User talk:My Lord/Archives 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Punjabi wedding songs

MyLord, just to let you know, the discussion on the above mentioned page is now at

talk

) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

WP:ANI Kautilya3 (talk

) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Check my reply on Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad Talk page. My Lord (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 II

What talkpage policies would those be? Please review

WP:DRC and don't restore removed comments to a user talkpage. If you wish to refer to this general talkpage guideline, you need to note that its very first point refers you to the section "User talk pages" on the same page; clicking on the link would have given you full information. Besides, your original comment was so harassing it should not have been posted even once. Do not bait blocked users. Bishonen | talk

08:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

@

WP:DRC on here because I didn't restored the comment removed by the user " from their own talk page". My Lord (talk

) 10:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I'm sorry. I'll change my warning to "do not restore harassment to user talkpages". Bishonen | talk 15:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

Still makes no sense, because there was no harassment but an attempt to stop harassment from the disruptive sock, which is continuing even after warnings and the sock was mostly being told to stop making and repeating false allegations against other users and stop

WP:GAMING and the reasons were also mentioned. This has been done by other editors too,[3] an admin/CU removed enough gibberish from talk page of the sock.[4] Unless I had ever reverted a user on his own talk page, then only any of your warning would make sense, but such revert never took place. I don't think socks are allowed to willfully abuse talk page and create drama and when multiple users find a problem with a sock abusing talk page, then the sock needs to be prevented from disruption. My Lord (talk

) 07:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.)

Kishtwar district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marwah

Nina Lugovskaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Prison camp

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

AE alert

This is to notify you that you are invited to AE.

Farhan Khurram (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kishtwar district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marwah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

EFSAS

Have you seen this report from EFSAS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I am reading. My Lord (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kargil

Hi, Do you have the ref stating Nawaz sharif claimed Kargil defeat. would be helpful as it is a strong source. --DBigXray 12:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: "As two prime ministers of Pakistan later acknowledged, 'Kargil war was Pakistan's biggest blunder and disaster."[5] "He also admitted that Pakistan was defeated in Kargil" [6], " He argued that had he accepted defeat then.."[7] Sharif gave a lengthy interview to India Today about this.[8] My Lord (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• thanks for sharing the link, May I request you to post the same with your comment on the article talk page. You had searched for these links so you should also get the credit for the same. These sources help to verify your comment --DBigXray 13:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: done. When you get some time, please check Talk:Battle of Chawinda#Result. It's results are inaccurate. My Lord (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Recording My Gratitude

Sir/Madam, This is the TheGoodIndian here. By undoing many of the huge number of (often unnecessary) edits made by

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, you did exactly what I was thinking of doing. You saved me quite a lot of work. I thought that saying it this way would be better than just clicking the thank button. Regards, TheGoodIndian (talk

) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)s

@TheGoodIndian: My pleasure.My Lord (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi, just drawing your attention to User talk:D4iNa4#Mass reverts. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance

Please don't let's start introducing religious crap to match the nationalist crap for which you were recently sanctioned. I've reverted you at the Kashmiri Pandit article because your copy/paste appears likely to introduce a lot of stuff - such as the kshatriya reference - that has no obvious earing on KPs. Since the religious and nationalist aspects overlap, and since Kashmir is a disputed region, I think you need to tread extremely carefully otherwise you are going to face another topic ban.

As an aside, I recall that this account is a name-change but I forget what your previous account may have been. Do you mention it anywhere? - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, are you topic banned? I notice the message above of 30 June where you apparently edited an article about the 1971 war. That, surely, would be a part of the ban. Perhaps, therefore, I am mistaken? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: This is my only account and I am not topic banned and I was never sanctioned anywhere. Though a number of disruptive editors have been trying to get me sanctioned but their reports have been rejected as frivolous on ARE. About 3 times this year alone.

