate line below, as it is were a separate message. Please do it like this instead:

Start your message with the ping. Don't make a separate line for it.
End your message with your own signature. Don't make a separate line for that either, but append it immediately at the end. That way, your messages will look more standard, and it will be clear who wrote them. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 08:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Adding The Truth, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Adding The Truth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kulbhushan Jadhav. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I had told the other user repeatedly to not revert back anything until any consensus on the talk page is reached. Please look into it and comment on the Kulbhushan Jadhav talk page. Adding The Truth (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adding The Truth: That's not how the process works. Please read WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, someone else reverted, and now you discuss to reach consensus. It's not insisting your bold edit remain and reverting to enforce its presence until consensus says otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kulbhushan Jadhav shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand here Kautilya3, Does the other editor also get the warning like you just gave me or is it just the new editors? Adding The Truth (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a good editor with lots of potential. I would recommend you to wait and provide sources that they are asking. I don't agree with content removal from the lead, I will check what I can do. My Lord (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Just letting you know that you have been blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018. If you wish to get unblocked then read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lorstaking (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I think that this block can be a mistake, but unfortunately policies don't allow us to raise concerns with the block as long as the blocked editor is not appealing. I encourage you to appeal this block and keep it simple, tell us how you are unrelated to My Lord and don't talk about any other editors per WP:NOTTHEM. Razer(talk) 18:40, 19 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I'm an independent editor not remotely related to My Lord in any way whatsoever. I have been wrongly blocked. I was accused of being one of the accounts of My Lord, which is completely false. The allegations were based on the fact that I used 'Pakistani' or "Pakistan's" for referring to someone/something related to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Those two are the most common ways of referring to someone from that part of the world. For, eg, normally people would use 'Sri Lankan' or "Sri Lanka's" while referring to someone/something from that country. I had so much difficulty while tagging people, adding discussion to a talk page, understanding NPOV among others when I started editing a month ago. I wouldn't have had any such difficulties had I been another account of My Lord. Regarding the Kulbhushan Jadhav page, his place of arrest is absolutely disputed. Indian government's claim is very different from the Pakistani one so the word 'alleged', "claimed" have to be used there. (IMPORTANT) I had detailed all these facts at the investigation page and a seasoned editor also commented that there is not enough edits made by myself to be considered for a fake account, sockpuppet is what it is called, I'm not sure. I was accused of being from Jammu, which is completely false. I'm not from Jammu. And also told that Jammu is a predominantly Hindu city and My Lord had special interest in Kashmiri Hindus so myself and My Lord are same people which is not even a credible argument. How did they come to a conclusion that I'm a citizen of Jammu, have any interest in Kashmiri Hindus and how is Jammu being a predominantly Hindu city is even relevant? I could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Jain a christian an atheist, anything? This is a another completely false allegation. When you first start editing, in the edit summary it says to write something and examples were given like - "Fixed typo, added content", being a new editor I used added as I thought that's the way to do it and billions of people use their mobile devices rather than computers to do stuff since it allows nowadays so that one was another baseless allegation. Also, the mobile device used by me is completely different from that of My Lord. Razer2115 , Lorstaking Please look into this and let me know if I need to do anything else. If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please let me know, I'll be happy to answer them. Adding The Truth (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a controversial block, and as I told Ivanvector via email, it is not one I personally would have made. That being said, having reviewed the case again and listened to his reasoning, I believe it is within administrator discretion and that his interpretation of the publicly available evidence in this case as well as the CU finding was a reasonable interpretation of what occurred. I also think it worth noting that while the case for this user being My Lord is circumstantial, the account is an obvious sock of someone here to push a POV: that is a factor I think we must consider when reviewing this block, and it weighs to the question as to if unblocking would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Considering that the block was in my view within discretion and that there is at least a reasonable chance of disruption occurring if unblocked, I am currently not willing to overrule another administrator with experience at SPI who stands behind this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2018 (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.

I don't see any sense in this block as well. You clearly seem to be a totally different individual than My Lord. Before debunking the flimsy evidence of the SPI, I request Zzuuzz to clarify his CU findings. It would help if he informs us whether these two users (ATT and My Lord) share same location or not. It will be further helpful if it has been also told that how far you both reside from each other though exact figure is not needed. Lorstaking (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think my checkuser findings are as clear as they can be, and Ivanvector is correct in his stated interpretation of my findings. A connection can neither be ruled in nor ruled out from a technical perspective. Adding The Truth has consistently used one mobile device, on one network, in what must be assumed to be one location (itself actually quite unusual). Maybe Adding The Truth would be interested in stating what location that might be. As for stating "the mobile device used by me is completely different", we'll have no way of knowing how they came to that conclusion, but that certainly isn't the wording I used.

