User talk:Truthprevails999

Welcome!

Hi Truthprevails999! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that comments like this (specifically its first sentence) are considered WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have specific concerns about another editor's behavior, you are expected to identify it clearly at an appropriate conduct board such as WP:ANI or WP:AE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you I'll do as per you said. Noted. Truthprevails999 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Know about it. All I am doing is putting up facts with relevent proofs citing neutal international media sources and nothing else. I didn't make even a single edit in the main page. I am just gaining concensus via discussions in the talk page. Hope that is fine. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading through the essay again and taking it seriously, and to also get some experience editing other topics on Wikipedia. Your current pace and tone of comments at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict is excessive, and often include sweeping statements about policy that are not well-founded (e.g. Special:Diff/1291629487) or claims regarding sources that are at odds with prior community consensus (see WP:ALJAZEERA, and in particular see the discussions cited there that demonstrate the community's reasoning; you may also want to review the most recent discussion concerning Freedom House and another regarding Greek City Times). Your pattern of pinging editors could also be accused of crossing the line into WP:CANVASS territory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, noted your concern down. Thank you. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I am redrafting it as per the wp:or. Thank you Slatersteven Truthprevails999 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Account

Truthprevail999, do you have, or previously had, any other account on wikipedia? Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know in what context are you asking this? Truthprevails999 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes I have separate accounts for Personal editing and Testing features due to privacy concerns. As far as I know it's legitimate to have them as per Wiki Community Guidelines. Hope you got your answer. Truthprevails999 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. Please email arbcom to notify them of your alternate account(s) so that someone can verify that they are being used legitimately. Till this is done I would suggest not editing in IPA or other contentious areas. Abecedare (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay Truthprevails999 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where to reply you regarding my other accounts, send me a link Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Email ArbCom at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with information about all your past and current accounts. Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ill tell here only, I am an experienced editor and currently operate 1 primary account only @SheriffIsInTown I created this account @Truthprevails999 so that I could indulge in discussion with it on opposite point of view and let me be seen legit as an editor who indulges in discussion, while on the other hand i can edit the main page of 2025 India Pakistan conflict with my main account @SheriffIsInTown like the way I want without concensus. I rest my case. Do whatever you want, as I'll come up with a lot of new accounts soon. Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will email arbcom too. I Repeat, Do whatever you can... Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you block my main account also, which you won't be able too as it has a long and legitimate history of nearly 50k edits with multiple medals, I would create multiple such sock accounts to push my POV not the WP:POV. Haha, you can't do anything of me. I play with Wikipedia guidelines on my fingers as a 🎩 does. Truthprevails999 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want, I am a 4th ranked account in Pakistan with multiple barnstars and I have edited thousands of times, and I know the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia policies and ArbCom, and somehow i always find out a way to get out of it safely. A lot of my sock accounts are banned, but my main account remains untouched. Haha. I again Repeat, Do whatever you want.... Truthprevails999 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure why you're targeting me. That discussion was concluded, and I stepped back. Yet you mentioned me in another thread, accusing me of spreading propaganda, even though my contributions to that article are minimal. And now you're bringing me up here as well. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're implying. Well, good luck convincing anyone. Anyone can file an SPI accusing you of being my sock; I'm fine with that. It would clear me while exposing your own socks. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:canvassing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

Just so you are aware, I have mentioned you at this ANI thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Truthprevails999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never edited any pages, i just bought out facts, which were true. If you dont believe check the session history and you will find the user Ecrusized editing what i said. I need to be revoked of this ban asapTruthprevails999 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to accept you were being disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

Truthprevails999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, I got carried away and was disruptive on just one instance, I will not repeat it ever. Kindly unblock me please. Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The disruption goes considerably beyond "just one instance", and we need you to cogently summarize what you did wrong in order for us to assess that you in fact understand it and can be trusted to not continue in this vein. All of the answers you need regarding the nature of the disruption to craft your unblock request are laid out in the notices above. Further, I think that the pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from you is pervasive enough that it would only be reasonable to unblock you with a conditional topic ban from India-Pakistan topics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Truthprevails999 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This single-purpose sock account should not be unblocked until they have notified arbcom of their other accounts and someone has checked that the accounts are being used legitimately. Truthprevails999 agreed to do this in the discussion above but haven't done so, so far. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise for a checkuser to review this editor's accounts prior to any unblock. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shrey Samrat. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]