As for the article and the dispute, I was thinking of getting the main article deleted that's why I thought of moving some content first and I had to leave computer because of some work otherwise I was going to self-revert soon after realizing that there is not enough relevance. My Lord (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for the confusion - it has been a weird few weeks. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Love Jihad

Hello. I have undone your revert of my change to

policy be restored as the IP originally added it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: My bad, thanks for this edit. My Lord (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Fam

ok i promise you. but the producer need another name for the pilot episode of Fam and the show was co-created by Corrine Kingsbury and Diane Kredensor. i could fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Folds Seven (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ben Folds Seven: I understand that you want to fix the article but as I told you already that you need to cite a reliable source for everything you add on Wikipedia. I am reverting your last edit also because I couldn't find Diane Kredensor as the creator of the show anywhere. But if you can provide a reliable source which states so then please add it back. I would recommend you to read referencing for beginners tutorial. Hope that helps. My Lord (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page comment removal

Hmm, user MBlaze Lightning removed a comment from a talk page -- maybe you should revert him without an explanation and mark it as minor? (P.S. An easy way to stop having people comment about this would be to post an acknowledgement that your edit was bad and that you will try to not make bad edits like it in the future.) --128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

APWH

You got incorrect stats for the 2017 APWH sesssion. https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2017/Student-Score-Distributions-2017.pdf Please revert back to my most recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.208.59 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you

think that

WP:N in light of NOTNEWS? All these ought be merged into an article, probably devoting a line to each in a timeline-manner (along with the ones, you've put up at Afd) but am unsure about the target.....∯WBG^converse

06:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Free Faizan Campaign is not notable and too much of a WP:SYNTH. 2006 Doodhipora killing is a red link. 2004 Teli Katha massacre is WP:NOTNEWS. 2018 Shopian firing incident is not notable but I assumed good faith and echoed the suggestion of merging the article one week ago.[9] My Lord (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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

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.

Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am reminding you of the discretionary sanctions since it has been more than a year since you were last alerted about them, and in light of your recent interactions with

hounding. Abecedare (talk

) 17:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: You could check above section[10] as well as the user log,[11] which shows I am already aware of it. I raised the valid concerns since he is not allowed to edit war by providing no edit summary or misleading edit summary and tell other IP editor not to edit at all without account. The guideline page you have confirms my concerns to be valid by saying that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." My Lord (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• My Lord, to repeat what I just told Nauriya too: given the recent experience, it is best if you and they stay away from each other, and minimize interactions. The good news is that (except for recently) your respective areas of interest are distinct enough that you should be able to avoid running into each other voluntarily. Therefore right now I'm offering this only as an advice, but if any of the editors do not seem to get the message, interaction or topic bans are likely to follow. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Abecedare: I don't really have any direct dispute with him. Whenever you get this impression, kindly confirm it from me. My Lord (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop redirecting articles

Why are you redirecting articles on Islamic prophecies? Are you an expert in the field? You should contribute to topics of your expertise as I do. Stop being a mindless nationalist. I think you timid Indians get scared out of mere text! Grow up boy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion as a Friend

Dear Editor, do you think by deleting an article on wikipedia, people won't know about it? What a joke! The web is awash with innumerable resources on what you are scared of (text lines)! Get a wife or girl friend and have some life than sitting all day on screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your AfD nomination of Lal Chowk fire

I'd withdraw this, if I were you. It's a ridiculous nomination and your deletion rationale makes you look like you're editing in a POV manner, which will inevitably gain the attention of administrators. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You are absolutely correct. This nomination was an accident. I had done my research for 2004 Teli Katha massacre as suggested in above section (User talk:My Lord#Do you) but I pressed the nomination on a wrong article as I had opened many windows of similar articles. All I did was change "2004" to "1993" thinking I may have mistaken in reading the year earlier and after nomination I was soon distracted into other things like the harassment from that guy who is now indeffed.[12] I have withdrawn this AFD as an accident and nominated the actual article I was supposed to nominate for AFD. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Teli Katha massacre. My Lord (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

ping

Hello, My Lord. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

July 2018

illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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

) 22:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone thinking of grave-dancing, DON'T. Abecedare (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Adding The Truth was blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord/Archive#08 July 2018. I understand you were told above to "stop following wikipedia discussion" but you can discuss this matter if you want. Lorstaking (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

First of all the SPI was entirely faulty that I am shocked why it was even entertained.

"Adding The Truth's IP[191] shows he is from Jammu" Sure? I am capable enough not to edit with an IP. Is there anyone who can show me where did I edited with my IP? I have contacted Oversighters regarding a different matter before for suppressing diffs, which can be inquired. This means I would rather ask Oversighters to suppress diffs if I ever engaged in logged-out editing, unlike ATT.

