User talk:Adding The Truth

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, 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — kashmīrī  TALK  18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Discretionary sanctions notification
--regentspark (comment) 20:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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. 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  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)
 * 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.

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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

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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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. 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)

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)


 * 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 . — kashmīrī  TALK  17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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! 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)


 * 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)

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 &#124; talk 08:35, 19 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. Neil N  talk to me 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. --Neil N  talk to me 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please help me understand here, 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)
 * 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)

July 2018
Just letting you know that you have been blocked as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive. 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:. Lorstaking (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 and don't talk about any other editors per WP:NOTTHEM.  Razer ( talk ) 18:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Seems like this needs to be clarified by Adding The Truth himself. 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)
 * 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)

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 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 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)

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.

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 were actually NPOV, since the edits in the question are generally accepted among vast amount of sources, but many other editors like Adamgerber80, Aks23121990, Apandey k, and many others have been making same edits as ML and ATT. Many other editors on this same article have cited "NPOV" as justification for their edits. 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 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 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. 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, and the overlap is also very insignificant 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)

I can not thank you enough 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)


 * 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:, example 2:  Razer ( talk ) 15:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

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


 * 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 . 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)

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

Along with numerous false accusations, I'm quoting  :- "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 to mention the incident. Adding The Truth (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocking admin has been already notified 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)


 * 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)


 * Comment-I, for one, would support lifting ATT's block. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocking admin response - I've already clearly detailed the rationale behind my block at Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord, specifically here. I'll expand on the Kulbhushan Jadhav edits, from diffs provided:
 * - 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.
 * - 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:
 * - 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.
 * - cited NPOV in changing "terrorists" to "militants", which was not related to inserting "Pakistani claim" anywhere.
 * , - in two edits, adds "baseless" to preexisting "Pakistani claim" text, then expands on "baseless" with a decent reference. Perfect English, if brief.
 * - 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.
 * - obviously an undisclosed paid editing throwaway whose only edits to this article were changing the subject's profession.
 * , - 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.
 * - also a CU-blocked sockpuppet, but not of this case as far as I can tell (blocking admin does not appear to have logged the master account). This edit was just undoing their own revert of ATT's edit.
 * - 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.
 * - simply a revert of an edit that was probably vandalism.
 * - 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 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)
 * is an unrelated case. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In this reply to the response of, 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 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? 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 as "a seasoned editor". Obaid Raza is the editor who made misleading comment on AE against ML, and filed that SPI against him, without any earlier interaction. 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)


 * 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  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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 to get his view and also look at my review of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, it seems to be sort of pattern on the part of Ivanvector, judging from the few Oppose comments on his RfA, especially '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  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * has been now notified of this discussion. Lorstaking (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Whoever reads this unblock request may also want to read the statement from My Lord. 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

, you might've reviewed all the diffs in the SPI, but you also stated that this block is controversial according to you and you wouldn't have done it. So, clearly there is not enough evidence to support the block, just speculations. Ivanvector only hangs on to "Pakistani claim" and NPOV which I've explained in my earlier comments.

Now you're suddenly fully endorsing the block and Ivanvector's conclusions which was exactly my point when I said it seems like you didn't pay enough attention to other editors' comments.

I'd just like to know what made you suddenly firmly believe that ML's response clearly means my account and theirs are the same person? Plus, what are your thoughts on the wrong reasons given by Ivanvector for my block which I mentioned in my last comment? The check users who identify location of editors might come in handy here to prove that I have no association with ML. I hope helping me out here won't result in their account being wrongfully blocked like mine did.

If you'd read my last comment above, you'd realise that 's conclusions for the block were based on false reasons/statements made by Ivanvector.