So, geolocation is not an exact science, but I'll try and unpick it a bit. If you were to look up the IP addresses being used you would get, for the most part, results placing the two users in exactly the same location. Geolocations are slightly elastic and will typically be placed in the nearest large urban centre or sometimes at the ISPs local offices. For example in the UK geolocation can often be wrong by a few hundred miles. With this in mind we have My Lord being placed either in the same location, or the nearest city, or slightly further away, but always in the same region of the same country as Adding The Truth. In terms of geolocation, and especially considering the results which consistently put them in the same location, this is not by any means enough to rule anything out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this needs to be clarified by Adding The Truth himself. @Adding The Truth: You should reveal your actual location, though I understand that this is a private matter thus I would recommend you to email Zzuuzz through Special:EmailUser/zzuuzz and for that you will have to activate your email as well. Lorstaking (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This information is as transparent to me as it needs to be, as I've stated. I suggest ATT doesn't email me, but does instead reveal it publicly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

When I said - "the mobile device used by me is completely different from that of My Lord.", it wasn't a reply to your comments Zzuuzz nor I was quoting you. There was an editor who wrongly accused me implying that my account is My Lord's another fake account on investigation page and their argument was that My Lord used mobile device to edit and so do I which is completely irrelevant argument. And therefore, I clarified that billions of people use their mobile devices nowadays instead of computers.

Secondly, I will not be able to declare my location for obvious reasons.

The assumptions made by Zzuuzz that all my edits are from same location is completely false. You can compare my very first edits to my latest ones and a few in between as well.

I have presented my case thoroughly above, stating why there is no evidence which proves that I'm My Lord's another account. I have clarified well enough myself. Please look above.

All the allegations are based upon speculations and no proof whatsoever. Thank you. Adding The Truth (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis: Like I had stated above that the evidence provided on SPI was weak. I am starting with commenting on the points made by Ivanvector on SPI.[4]

1. Checkuser came as "inconclusive", but still the behavioral evidence needs to be strong and we lack it here.

2. Ivanvector said they are the only two accounts to make same edits on Kulbhushan Jadhav, which is completely untrue. Not only their edits[5][6] were actually NPOV, since the edits in the question are generally accepted among vast amount of sources, but many other editors like Adamgerber80,[7] Aks23121990, [8][9] Apandey k,[10] and many others[11][12][13][14] have been making same edits as ML and ATT. Many other editors on this same article have cited "NPOV" as justification for their edits.[15][16][17][18] The activity of these two accounts on this article should not be construed as a similarity.

3. Anyone will defend the SPI same way ATT and ML have done since the SPI was filed by somebody they never interacted earlier[19][20] and both SPIs reads like harassment. What else will you expect? ATT was correct with denying the connection.

4. There is no reason why ML would create ATT. ML has recently engaged in large amount of discussions where he needed votes, including the AfDs that he himself started[21][22][23][24][25] and we don't see ATT anywhere in these discussions. Just because ML has modified his behavior which was necessary for him otherwise he would be facing another block, the modification of behavior doesn't means that he can act like anyone now. ATT's behavior has no similarities with any account of ML.

The following timeline is not possible for one person:

ATT replies on his talk page on 16:08, 16 June 2018 by writing response of +532 bytes.

ATT modified the message at 16:10, 16 June 2018.

ML on 16:12, 16 June 2018 writes a message of +1,847 bytes to HudairaViki, alerting him of AC/DS and cites his concern with his editing. Now this is something that would sure take more than a couple of minutes.

ATT writes a difficult explanation for his edits at 16:19, June 2018 of 1,847 bytes.

ATT is a new editor who incorrectly added signatures of other editors while he would reply them.[26] I don't see even one edit in the history of ML that is any similar to this edit by ATT. ML relies on news or books, not journals.

Why would ML tell ATT his faults like he did above if he was the same person? He would better help him edit war or lend support on the article talk page if he was ATT.