It is nonsensical to say that I made the account because "there shall be no CU in that SPI", why would I create an account when I am going through an SPI? Why I would create a new account when I had already abandoned a far more experienced account like Iamgod12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about 8 months ago?

They also like to give each sentence in their complaint a separate line.While in my writings I have given only 1 space[13] and ATT has given separated line [14] in every sentence.

"Edit summaries of both use the term added extensively," do you really call this an evidence?

While Ivanvector was reviewing ATT's unblock request,[15] Ivanvector has misread comments on talk page of ATT where it was said "Many other editors on this same article have cited "NPOV" as justification for their edits", this had to do nothing with my edited content but only edit summaries.

@TonyBallioni: You should read comments from other editors that have commented on that ATT's talk page as they thoroughly refute superficial SPI. You need to give them the same importance as you have done to the comments of Ivanvector. The block concerns me and not every new editor like ATT is capable of debunking the superficial evidence used for blocking them. This is why more experienced editors made the discussion. ML ^talk 06:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

MyLord, you may use the talk page to discuss reasons for unblocking. While some leeway is allowed when a blocked editor uses their own talk page, discussing the block of someone found to be your own sock is definitely not within that leeway. If you think ATT has incorrectly been identified as your sock, you need to discuss this with oversighters, on UTRS, or by email. Not on your talk page. If you continue to do so here, you will lose talk page privileges. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: That was a valid use of talk page while blocked. You might remember that similar incident has taken place earlier where you had participated.[16] Worse examples have been reported as recently as this ANI thread and community found such use of talk page to be justified as long as there is no "blatant disruption". ML ^talk 05:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

• RegentsPark removed the message[17] I made regarding the block of some account (I don't know of) as a sock of mine after a frivolous SPI. I made only one message in defense because the block of any other account as sock of mine has direct impact on my credibility and since this is not my sock (neither there is any evidence), it seems like I am having a permanent block unless I prove it otherwise. Was RegentsPark (an
  WP:INVOLVED admin[18][19]) right to remove such necessary defense? See my above reply where I have cited similar incidents. ML ^talk
  06:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can have another CU since last CU was done a month ago. ML ^talk 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Someguy1221 for reviewing unblock of ATT.[21] Can you please consider removing the tag from his userpage[22]? Unfortunately I won't be eligible for requesting an unblock as long as that tag remains there. ML ^talk 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am not inclined to remove the tag at this time, since this remains a matter of discussion. I am but one administrator, and others think you and ATT are sockpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are an experienced Oversighter and your observation can help me significantly. Maybe it is worthwhile to ask TonyBallioni if he still thinks that I am related to ATT. He previously had doubts though he considered keeping the block as ATT doesn't really appear to be a new editor. ML ^talk 06:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The tag says suspected, which is the case. Like Someguy1221 I was not originally convinced you were the same user, but I did think Ivanvector’s determination that you are the same user was a reasonable reading of the facts, and even if you were different, the block should not be lifted as it would have harmed Wikipedia. After declining the unblock, I saw enough simularties between the accounts behaviorally that I have grown to believe that the same person operates both accounts and that you are someone who intentionally changes some behaviors in an attempt to hide the socking, while keeping some core similarities. I will not be explaining those to you for what I hope are obvious reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Someguy1221 has recently reviewed the unblock and he is not convinced. There is no reason why I would create ATT then exhibit IDHT behavior while repeating unblock requests. Have you even checked the logged out editing that was done by ATT but there is a lack of logged out editing in my case? If an uninvolved experienced oversighter finds me and ATT to be different then I think it gets easier for others to agree with the same fact. ML ^talk 07:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello My Lord,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

My Lord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22246 was submitted on Aug 01, 2018 13:46:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just closed this, and would note here that it should be considered “closed” not “declined” as it was not an unblock request, which despite what is stated above is all UTRS si actually for.

talk

) 21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked on 18 July 2018 for evading the blocks which I had on my accounts that I used in 2017. I was also falsely accused of using an account called "Adding The Truth", and most people agreed including the block reviewing admin agreed that it was not my account. This account is the oldest and the blocking admin

WP:SO (after 6 months) if I don't sock during this time. 6 months have been passed and I have not socked thus I am legible for seeking unblock. I will continue making productive edits as I was prior to the block. ML ^talk

13:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Account has been unblocked, per discussion below and at

WP:AN O Still Small Voice of Clam

00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I have grave doubts about helping with this request, since it is very easy to read "I will continue making productive edits as I was prior to the block" to mean "I will continue disrupting Wikipedia as I was before I was blocked." I see a lot more problems around this account than just socking. What reasons do we have to think you won't continue disrupting the project?