I would request a new administrator to kindly read my last comment as well as other editors' comments before taking any action. They prove that Ivanvector's conclusions for the block WERE NOT BASED ON FACTS. Thank you. Adding The Truth (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there is a difference between saying I wouldn't have done something and saying it was a bad block. I am pretty conservative in blocking, and another admin could reasonably block in cases where I wouldn't, and vice versa. I thought it important to note for the record that as another admin with SPI experience, I may not have blocked, but that I felt that Ivanvector's reading of the evidence was reasonable. Admins aren't robots, and we are appointed in large part for our ability to use our discretion. This was a block that was within discretion.Reading the response from the ML account and along with other statements from you and them, I see significant enough similarities that I believe it is likely that the same person operates this account as well as ML.Also, Lorstaking is in no danger of getting blocked, and no one has suggested it, so please don't throw up that strawman. I just pointed out that not a single comment other users has actually helped you or made this block review easier for an admin to review, and suggested that everyone should let the normal process play out and stop adding comments that aren't helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

you still didn't present your opinion on Ivanvector's conclusions being based on false assessment/reasons.

About, I was "hoping" he doesn't get blocked wrongfully like I did. There's nothing wrong in hoping, is there?

Again, I have no association/connection with ML whatsoever.

I'm struggling to understand what similarities between mine and ML's responses are there? There are so many significant differences in mine and ML's style of writing.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I'd like a new administrator to please look into this. I don't know what else would it take to prove myself. Adding The Truth (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

, I have been wrongly blocked. I request you to please read my and other editors' comments supporting lifting my block as well as 's factually incorrect reasons given for blocking me. You helped me with signing and pinging which I had difficulty with in the beginning which wouldn't have been the case had I been another account of an old user, ML in this case. I request you to please look into this and unblock me if possible. Adding The Truth (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I found his block to be a reasonable interpretation of the facts, even if different people could read them differently, and thus I was unwilling to unblock. I don’t know how more clear I can be. I also now think you are My Lord. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Just quoting again one of the false statements/reasons given by Ivanvector for the block.

Ivanvector :- "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."

I've explained earlier why this (and other reasons as well) is just not true. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I read Ivanvector's comments above again I'd like to mention something.

Quoting Ivanvector :- "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."

I never ever edited anything in any infobox, ML did, which is another evidence for me being a different person and not ML.Adding The Truth (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