Except all above points, there is considerable difference between the timings of these two accounts,[27] and the overlap is also very insignificant[28] given the recent activity of My Lord as well as the number of content disputes where he could use ATT if it was his account. Noting these factors, I support unblocking this account as sock of no one. Lorstaking (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not thank you enough Lorstaking for providing so many conclusive evidences against the baseless allegations and wrongfully blocking of my account. I'm still in the phase of figuring out how to obtain these evidences. Thank you so much. Adding The Truth (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much has been already said here that how these two users are different persons, I would add that I also find them to be different as evidenced by their style of writing: example 1:[29] [30], example 2: [31][32] Razer(talk) 15:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Razer2115 for further evidence. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on my interactions with ATT, e.g., here and here, I too feel that ATT is a new user, not any kind of returning user . My Lord was quite a seasoned editor by the time of these exchanges, and wouldn't need such newbie tutoring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your support Kautilya3. Adding The Truth (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along with numerous false accusations, I'm quoting Ivanvector :- "ML and ATT both defended their SPIs in similar fashion: highlighting lack of previous association with the filer...". When did I do that? I request Ivanvector to mention the incident. Adding The Truth (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin has been already notified[33] and much has been already added here. Now just wait until you are unblocked and don't edit with any other account or IP until you are unblocked here. Lorstaking (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the rest of Ivanvector's sentence "... suggesting a retaliatory battleground motive to the report, and dismissing the allegation with a mild insult." You needed to defend yourself saying the kind of things you have said in your appeal above. Rants rarely serve any purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I, for one, would support lifting ATT's block.∯WBG^converse 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin response - I've already clearly detailed the rationale behind my block at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord, specifically here. I'll expand on the Kulbhushan Jadhav edits, from diffs provided:
- My Lord: [34] - replaced "alleged" with "Pakistani claim" in an infobox, which in my mind makes the statement less neutral while citing NPOV (edit summary). ML added a reference in subsequent edits which contain awkward and unusual phrasing and some grammatical errors which they did not fix.
- Adding The Truth: [35] - inserted "Pakistani claim" awkwardly mid-sentence, without a reference, and in a grammatically awkward way which recalls ML's own subsequent awkward edits, and suggested (edit summary) that this made the section more neutral (it didn't).
Others:
- Adamgerber80: [36] - specified Pakistani claims within the article, but did not cite neutrality in doing so and did not include the awkward phrasing of the two suspected accounts.
- Adamgerber80: [37] - cited NPOV in changing "terrorists" to "militants", which was not related to inserting "Pakistani claim" anywhere.
- Aks23121990: [38], [39] - in two edits, adds "baseless" to preexisting "Pakistani claim" text, then expands on "baseless" with a decent reference. Perfect English, if brief.
- Apandey k: [40] - in an edit almost indistinguishable from pure vandalism, casually inserts as fact that these claims are invented by the Pakistani government, and changes various key points to the Indian version. Doesn't cite neutrality and is clearly not interested in it.
- Uttamkarad: [41] - obviously an undisclosed paid editing throwaway whose only edits to this article were changing the subject's profession.
- Shimlaites: [42], [43] - a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet from another case; added a well-formulated and reasonably neutral description of the Indian response to what India itself claims are Pakistani fabrications, a much more appropriately neutral description of the situation. They also have some grammatical oddities, but neither as thoroughly nor the same POV as the two suspected accounts.
- Septrillion: [44] - also a CU-blocked sockpuppet, but not of this case as far as I can tell (blocking admin BU Rob13 does not appear to have logged the master account). This edit was just undoing their own revert of ATT's edit.
- Svabhiman: [45] - in a series of edits (reverted here for convenience) Svabhiman adds as facts various derogatory descriptions of Pakistan's intelligence activities while adding various unduly glorifying statements about Indian authorities. Obviously POV; they could be writing for the Indian government.
- Winged Blades of Godric: [46] - simply a revert of an edit that was probably vandalism.
- DHeyward: [47] - edit summary is accurate, all the editor did was pare down various words to watch inserted inappropriately throughout the article.
In summary: of all the edits and editors that Adding The Truth took the time to compile, still only they and My Lord attempted to shoehorn in the "Pakistani claim" POV in precisely the same way and with very similar editorial difficulties. This is my logic in concluding on this point that the two accounts are the same person.

As for CheckUser data, the thing about technical data is it's not wrong. It can be interpreted in different ways, and CheckUsers are the experts in interpretation of the data and presenting logical conclusions based on it, and in cases where several interpretations are possible they say so. When CheckUser Zzuuzz says that Adding The Truth is editing "in what must be assumed to be one location", I believe it, because I trust that zzuuzz would not suggest an unsupportable conclusion. So, when Adding The Truth says that "[t]he assumptions made by Zzuuzz that all my edits are from same location is completely false", I have reason to believe they're not being truthful. And as I explained in the investigation, My Lord's repeated untruthfulness was also a factor I considered strongly in concluding the report. Of course, users can also do things to manipulate what is logged in Wikipedia's technical data, but there is no non-malicious reason to do so (I don't suspect that was the case here).