@Ivanvector: do you have any further comment on the connection (or lack thereof) between this account and Adding The Truth? GoldenRing (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: By productive edits I was talking about creating articles such as Point 5240 and that is something I will continue. I don't recall engaging in disruption other than block evasion. The block only concerned block evasion and prior the block there were no concerns with my edits. I would prefer if you cite evidence for disruption. ML ^talk 14:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking a bit further, I agree there have been no sanctions levied. I have struck my comment above. However, I decline to get involved further in this unblock request and will not discuss why in a public forum. I apologise for looking into it at all; it was a mistake. GoldenRing (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I remain convinced that Adding The Truth is My Lord's sock and I'm not impressed that My Lord is still accusing me of lying in my detailed review of my conclusion. But I encourage whoever actually reviews this request to take the time to read through the discussion at User talk:Adding The Truth, note the content of My Lord's UTRS request filed on the same day as Adding The Truth's talk page access was turned off, and form your own conclusions. As I have said all along, if my block is indefensible then it should be lifted. A checkuser needs to review this as well, and for reasons that should be obvious that's not going to be me.

Other than responding to that accusation which My Lord decided to make the central crux of their appeal, six months have passed since that last incident and I don't have any good reason to oppose this request, but I think it would be a good idea for My Lord to better detail in a community appeal what it is they intend to do if they are unblocked. Based on past incidents I'd suggest making a time-limited topic ban from

WP:ARBIPA

topics a condition of unblocking, as well as a permanent one-account restriction. And if they're intending to dwell on past conflicts then I will likely change my opinion.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It is as obvious as sky being blue that Adding The Truth was not my sock. Topic ban also makes least sense here because I lack any evidence of disruption. ML ^talk 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just like you swore that IndianEditor was not your sock, then walked that back on the same day that Adding The Truth was accused. It's as obvious as the ocean is wet that you'll say whatever you think you need to to escape consequences. The "evidence of disruption" is that you are currently blocked for evading previous blocks for months, all related to disruptive activity in that topic area. I'd like to know what you plan to do here that isn't going after editors who you feel have wronged you, we have plenty of that in ARBIPA already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And ultimately I had also admitted to have used IndianEditor and also confirmed one other account that hadn't been talked about.[23] Can you tell why you missed this? I have already described what I would be doing if I am unblocked. A sample of my last 50 mainspace article edits clearly speaks better than I would.[24] ML ^talk 18:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "miss this" at all, I linked to that same edit in my previous post. It factored into my analysis that you continuously denied using these accounts, and was part of my conclusion that I shouldn't trust anything you say about alternate accounts. But you're really dwelling on that, while I'm trying to say "it's been six months, let's move forward". As for your contribs: of your last 50 mainspace edits (your link) I count 39 that are rollbacks. Those 50 edits are a net removal of over 30 kilobytes of content (-30,117 bytes by my quick count). I can see that many of these rollbacks are reverting unsourced additions and sockpuppets, and that's really fine, but what I'm saying is this doesn't provide much insight as to what subjects you actually plan to contribute to. I see you wrote up a stub on a local school, will there be more of that? Maybe you're going to do vandalism patrol? Maybe you've got a plan and lots of sources to take

featured article review? I'm not trying to find reasons that you should stay blocked or trying to trick you into something, I just think it's going to look a lot better in a community block review (where I think this is going) for you to talk about what you're going to work on, rather than complaining about being falsely accused. If you're going to keep on about that then I'm going to have to keep defending myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 19:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:AN for community review. Were you intending to lift the block without a review? If so I would recommend against it, not because My Lord has done anything to invalidate the appeal, but I feel that going out-of-process on this will set them up for failure. But it's your block, I won't oppose whatever you had in mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 13:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I will also revert vandalism or otherwise problematic edits. I was getting used to it during last year and had been frequent in reverting recent problematic edits. In last 6 months there must have been a few creations about non-notable subjects, and I will be checking that too by participating in deletion discussions. ML ^talk 15:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ML, sorry for the delayed response. Haven't been active on wikipedia lately. Can you give me another 24 hours to review the case-history and surrounding discussion, refresh my memory, and see what the best way forward may be?

