User talk:Drivarum

edit warring noticeboard

[[1]] Capitals00 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 07:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. El_C 07:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

@Ivanvector: please tell me why you blocked me? I am not related to this[2] case. Drivarum (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: please tell me do you have anything personal with me? How do I comment there when you blocked me? Please, at least unblock me so that I can put comments on my defense please. --Drivarum (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #18315 was submitted on May 17, 2017 15:35:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read my message

@Ivanvector: Sir, I will make it short and straight to the point.

Firstly, you blocked me for "partially restoring a previous sockpuppet's edits" then you should block User:Bonadea because she entirely restored the blocked user's edits here[3], the[4], [5], and [6] and every time User:D4iNa4 reverted her edits.

Secondly, if using edits of a blocked user's edit from page history leads to block then why User:D4iNa4 and User:Capitals00 shouldn't be blocked? Because they are stating same reason and making same edits as the blocked User:Delibzr [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] etc.

On a side note both User:D4iNa4 and User:Capitals00 were blocked for sockpuppeting and here is User:Capitals00's socks[13] and User:D4iNa4's socks[14] and both revert edits to avoid 3RR and participate on AFD as well.

Thank you. Drivarum (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying this, because you have to assume bad faith in order to WP:GAME system.

Bonadea was WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY like you are.
It was Sitush who first mentioned WP:BLPCAT on the talk page and later on other editors got the point.
Only those entries have been restored that have consensus from other reputed editors.[15][16] Find it funny you are not counting many of those editors.
You are also blocked on your main account for sock puppetry, but you are evading your block, that's why your main account is not unblocked.

You are just shooting yourself in the foot. And increasing chances for other admins to remove talk page access. Capitals00 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know many of these Wikipedia policies you're throwing at me. I don't have any socks like you had. I appealed the block with valid reasons. The "User Compare Report?"[17] provided by User:Terabar shows how you two users operate after certain days. You still haven't answered to several accusations you made to me.

Here[18] you said "Hema Malini is not even a Muslim, and her husband's name is also frequently mentioned by @Drivarum: despite he rejected any conversions to Islam." — Can you please show me where I mentioned her husband's name?
Here[19] you reverted me when I opened a talk page discussion with the other editor User:D4iNa4. Please, tell me why?
Here[20] why you filed a wrong complaint against me without notifying me of 3RR/BLP which was later done by an admin[21]?
Lastly you didn't answer how you know User:Rzvas has same IP with yours[22] ? BTW, User:Rzvas has vast intersection with your edits including reverting sourced information. Drivarum (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

@Ivanvector: I read your ANI post[23] and sorry but it seems one sided and you already made conclusion that I am a sock and User:Terabar is harassing but honestly you failed to see the other side of the story. User:Capitals00 has been accusing me and filed invalid reports against me. User:Capitals00 reverted me when I opened a talk page discussion on User:D4iNa4's edits[24]. Never bothered to discuss with me until another admin involved in it. The CU results didn't even link me with the blocked account very similar to User:Capitals00's SPI case. Every time User:D4iNa4 and User:Capitals00 come together to the same article to revert other editors. Their reverts on the List of converts to Islam from Hinduism is huge. Anyone can check the page's edit history. Thank you.Drivarum (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: User:Terabar can't be related with User:OccultZone as they have opposite editing patterns. Rather User:OccultZone's sock User:Delibzr has similar interest with User:Capitals00[25] and User:D4iNa4[26]. Clearly, you're seeing just one half of the story. Drivarum (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Drivarum, I blocked you because of several things indicating you are the sockpuppet of another editor. First of all, two different edits you made at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism not only restored the text and sources of the previous sockpuppet's edit, you also used the same exact code for the reference including the same Google Books hash and the same access date. In addition, your first two edits are to your user page and talk page and then you didn't edit at all for over a month, which is a behaviour typical of editors who are creating multiple accounts. Then, your next edit (your first article edit) was joining into a revert war where you had not edited the page at all before, which suggests you knew about the edit war because you were editing the page with another account, or somebody told you to come and revert there (neither one is allowed). And lastly, I had earlier warned Terabar not to continue attacking and hounding Capitals00 and D4iNa4, and it's very strange that practically the very next day you began attacking and hounding them in the same way even though you had not edited before.