Finally, as I said elsewhere, I will not adjudicate an appeal of my own block. If a reviewing administrator reviews the appeal and considers my block unfounded, please feel free to unblock, but in this instance I would appreciate an explanation of your conclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Septrillion is an unrelated case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this reply to the response of Ivanvector, I note the fact that ATT has interpreted the CU findings differently is itself an evidence that the user is a newbie. "same location" can also have different meanings since Oxford dictionary says "position, place, situation, site, locality, locale, spot, whereabouts, point, placement" are synonymous of "location".

It is still not digestible that ML, who has made many bold edits[48][49][50] would create a new account only for editing a popular article like Kulbhushan Jadhav where his edits are not even different compared to many other editors. What do you have to say about his violation of 4RR?[51][52][53][54] Surely a returning editor is better aware of not reverting to that extent, especially someone like ML who's history is rid of any 3RR violation. In this case, any tag-teaming is clearly missing and even if there was, the connection would remain unfounded.

Since Ivanvector has read these statements of ATT, I wonder if he observed that ATT refers Obaid Raza as "a seasoned editor". Obaid Raza is the editor who made misleading comment on AE against ML,[55] and filed that SPI against him,[56] without any earlier interaction.[57] Surely ML would be the worst choice when it comes to praising Obaid Raza as "a seasoned editor".

Whatever has been already noted here so far is just a smidgen of evidence for establishing that ML and ATT are two different persons. Lorstaking (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I think a user's Talk page is not an appropriate venue to carry out SPI diff by diff. Also, quite a few seasoned editors have pointed out to you above that the "behavioural evaluation" you presented is flawed. To me, the "evidence" hinges on two accounts using the same term "Pakistani claim" in the same article. Your intepretation of CU results, which were inconclusive bordering negative (see CU's mobile device comment), is thus surprising. I encourage you to re-evaluate your decision. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I'm placing this on hold for now. I generally prefer to discuss things in open, but for WP:BEANS reasons, I'd prefer to email Ivanvector to get his view and also look at my review of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I think we need to solve this problem step by step. Since it is very clear that this account is not a sock of My Lord, should we consider removing the tag? Lorstaking (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that is very clear. I think there is a circumstantial case for it, and that an administrator and SPI clerk made the determination that it was strong enough to block. I reviewed and came to the determination that while I may not have done so personally, that determination was a reasonable reading of the facts and that when considering the other factors here, an unblock would not be appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had never thought that the SPI would result in block, because it looked nothing more than a suspicious a fishing expedition. What do you think should be the next step now? Should we notify My Lord if he has something to say? Not everyone enables notifications for these pings. If that doesn't resolves the problem then we can think of something else. Lorstaking (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be sort of pattern on the part of Ivanvector, judging from the few Oppose comments on his RfA[58], especially Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment (this is one of very few instances I agree with HW). Because it is indeed something to indef a new editor based on inconclusive CU results and flawed behavioural analysis.

Anyhow, I do not know what the way should be for the editor behind this account. They can't continue editing as ATT but cannot register a new account as it will be quickly blocked. Any ideas? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorstaking and Kashmiri: ATT is free to make another appeal, and another administrator will review it. At the end of the day, I reviewed everything and did not believe there was enough to unblock here: my standard of review is whether another administrator acted within discretion and whether or not an unblock has the potential to increase disruption. On the whole, I felt the answer to both questions was yes, which means I do not believe that I could justify unblocking. Administrators have discretion in applying blocks in this area, and there is enough behavioral evidence combined with the CU explanation that this block is not outside of what would be considered reasonable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Lord has been now notified of this discussion.[59] Lorstaking (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not really relevant, as of course he will say it isn’t him even if it is him. I’d encourage everyone who isn’t ATT from getting further into the weeds here: en.wiki does not accept 3rd party appeals, and there is not currently an active appeal as I declined the one above. If ATT makes a new appeal, a new administrator will review the record, and the comments here from people other than ATT probably won’t be helpful to them (they weren’t for me) and if anything will make a future appeal take longer to process because no one wants to deal with a crowd while reviewing blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I had presented my case pretty clearly and don't know how to obtain those evidences myself, @TonyBallioni:. Seems like @TonyBallioni: just paid all/most of the attention to @Ivanvector:'s comments and none/very little to the so many evidences provided by other editors. Thanks to all the editors involved supporting my unblock for providing the evidences.