@Ivanvector: I second your advice to ML that, if they are unblocked, they should stay away from the India-Pakistan conflict area for at least a few months. I also agree that an SO unblock would need AN review; I'll initiate that in case a (conditional?) SO unblock seems to be reasonable after I have had a chance to review all the details. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You can take your time. WP:AN review is not needed at all, since editors who have complied with SO are unblocked without review on AN.[28] AN is required only when it concerns someone who has been sitebanned or otherwise banned under

WP:3X. I don't even see a single user opposing unblock here and there has been enough time now to conclude it. In this situation AN would only create unnecessary drama and waste community's time given community has more contentious issues to deal with. ML ^talk

19:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My Lord asked me in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel to review their block. I don't see that My Lord has ever addressed the POV-pushing and related issues that saw the sock accounts blocked, beyond pointing to the record of the latest block evasion until mid-2018 which was supposedly problem-free. And yet there's something like this among the latest edits before the block. To me that indicates that My Lord still has problems in the very same topic areas. I don't see the purpose of a temporary topic ban; My Lord obviously is patient enough to wait six months and still wants to return to the same topics without ever addressing the problems in their conduct. If we imposed, say, a six-month topic ban, My Lord would likely wait those six months too and then edit those topic without ever having reflected on their concuct, which would likely lead to a recurrence of the past problems. Thus I suggest, as a condition for an unblock, an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed at WP:AN in no less than six months. Huon (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:POINTy POV comment that misrepresented sources. Nothing was wrong there. You can consider filing an AE if you disagree but I suspect you will get same answer there. --1990'sguy (talk

) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

1990'sguy, My Lord is also blocked for persistent disruptive editing and used sockpuppets to evade that block. I'd call that both a "concern over his editing" and long-term disruption. Thanks for agreeing that a topic ban is warranted here. And regarding the diff, the comment to which My Lord replied didn't argue that the article in question should talk of "freedom fighters" or that it should mention an "Indian side" (or that the source called the side "Indian"), so "misrepresenting sources" is entirely a red herring (what would you call the side which, as My Lord in the comment just before that one showed, India is a prominent and highly relevant part of?). Rather, the comment argued that "terrorist" is loaded language and that a preponderance of sources uses the more neutral "militant". My Lord chose to ignore that and rather tried to poison the well. Huon (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:AE instead. There have been frivolous reports filed against him, but admins who understand what constitutes sanctions found nothing sanctionable in My Lord's conduct.[29] Should we topic ban on frivolous basis? I recommend against that. --1990'sguy (talk

) 03:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

1990'sguy, now you're misinterpreting my comments. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether the comment My Lord replied to was correct or not; I summarized what that comment said and how calling the side "Indian" was both reasonable in context and irrelevant to the main point. If My Lord had wanted to refute that main point, he could have done so. He chose not to do that. What he chose to comment on was irrelevant and just meant to discredit the opposition without ever having to address their argument. And yes, citing a block from 2017 that is still in force and whose issues have never been addressed seems highly relevant to me. I don't have to try AE; I can just do nothing and leave My Lord blocked. I have to wonder, though: You seem to eagerly want My Lord not just back among the editing community, but back in a particular contentious topic area. Why? Huon (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE for engaging in same proxy editing.[31] Their block-shopping behavior must not be entertained. My Lord would be using one account even if there were no SPIs just like he is doing now. 39.33.116.124 (talk

