en User talk:HistoriesUnveiler

Ways to improve Electoral fraud in Pakistan

Hello, HistoriesUnveiler,

Thank you for creating Electoral fraud in Pakistan.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi HistoriesUnveiler. Nice start on your new article. It is still light on sourcing, which is a little concerning, and relies far too much on the dawn.com article (26 instances), so do please work on expanding the reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Toomanyyearskodakblack per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is an odd block from @Bbb23:. I'm a completely different person from the so-called User:Toomanyyearskodakblack. Interest in politics of Pakistan is too broad for a block without any technical evidence and for admins information, I'm editing/creating censored content, not just articles related to politics. I hereby request a checkuser to please go through the technical data of my account and based on that reassess my block. The way User:Toomanyyearskodakblack writes, summary style, hesitant to engage in discussion it too different from me. This is totally unjust block and I would like to come clean out of this. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, characterizing your block as purely arising from an interest in Pakistani politics is rather motte-and-bailey ... it came from a lot more similarities than that. Second, as for requesting a "prove-my-innocence" Checkuser, well, not on the English Wikipedia. As David Bowie put it, you can do it over there but we don't do it here. Beep beep! — Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I understand that you don't want to go in detail but still this is unjust block. If you want to block me then simply block me rather connecting with accounts that I have no connection. There is no justfication for this block. A volunteer like me expects a lot more in return when they dedicate their time for this project (i.e. protection of volunteer work they did just to improve the project. Sadly, @Liz: was quick to delete all of my work when even the block is "suspected", not "confirmed". It is just too odd.) If I have made any violation of the guidelines, then let me know clearly and I want to resolve that, but deleting the work even when it is just a suspected case (which itself is an odd block by disgraced admin, Bbb23, who has abused checkuser tool in the past and is now abusing admin tools). It is just too unfair to treat your fellow Wikimedian community members who want to grow this movement like this. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Liz reverted only one of your edits, a page move to a more POV title, a move that would have been made regardless of whether you were blocked.

"A volunteer like me expects a lot more in return when they dedicate their time for this project" ... well, all I can say is that trust can take years to earn but seconds to lose. There are some lines no amount of past good conduct can forgive crossing, as indeed your example of Bbb23's past discipline demonstrates.

I would add to that that a) ArbCom's revocation of his checkuser rights has no bearing on his block here, as it was not based on Checkuser since, obviously, he doesn't have access to it anymore, and b) I would note that despite the way he felt about the time, he has continued to do exemplary work as an admin. Personally I do not consider him "disgraced". There's a lesson there that you might want to take. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan

The article Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The originator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the content from previous socks has been shown to be biased, lacking in neutrality as they admit in their unblock request that they were here with a political agenda of exposing something instead of building encyclopedia. These subjects are already addressed in articles on Military coups in Pakistan, and each election article discusses allegations of rigging such as here. Several other editors have also expressed concerns, such as content failing verification. With such a vast article, it's impractical for anyone to meticulously review every piece of content against numerous sources. Therefore, it would be wise to delete it, saving volunteers countless hours. WP:TNT might apply here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]