Let me again point it out that I'm an independent editor not remotely related to ML in any way whatsoever.

The reasons given by Ivanvector at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018 for blocking me were just not true. Quoting Ivanvector and mentioning why they are wrong :-

1) "Both My Lord (ML) and Adding The Truth (ATT) pushed a POV (under the guise of neutrality) that certain details of Kulbhushan Jadhav's arrest were claims made by Pakistani authorities, against the apparent stable consensus that they are factual details rather than disputed claims. They were the only two accounts to do this."

My argument :- This is completely false. His place of arrest has been disputed. Pakistan's and Indian claims are different from each other and both reject each other's claims. India says he was abducted from Iran while Pakistan says he was arrested from Balochistan. Ivanvector is wrong in saying that Pakistani claims are "...factual details rather than disputed claims". As far as Ivanvector saying that me and ML were the only two accounts to do this is, as mentioned by @Lorstaking: earlier, that is not true either. Many other editors did similar edits. The article wasn't neutral (NPOV) without these details so what else was I supposed to say other than it being biased and not neutral? I wasn't pushing my POV, just following NPOV by presenting Indian government's side as well.

2) "ML and ATT both defended their SPIs in similar fashion: highlighting lack of previous association with the filer, suggesting a retaliatory battleground motive to the report, and dismissing the allegation with a mild insult. GhostProducer also did this."

My argument :- This is one more untrue statement (reason) from Ivanvector for blocking me. I never defended my "SPI by highlighting the lack of previous association with the filer". Ivanvector was clearly wrong here as well. As fas as the mild insult is concerned, I never insulted anyone at the SPI, I was annoyed by the sheer number of invalid and baseless allegations made there against me harassing a new editor like myself.

3) "ML has admitted, after having denied it up to yesterday, that they operated the IndianEditor accounts, and I take their statement to mean that they deliberately created separate accounts in order to "silo" their edits to evade scrutiny. ATT fits that profile. And while ML claims that they have not created any new socks in the past nine months, they lied about the IndianEditor accounts right on this page right up to yesterday, so I have no reason to trust that claim. I also note that ML seems to have deliberately altered their behaviour between the master account and the various socks, in a way which makes ATT look more behaviourally similar to the older accounts. For these reasons, Adding The Truth is Blocked and tagged."

My argument :- How does ML lying about IndianEditor equal my account being his sockpuppet? The conclusion Ivanvector came to in his last paragraph is based on the reasons they gave earlier, which are not true at all as I mentioned before.

4) Ivanvector here above :- "Adding The Truth: [35] - inserted "Pakistani claim" awkwardly mid-sentence, without a reference, and in a grammatically awkward way which recalls ML's own subsequent awkward edits, and suggested (edit summary) that this made the section more neutral (it didn't)."

My argument :- Again, false statement by Ivanvector, it was nothing more than a claim by Pakistan. Also, I added the very next sentence on the Kulbhushan Jadhav page - "On 10 April 2017, Indian foreign ministry said he had been "kidnapped last year from Iran and his subsequent presence in Pakistan has never been explained credibly", and provided a reference to support it as well as opposed to Ivanvector claiming that I didn't. You can see it for yourself on that page. Ivanvector was wrong again saying that it didn't make the article neutral. Both sides were presented, how does that not make it neutral? I'm struggling to understand the logic of Ivanvector here as well.

Just because I used "Pakistani claim" to refer to what is and someone else did it too, doesn't mean me and ML are the same people. How many ways are there anyway to refer to it correctly other than Pakistani/Pakistan's claim and allegedly? People are going to pick one of them at a time more often than not.

As mentioned by @Lorstaking:, ML could have used my account to help with other disputes ML had been involved in if my account was owned by ML.

I hope that's enough (along with the evidences provided by other editors above) to have myself unblocked. Thank you! Adding The Truth (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I had presented my case pretty clearly and don't know how to obtain those evidences myself, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span>. Seems like <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span> just paid all/most of the attention to <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>'s comments and none/very little to the so many evidences provided by other editors. Thanks to all the editors involved supporting my unblock for providing the evidences.

Let me again point it out that I'm an independent editor not remotely related to ML in any way whatsoever.

The reasons given by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018]] for blocking me were just not true. Quoting Ivanvector and mentioning why they are wrong :-

1) "Both My Lord (ML) and Adding The Truth (ATT) pushed a POV (under the guise of neutrality) that certain details of Kulbhushan Jadhav's arrest were claims made by Pakistani authorities, against the apparent stable consensus that they are factual details rather than disputed claims. They were the only two accounts to do this."