) 04:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Having had some interaction with My Lord in the India-Pakistan conflict topic area, I think he has been a productive editor as evidenced by his contributions. We should not forget that he was blocked during the same time when the long term block evasion of other user called Nauriya was being ignored even though Nauriya was acting much worse than what he did with his socks, whereas My Lord was not engaging in any misconduct. I wondered that if Nauriya could get away, then why My Lord couldn't? That incident establishes that My Lord had been given a different treatment, but why we should continue giving him a different treatment than others? I don't see a reason why he should not be unblocked right now. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  The basic disagreement here is about My Lord's socking. Socking is itself evidence of disruption, and justifies the imposition of a topic ban from areas that are ideological battlegrounds, because disagreement over NPOV is often a trigger for socking in the first place. There's no "different treatment" occurring here; what's happening is that no one capable of and permitted to unblock My Lord is convinced that Adding the Truth wasn't his sock. What's more, any uninvolved admin may, at any time, impose a topic-ban that falls under the scope of ARBIPA; no formal process is necessary. Even if My Lord and Adding the Truth were completely unrelated, Huon would be acting completely within policy in imposing a topic-ban as part of an unblock agreement. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  User:My Lord seems to have stuck to one account for nearly a year before the block, and he still does. Adding The Truth wasn't My Lord, and that's why there is no need for him to admit a non-existing connection. Why was Nauriya not blocked for his long term disruptive editing and block evasion, or at least topic banned for his disruptive editing? I don't think there is any doubt that My Lord is getting a different treatment than others. You should know that a topic ban has to be justifiable and can be imposed only if there is a continued history of disruption in namespaces. It can't be imposed when there is a lack of disruption. My Lord had served the 6-month block for socking and he should not be sanctioned over the same thing again and again. Topic banning without a good bunch of diffs of clear cut violations doesn't make sense. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  Nauriya's block or lack thereof is irrelevant here; please don't bring it up again. If you think the administrators who have commented here in an admin capacity are acting inappropriately, please take it to AN or ARBCOM; this isn't the place. If you think My Lord is unrelated to Adding the Truth, you need to convince an uninvolved admin of that. I don't see the point in arguing further with any of those who have already commented above. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If same blocks or topic bans cannot be imposed in worse cases then they shouldn't be tried for better cases. An uninvolved admin already agreed that Adding The Truth is not ML. 39.33.116.124 (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what Someguy1221 said: but why are you being so coy about who that admin was? Someguy, I for one would be interested to hear your take on this. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a misrepresentation. Read again what he said: "I'll be honest that I'm not convinced you are User:My_Lord". 39.33.116.124 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read; have you? "I'm not convinced you are User:My_Lord" is not equivalent to "I'm convinced you are not User:My_Lord". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we move forward to unblocking if there has been no recent socking (6 months) here or by Adding the Truth? With the condition that recidivism will result in reblocking? Please email me if there is confidential information I should know. @1990'sguy: Check user can be used to prove a connection, It cannot be used to disprove socking. The behavioral evidence is quite compelling.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that this is a pointless debate now and we should already move forward. Per evidence above, there has been no socking for over 6 months by My Lord or Adding The Truth. 39.33.116.124 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the behavioral evidence is compelling and I remain unconvinced that it would be OK to unblock. If any admin feels OK about unblocking, OK. But I do not at this time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• AN discussion on the standard offer unblock request started. My Lord, I will be unblocking you solely for the sake of participating in that discussion; the final block/unblock will be determined once the discussion has concluded. Please do not edit anywhere else on wikipedia till then and be at your concise best even at AN. The latter advice also goes out to all the ML sympathizers/antagonists who may comment there. :) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I just came here from that AN discussion (I have no prior interactions with ML or edits to the topic, ever). Right now there are reasonable arguments for an unconditional unblock and reasonable arguments for a conditional unblock with a six-month topic ban. User:My Lord, please explain what you plan on doing if unconditionally unblocked. I just supported the unconditional. Convince me that you won't let me down and make me look like an idiot for supporting you. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you
  WP:SO. If I am unconditionally unblocked, I promise to make productive edits, follow every procedure that has be followed, will continue collaborating in order to get the best result. While I had plans to bring some of the articles to GA level which I have mentioned above on 08:46, 29 January, I had also planned to widen my editing to other topics like Human Evolution and migration of Human beings from one continent to another, geography, and climate related articles as I am currently researching on it. Though I will start my editing by patrolling new edits and look where vandalism needs to be reverted as this was one of the thing I liked to do when I had free time. I will also take part in deletion discussions. Overall, I will abide the policies regardless of what I edit. Again, thanks to you and everyone else who has supported unconditional unblock. ML ^talk
  14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• The above (plus my own research, looking at User:My Lord's edit history) is, in my opinion, more than good enough. I strongly support an unconditional unblock. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

ML, you could maybe put that in he AN thread. Or maybe someone could copy it over? Anyway, the people who need to see it are at the AN thread.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Done.[32] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaving you a message here to let you know that the discussion has closed and with a consensus to accept your unblock request under the

It goes without saying: Your legitimate participation and contributions to this project, your complete compliance with all policies and guidelines, and your ability to fully refrain from repeating the issues that were raised by those in opposition - will undoubtedly be seen by others as a condition of your status as an unblocked user and hence your ability to participate and contribute to the project. Obviously, should you repeat any past issues or behaviors, any uninvolved admin has the freedom and ability to unilaterally block you indefinitely and pending a discussion by the community regarding your edits, conduct, and behavior.