, I have no connection with ML as I have said multiple times before. I have been wrongly accused of being a fake account of ML and have been wrongly blocked. I and plenty of other editors have provided evidences and supported my unblock. Ivanvector gave factually incorrect reasons for the block as well. Please consider unblocking me. Thank you! Adding The Truth (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind looking into this,, , ? I have been wrongly blocked. I don't know if I should be tagging you guys but nothing seems to move forward here. Not sure of the process. Thank you! Adding The Truth (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have interacted My Lord and I don't believe that these two accounts are related at all. It shouldn't be hard for others to agree that the SPI made zero sense. There's too much to discuss right now, more than just debating if the block was mistaken and if it was then how it can be justified. Until now, many editors here have raised concerns, the blocking admin has been already consulted, and one unblock request has been already declined. I believe it would be better to move this matter to WP:AN. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s not how this works. They’ve made another appeal, and another administrator will review it. AN is the absolute last place a contentious sockpuppetry block should be reviewed, and the blocking policy acknowledges how difficult these types of requests are to judge and encourages caution when handling them. There is currently no disagreement between administrators involved on this request. If another admin comes along and disagrees, we discuss it and if we can’t come to an agreement, then it goes to AN. There is nothing special about this request that suggests we should go outside of the normal procedures. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * (responding to ping) I have read all the above and associated discussions, and
 * I can alternately convince myself that user:Adding The Truth is or isn't a sock of User:My Lord
 * It is pretty clear that there is ample tag-teaming and off-wiki coordination among rival cliques of editors in the India-Pakistan area (some of it was discussed and handled at this May '18, AE page). This makes it difficult, and arguably pointless, to tell apart sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and other editors who just happen to share the POV and "naturally" copy the existing discussion style and battleground mentality.
 * For the above reasons, I'm unable to unblock Adding The Truth. However, since I cannot positively verify sockpuppetry, I'll leave it to other reviewing admins to take a look and respond formally to the unblock request. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We have two admins who are convinced that Adding the Truth is a sock of MyLord and that's good enough for me. I think this needs to go out of this talk page and Adding the Truth should try convincing oversight or the arbs, using private information that they can't share here, that they are not a sock. This won't be resolved here. Remove talk page access and force the editor to seek other routes is the best way to deal with this. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Before the talk page access is revoked as suggested by, I'd like to say that I'm an independent editor who started editing a month and half ago. Have been dealing with this investigation for almost a month. I have no connection with ML and have no idea how to go about things if the access is removed and collect those evidences myself which are provided by, , ,. I'd like to thank each and every one of the editors supporting my unblock. ,, , thank you to all of you. I really appreciate it. Also, now that I've been wrongly blocked and can't convince the administratos enough to unblock me, even though I've (and other editors) have provided plenty of evidences, I think of all the innocent editors like myself who get wrongly caught in the crossfire and as a result get wrongly blocked. Check users and administrators need to change the way they interpret the results or the policies need to to change, whichever is causing the problem. That's just personal thought. Thank you.Adding The Truth (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your talk page access will not be revoked if you stop pinging people (like you have done again). As RP has mentioned, two admins have looked through the record and found enough similarities between you and the other editor. So, any further appeal by you, via WP:UTRS for example, would need to explain why these similarities have occurred. If you have tag-teamed or off-wiki coordinated with other editors, you would need to admit it. That is about all I can say. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never tag-teamed or off-wiki coordinated with any editor ever. I have mentioned why Ivanvector's reasons given for the block were factually incorrect (Ive mentioned it thouroughly above) and no one is saying anything about it or even telling me that I'm wrong about it either. Ivanvector just hangs on to "Pakistani claim", which I have clarified above as well. I read the Kulbhushan Jadhav page and found that it shows in the lead as if he was arrested from Balochistan and it was an established fact. If you have been paying any attention to this case from the last 2 years you'd know that this is a disputed claim. So, I created an account to make things right on Wikipedia. It was about time someone came and corrected it. I just did that. Ivanvector was absolutely wrong in saying that his arrest place was an established fact. SPI was flawed to begin with as observed by the other editors as well. Adding The Truth (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk page access will get revoked if you continued to engage in WP:CANVASSING. You don't know but a couple of admins you pinged are in dispute with My Lord. You are only making it worse for yourself with this canvassing. From now don't link name of any other editor and don't repeat what you have already said. Lorstaking (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for the info. Adding The Truth (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you wish to keep your t/p access, kindly stop posting over here, unless asked by any sysop .As to your unblock, either contact the functionaries or our sysops through UTRS, where you can have the safety of conversing about your private data (IP addresses, UAs etc.) in a restricted fora and build your defense accordingly.Two un-involved admin(s) have been satisfied as to the behavioral evidence behind the block and it's extremely unlikely that a third/fourth would choose to override them, based on the very same evidence and the very same rebuttals from you. Please, do not reply.Best, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , there appears to be both technical as well as behavioral evidence that you're a sock of MyLord. The reality is that either or both of those could be incorrect because behavioral evidence is circumstantial and there could be unrelated reasons why the technical evidence shows up. Either way this cannot be resolved without your revealing private locational and other technical information and that is best done off-wiki. If you are not a sock of MyLord, then stop posting here and make a case through UTRS. If you are a sock of MyLord, stop posting here because you're only delaying a possible return of MyLord. Either way, you need to stop posting on this page and that's why I recommended removing talk page access. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As I have said multiple times before, I'm unrelated to ML. I'm gonna go ahead with UTRS. Just a quick question, revealing my personal information there won't possess a security threat, would it? I mean, no administrator/anyone who reads it would leak it, right? Just to be clear. Adding The Truth (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if UTRS is the best option. should be able to give you a better sense of what's the best way forward. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've revoked TPA. From here on, I will revert any non-admin comments to this Talk page. This is too much of a free-for-all to be helpful. @Adding The Truth, you may use WP:UTRS to appeal your block, although you might wish to wait to see what happens with your outstanding unblock request first. The only other appeal option seems premature to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)