My argument :- This is completely false. His place of arrest has been disputed. Pakistan's and Indian claims are different from each other and both reject each other's claims. India says he was abducted from Iran while Pakistan says he was arrested from Balochistan. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] is wrong in saying that Pakistani claims are "...factual details rather than disputed claims". As far as Ivanvector saying that me and ML were the only two accounts to do this is, as mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span> earlier, that is not true either. Many other editors did similar edits. The article wasn't neutral (NPOV) without these details so what else was I supposed to say other than it being biased and not neutral? I wasn't pushing my POV, just following NPOV by presenting Indian government's side as well. 

2) "ML and ATT both defended their SPIs in similar fashion: highlighting lack of previous association with the filer, suggesting a retaliatory battleground motive to the report, and dismissing the allegation with a mild insult. GhostProducer also did this."

My argument :- This is one more untrue statement (reason) from Ivanvector for blocking me. I never defended my "SPI by highlighting the lack of previous association with the filer". Ivanvector was clearly wrong here as well. As fas as the mild insult is concerned, I never insulted anyone at the SPI, I was annoyed by the sheer number of invalid and baseless allegations made there against me harassing a new editor like myself. 

3) "ML has admitted, after having denied it up to yesterday, that they operated the IndianEditor accounts, and I take their statement to mean that they deliberately created separate accounts in order to "silo" their edits to evade scrutiny. ATT fits that profile. And while ML claims that they have not created any new socks in the past nine months, they lied about the IndianEditor accounts right on this page right up to yesterday, so I have no reason to trust that claim. I also note that ML seems to have deliberately altered their behaviour between the master account and the various socks, in a way which makes ATT look more behaviourally similar to the older accounts.
For these reasons, Adding The Truth is  Blocked and tagged."

My argument :- How does ML lying about IndianEditor equal my account being his sockpuppet? The conclusion Ivanvector came to in his last paragraph is based on the reasons they gave earlier, which are not true at all as I mentioned before. 

4) Ivanvector here above :- "Adding The Truth: [35] - inserted "Pakistani claim" awkwardly mid-sentence, without a reference, and in a grammatically awkward way which recalls ML's own subsequent awkward edits, and suggested (edit summary) that this made the section more neutral (it didn't)."

My argument :- Again, false statement by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]], it was nothing more than a claim by Pakistan. Also, I added the very next sentence on the [[Kulbhushan Jadhav]] page - "On 10 April 2017, Indian foreign ministry said he had been "kidnapped last year from Iran and his subsequent presence in Pakistan has never been explained credibly", and provided a reference to support it as well as opposed to Ivanvector claiming that I didn't. You can see it for yourself on that page. Ivanvector was wrong again saying that it didn't make the article neutral. Both sides were presented, how does that not make it neutral? I'm struggling to understand the logic of Ivanvector here as well.

Just because I used "Pakistani claim" to refer to what is and someone else did it too, doesn't mean me and ML are the same people. How many ways are there anyway to refer to it correctly other than Pakistani/Pakistan's claim and allegedly? People are going to pick one of them at a time more often than not.

As mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span>, ML could have used my account to help with other disputes ML had been involved in if my account was owned by ML. 

I hope that's enough (along with the evidences provided by other editors above) to have myself unblocked. Thank you! [[User:Adding The Truth|Adding The Truth]] ([[User talk:Adding The Truth#top|talk]]) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I had presented my case pretty clearly and don't know how to obtain those evidences myself, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span>. Seems like <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span> just paid all/most of the attention to <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>'s comments and none/very little to the so many evidences provided by other editors. Thanks to all the editors involved supporting my unblock for providing the evidences.

Let me again point it out that I'm an independent editor not remotely related to ML in any way whatsoever.

The reasons given by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018]] for blocking me were just not true. Quoting Ivanvector and mentioning why they are wrong :-

1) "Both My Lord (ML) and Adding The Truth (ATT) pushed a POV (under the guise of neutrality) that certain details of Kulbhushan Jadhav's arrest were claims made by Pakistani authorities, against the apparent stable consensus that they are factual details rather than disputed claims. They were the only two accounts to do this."