Having your unblock request accepted under the standard offer is not a consensus that the community reaches often. I highly urge and implore you to take the opportunity and the "second chance" that you've been given, take it seriously, and use this as your time to turn everything around and be that editor who struggled in the past but is an example as to why we give people second changes. I wish you good luck, I sincerely hope that the community will not see any ANI discussions about you, and that you follow a good path where you can move on from all this. :-)

My talk page is always open to you should you have questions or need any help. Please don't hesitate to message me if you need to. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I supported an unconditional unblock. Please don't make me feel like a fool for believing in you. Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, ML. Hope you will have a good run now. Be good and stay out of trouble! Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• This account that hit Kautilya3's user talk is on the same range as Adding The Truth and My Lord. They geolocate to the exact same city as ML. Timing and previous interactions make this something that should be considered for those that are more familiar. Ivanvector, if you have kept notes then you may want to check.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Quite possible that someone is trying to set ML up and trying to frame him.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Competely fails the sniff test. Now I might believe -- or at least look into -- an accusation that My Lord is repeating his pre-block behavior, but I refuse to believe that he immediately posted some stupid "please block me" garbage. This looks like an obvious Joe job to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Some of the functionaries have looked this over (a funcchat?) and we're confident the account(s) trolling Kautilya3 are not related to My Lord. Just to answer the question: no, I don't have any notes other than what's on-wiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jammu and Kashmir, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balti and Pahari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

era sources are not reliable in articles about castes/social groups/tribes. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! I know we did not have time to work with each other much, but I really appreciated all your help on Indian food related articles. It was great working with you. Looking forward to working with you in the future. A huge welcome back buddy! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC))

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You were just unblocked with a warning that "complete compliance with all policies and guidelines" is expected. You need to be far more careful with casually throwing around accusations of bias. Do not let this happen again. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock discussion ended against any warning or sanction. I generally see such type of article talk page discussions happening often where we discuss a reader's view. Overall it was not an intention of mine to allege anyone as I didn't accuse anyone of being biased but pointed out possible reaction by the readers that our article "may reflect bias"[33] if we are opposed to mentioning about "T-series" as it is clearly a notable and historic event. I don't even understand that why is this thing is even being discussed against WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which are also important policies. ML ^talk 10:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Remember me? I am the person who supported your unblock and wrote "Please don't make me feel like a fool for believing in you". I find that your description above does not accurately describe your unblock, which may be found at [34].

In particular, I would like to call your attention to and remind you of the following:

"It should also be stated here that the users who provided arguments in opposition raised legitimate concerns that should not be disregarded. ...nor should it be interpreted to mean that your unblock is unconditional... Your legitimate participation and contributions to this project, your complete compliance with all policies and guidelines, and your ability to fully refrain from repeating the issues that were raised by those in opposition - will undoubtedly be seen by others as a condition of your status as an unblocked user and hence your ability to participate and contribute to the project. Obviously, should you repeat any past issues or behaviors, any uninvolved admin has the freedom and ability to unilaterally block you indefinitely and pending a discussion by the community regarding your edits, conduct, and behavior... I highly urge and implore you to take the opportunity and the "second chance" that you've been given, take it seriously, and use this as your time to turn everything around and be that editor who struggled in the past but is an example as to why we give people second chances."

The above is clearly a warning, and one that you should take seriously. Again I say, please don't make me feel like a fool for believing in you.

Please note that, per

WP:OWNTALK, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, but it also says that removal of the above warning will be considered evidence that you have read it. --Guy Macon (talk

) 17:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Continue your argument at Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. ML ^talk 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the right answer. Don't take the bait. (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

...and Pakieditor is now blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)