I've noticed that you have filed a UTRS ticket in which you haven't addressed these things but are continuing to blame other editors when it is only your own behaviour which leads to you being blocked. If you can explain these series of coincidences, and show me that you understand why you can't edit war or hound other editors, and that you will slow down and discuss your edits if they are reverted, then I will consider unblocking you so that you can continue participating in the discussion at Talk:List of converts to Islam from Hinduism which El C had started. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied these sources from their respective articles and revisions of the page. That is why they have same Google Books hash and the same access date. Please, check it yourself. When they reverted me then I tried finding more sources and added to the article. You can see I have been trying to discuss on the talk page. I posted message on the other editor's talk page[27] but they removed it[28] but when the other editor posted message on my talk page[29] then I instantly started discussion[30] and later took it to the article's talk page[31]. I created my user and talk page and then started editing after a long pause. Okay, I am not accusing other editors but they did similar. I wasn't active because I was not in content dispute. I have been very active from yesterday since I am in middle of a discussion. For any discussion you will find me active and less active when I am not in any discussion or in content dispute. To be honest Terabar is a different person and he has no relation with me. He emailed me when I posted message on the Bbb23's talk page[32]. I can forward the email if you need. Yes, you're right I blamed them but only after they blamed me. Please, check our all reverts here[33]. Lastly, after reading "Wikipedia:Edit warring" and "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" I admit I did "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" and I won't do it again. Regarding "Wikipedia:Edit warring", I tried adding sources[34], [35] but when reverted without any message to me then I started reverting but still I insisted on discussion using edit summaries[36], then [37], and [38], and also [39]. It was my fault that I didn't stop reverting but honestly, I was unsure what to do at that time because I already opened discussion on the article's talk page and saw my edits for which I added sources were being removed. I won't do any edit war if I am unblocked. I understood that[40] I will wait on the talk page for discussion and if the other editor don't responses and keep reverting then I will report at "Edit war/3RR noticeboard" and wait for the outcome. If the outcome comes against me then I will just stop pursuing my edits on that page and move on. Thank you. Drivarum (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if the other editor don't responses and keep reverting", that means you are going to waste more time in place of simply providing the sources or just dropping the matter because it is not possible to get sources for that information. Claiming me to be a sock, canvassing other editors, violating BLP on talk page by continuously claiming those individuals to be convert when they are not, misrepresenting the scenario to WP:GAME, are few other reasons to keep this block. You are not WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY and is clearly evading WP:SCRUTINY, its just not possible that you could figure out so much wikipedia in matter of few hours. I have seen similar blocks as this user on others[41][42][43] that are relevant to mention here. Capitals00 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you again started accusing me. I already told on the article's talk page to discuss on the issue rather than personally accusing me but you're accusing me here as well. Okay, please let me explain that I suspected you could be a sock of D4iNa4 and I am not alone to suspect this. Your SPI case has other editors listed suspecting the same. Didn't you suspect me as a sock of Terabar when Bbb23's result didn't link me? I am not violating any BLP policy. I tried my best to find sources and kept adding them to the article and also discussed on the talk page but you rather explaining anything started reverting me. You removed well referenced information from that article without any explanation to me because I added those sources. And those people did convert but your point was they didn't convert from Hinduism. I got that. Being an experienced editor you should have insisted on discussion rather keep reverting me.

Your reverts were:

then you stopped as you already did 3 reverts. After that User:D4iNa4 appeared and started same reverting

[47]
[48]

next you found out that WP:BLPCAT exempts from WP:3RR" and start reverting

[49]
[50] time: 06:45, 17 May 2017
[51]

in the mean time you already filed compliant against me[52] on 06:43, 17 May 2017‎ without any notice[53] but kept reverts going. (time: 06:45, 17 May 2017).

You were then informed that "WP:3RRNO does not appear to apply to any of the edits"[54] 07:11, 17 May 2017‎ then User:D4iNa4 made the revert finally

[55]

the page has been protected since then.

What else do you expect from me? I tried to explain all. You also haven't responded to my earlier response[56] to your message. Please, do not accuse me as I am tired of all these accusations. I would prefer to contribute in uncontroversial articles if I am unblocked. Thank you. Drivarum (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced of this to be completely honest with you, but based on conflicting/inconclusive technical evidence and the discussion above regarding our policies, I am unblocking you. I'm not impressed by the laundry list of reverts by other editors that you posted here and in other places, but let's move on. I expect that you will be careful not to edit war any more. If you find yourself being reverted by another editor, take this as an indication that your edit is controversial, and please start a discussion on the article's talk page. If editors revert you and refuse to discuss, you can report this to an administrator at the edit warring noticeboard and wait for advice. This Wikipedia has been around for a very long time, there is very little that happens here that is urgent.

If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I appreciate it. I will surely follow these rules and contact you if I need your kind help. Regards. Drivarum (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]