My argument :- This is completely false. His place of arrest has been disputed. Pakistan's and Indian claims are different from each other and both reject each other's claims. India says he was abducted from Iran while Pakistan says he was arrested from Balochistan. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] is wrong in saying that Pakistani claims are "...factual details rather than disputed claims". As far as Ivanvector saying that me and ML were the only two accounts to do this is, as mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span> earlier, that is not true either. Many other editors did similar edits. The article wasn't neutral (NPOV) without these details so what else was I supposed to say other than it being biased and not neutral? I wasn't pushing my POV, just following NPOV by presenting Indian government's side as well. 

2) "ML and ATT both defended their SPIs in similar fashion: highlighting lack of previous association with the filer, suggesting a retaliatory battleground motive to the report, and dismissing the allegation with a mild insult. GhostProducer also did this."

My argument :- This is one more untrue statement (reason) from Ivanvector for blocking me. I never defended my "SPI by highlighting the lack of previous association with the filer". Ivanvector was clearly wrong here as well. As fas as the mild insult is concerned, I never insulted anyone at the SPI, I was annoyed by the sheer number of invalid and baseless allegations made there against me harassing a new editor like myself. 

3) "ML has admitted, after having denied it up to yesterday, that they operated the IndianEditor accounts, and I take their statement to mean that they deliberately created separate accounts in order to "silo" their edits to evade scrutiny. ATT fits that profile. And while ML claims that they have not created any new socks in the past nine months, they lied about the IndianEditor accounts right on this page right up to yesterday, so I have no reason to trust that claim. I also note that ML seems to have deliberately altered their behaviour between the master account and the various socks, in a way which makes ATT look more behaviourally similar to the older accounts.
For these reasons, Adding The Truth is  Blocked and tagged."

My argument :- How does ML lying about IndianEditor equal my account being his sockpuppet? The conclusion Ivanvector came to in his last paragraph is based on the reasons they gave earlier, which are not true at all as I mentioned before. 

4) Ivanvector here above :- "Adding The Truth: [35] - inserted "Pakistani claim" awkwardly mid-sentence, without a reference, and in a grammatically awkward way which recalls ML's own subsequent awkward edits, and suggested (edit summary) that this made the section more neutral (it didn't)."

My argument :- Again, false statement by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]], it was nothing more than a claim by Pakistan. Also, I added the very next sentence on the [[Kulbhushan Jadhav]] page - "On 10 April 2017, Indian foreign ministry said he had been "kidnapped last year from Iran and his subsequent presence in Pakistan has never been explained credibly", and provided a reference to support it as well as opposed to Ivanvector claiming that I didn't. You can see it for yourself on that page. Ivanvector was wrong again saying that it didn't make the article neutral. Both sides were presented, how does that not make it neutral? I'm struggling to understand the logic of Ivanvector here as well.

Just because I used "Pakistani claim" to refer to what is and someone else did it too, doesn't mean me and ML are the same people. How many ways are there anyway to refer to it correctly other than Pakistani/Pakistan's claim and allegedly? People are going to pick one of them at a time more often than not.

As mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span>, ML could have used my account to help with other disputes ML had been involved in if my account was owned by ML. 

I hope that's enough (along with the evidences provided by other editors above) to have myself unblocked. Thank you! [[User:Adding The Truth|Adding The Truth]] ([[User talk:Adding The Truth#top|talk]]) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I had presented my case pretty clearly and don't know how to obtain those evidences myself, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span>. Seems like <span class="template-ping">@[[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]:</span> just paid all/most of the attention to <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>'s comments and none/very little to the so many evidences provided by other editors. Thanks to all the editors involved supporting my unblock for providing the evidences.

Let me again point it out that I'm an independent editor not remotely related to ML in any way whatsoever.

The reasons given by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018]] for blocking me were just not true. Quoting Ivanvector and mentioning why they are wrong :-

1) "Both My Lord (ML) and Adding The Truth (ATT) pushed a POV (under the guise of neutrality) that certain details of Kulbhushan Jadhav's arrest were claims made by Pakistani authorities, against the apparent stable consensus that they are factual details rather than disputed claims. They were the only two accounts to do this."

My argument :- This is completely false. His place of arrest has been disputed. Pakistan's and Indian claims are different from each other and both reject each other's claims. India says he was abducted from Iran while Pakistan says he was arrested from Balochistan. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] is wrong in saying that Pakistani claims are "...factual details rather than disputed claims". As far as Ivanvector saying that me and ML were the only two accounts to do this is, as mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span> earlier, that is not true either. Many other editors did similar edits. The article wasn't neutral (NPOV) without these details so what else was I supposed to say other than it being biased and not neutral? I wasn't pushing my POV, just following NPOV by presenting Indian government's side as well. 

2) "ML and ATT both defended their SPIs in similar fashion: highlighting lack of previous association with the filer, suggesting a retaliatory battleground motive to the report, and dismissing the allegation with a mild insult. GhostProducer also did this."

My argument :- This is one more untrue statement (reason) from Ivanvector for blocking me. I never defended my "SPI by highlighting the lack of previous association with the filer". Ivanvector was clearly wrong here as well. As fas as the mild insult is concerned, I never insulted anyone at the SPI, I was annoyed by the sheer number of invalid and baseless allegations made there against me harassing a new editor like myself. 

3) "ML has admitted, after having denied it up to yesterday, that they operated the IndianEditor accounts, and I take their statement to mean that they deliberately created separate accounts in order to "silo" their edits to evade scrutiny. ATT fits that profile. And while ML claims that they have not created any new socks in the past nine months, they lied about the IndianEditor accounts right on this page right up to yesterday, so I have no reason to trust that claim. I also note that ML seems to have deliberately altered their behaviour between the master account and the various socks, in a way which makes ATT look more behaviourally similar to the older accounts.
For these reasons, Adding The Truth is  Blocked and tagged."

My argument :- How does ML lying about IndianEditor equal my account being his sockpuppet? The conclusion Ivanvector came to in his last paragraph is based on the reasons they gave earlier, which are not true at all as I mentioned before. 

4) Ivanvector here above :- "Adding The Truth: [35] - inserted "Pakistani claim" awkwardly mid-sentence, without a reference, and in a grammatically awkward way which recalls ML's own subsequent awkward edits, and suggested (edit summary) that this made the section more neutral (it didn't)."

My argument :- Again, false statement by [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]], it was nothing more than a claim by Pakistan. Also, I added the very next sentence on the [[Kulbhushan Jadhav]] page - "On 10 April 2017, Indian foreign ministry said he had been "kidnapped last year from Iran and his subsequent presence in Pakistan has never been explained credibly", and provided a reference to support it as well as opposed to Ivanvector claiming that I didn't. You can see it for yourself on that page. Ivanvector was wrong again saying that it didn't make the article neutral. Both sides were presented, how does that not make it neutral? I'm struggling to understand the logic of Ivanvector here as well.

Just because I used "Pakistani claim" to refer to what is and someone else did it too, doesn't mean me and ML are the same people. How many ways are there anyway to refer to it correctly other than Pakistani/Pakistan's claim and allegedly? People are going to pick one of them at a time more often than not.

As mentioned by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]]:</span>, ML could have used my account to help with other disputes ML had been involved in if my account was owned by ML. 

I hope that's enough (along with the evidences provided by other editors above) to have myself unblocked. Thank you! [[User:Adding The Truth|Adding The Truth]] ([[User talk:Adding The Truth#top|talk]]) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Whoever reads this unblock request may also want to read the statement from My Lord. Lorstaking (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to the bit that affects me: I independently reviewed all the diffs in the SPI, and then discussed it with the blocking admin. I also read your appeal and considered what you were saying. After careful consideration, I decided I could not unblock at the time. Finally having read the ridiculous response by the ML account (that never should have been notified), I’m actually convinced that this is the same person and fully endorse this block and Ivanvector’s conclusions. Also, to repeat my request from above: if you are not an administrator reviewing this block, please do not comment. We know your views by now and further comments are the opposite of helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:30, 28 July 2018 edit Adding The Truth (talk \| contribs) 199 edits No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:01, 28 July 2018 edit undo TonyBallioni (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers 49,289 edits →‎Break: cmt Next edit →
Line 283:		Line 283:

	*Whoever reads this unblock request may also want to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_Lord&type=revision&diff=852333728&oldid=852279023 the statement] from My Lord. [[User:Lorstaking\|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking\|talk]]) 13:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)		*Whoever reads this unblock request may also want to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_Lord&type=revision&diff=852333728&oldid=852279023 the statement] from My Lord. [[User:Lorstaking\|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking\|talk]]) 13:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
			*To reply to the bit that affects me: I independently reviewed all the diffs in the SPI, and then discussed it with the blocking admin. I also read your appeal and considered what you were saying. After careful consideration, I decided I could not unblock at the time. Finally having read the ridiculous response by the ML account (that never should have been notified), I’m actually convinced that this is the same person and fully endorse this block and Ivanvector’s conclusions. Also, to repeat my request from above: if you are not an administrator reviewing this block, please do not comment. We know your views by now and further comments are the opposite of helpful. [[User:TonyBallioni\|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni\|talk]]) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)