User talk:Durr-e-shehwar

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).

Durr-e-shehwar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was only trying to revert the bad faith edits by a new user that is removing important information, they removed a lot of important and integral information from the page without any discussion and continued to edit warDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a good reason for edit warring and block evasion. Instead, dispute resolution should have been pursued. Max Semenik (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2015 (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.

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).

Durr-e-shehwar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry, I edit warred without even realising, I got agitated with valuable information leaving the page, but now I have learnt that i should always use the talk page before reverting even if others are not doing the same Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've continued to evade your block after the second block. As such, I've increased your block to 2 weeks. Further block evasion will likely lead to an extended or indefinite block. Mike V • Talk 15:42, 6 September 2015 (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.

but I do want to thank you for fixing your signature so the links work appropriately! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

continued block evasion[edit]

Note the user has continued their block evasion under

120.18.162.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
120.23.10.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
63.143.236.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what proof you have this is me? you do know this particular person has more fans? not just me?Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that you have multply socked as verified by check user makes it a WP:DUCK . And even if not specifically you, the edits are completely indistinguishable from you WP:MEAT.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to create sock accounts to evade your block I have extended the block length to one month.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know I have sockedDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious duck is obvious. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how so??Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (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).

Durr-e-shehwar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to not revert edits without discussion, and promise not to sock, I have made various helpful edits on several pages, and just because of a small mistake I have been blocked

Decline reason:

As a result of continued socking and this clear example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have extended the block to indefinite.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:39, 1 October 2015 (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.

Hi User:Ponyo. I've just been discussing things with this editor at IRC. I told him about reverting and socking. He seems to understand and seems quite reasonable. I suggested he logs in here and requests the unblock. He's promised never to sock again. If the unblock request is declined, he's promised to wait until Oct 11 when it expires. Anyhow, I'm not vouching for him, but he seems reasonable and I am convinced he understands what to do and not do in the future. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he promises to be very, very, very patient in the future when an article isn't the way he thinks it should be. He understands that articles "find their way", and that patience is a great virtue here at Wikipedia. Right Durr-e-shehwar? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes absolutely correct, I have understood that being patient is they key, regardsDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I'm not sure what the timeline of your IRC discussion was, however Durr-e-shehwar was still evading their block up to three minutes prior to posting their unblock request above. If they came clean about that to you then I'm fine with reducing the block, however if there is ongoing deception then I would prefer the block remain in place.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo. I'm not sure how that can be. I was on IRC with him for ages. Could you diff me please? I must be missing something obvious. I'm a bit tired. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I can't provide a link because that would be publicly tying their IP to their username (which will result in me publicly having my extra bits ripped from me in quick fashion). However when I ran a check after reading your note it was crystal clear that they made five logged-out edits to talk pages over a 15 minute period prior to posting their unblock request. If you would like another Checkuser to take a look I totally understand.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. No diffs needed, nor other CU confirmation. Darn. I must have been on IRC with him while he was socking. I am disappointed. Oh well. I tried. Anyhow, this dishonesty makes me wonder if an indef would not be appropriate. Thank you kindly for filling me in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't give up on your AGF in cases like this, I need you around as balance to my cold, hard, jaded wiki-heart.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a checkuser, so I dont have bits to loose, but its pretty clear that the IPs identified above as socks have been active on the same topics as recently as today. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too TRPoD for the info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not socking, I was just posting on people's talk pages using my IP, not even a username, does that count as socking?? I told Anna Frodesjak that I won't sock anymore and after the conversation, I did not sock, so why punish me for something I did before having the conversation?Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It counts as evading your block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you disappointed in me Anna, that hurts, when I told i won't evade my block, i did mean it, and did no editing after that, why are you punishing me for the mistakes I did before I talked to you?Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while I was talking to ANNA; I did write this on the talk page of Karan Singh Grover, it clearly says in the source provided on wikipedia that he returned after 6 months because of excessive fan demands, yet the red pen of doom deleted the additional encyclopaedic information, biased against the page much, please reply?? look at the article's name in itself "small screen heartthrobs return on fans demand" if you are using a source it is only of logic that the information of the source is put in properly, I can show you several other valid sources who claim the same, that Grover returned back on fan demand; -- and I stand by it, but when on the IRC you told me that you understand it is unfair, and that I need to be patient i did understand and I did not write anything on any page after that!Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you take a lot of a volunteer's time convincing them that you understand that you should not evade your block and will not evade your block. The volunteer beleives you and puts her reputation on the line to vouch for you and then the volunteer finds out that all the while you were telling them how you understood and would not evade, you were in fact evading. i would be far more than disappointed, i would be vindictive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The red pen of doom you are biased against certain pages, and do biased editing, and thats why you have a problem with me, there is no reason for Anna to be disappointed, because when I told her that I won't sock again, I did stick to my word, ponymo narrated something that happened before that promise i made, i made no sock edits after quitting the IRC, please leave me alone, I really don't want to talk to a biased and vindictive editor like youDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not fooling you Anna, I was actually convinced by you, thats why i am hurt that you felt that i betrayed your trust when i didn't! feel bad for requesting this unblock, I was happy to wait till 11th october, it was because of Anna I even made that request, and it all just went against me, for no reason at all![ Now you guys think i didn't sock because of this request i made, when the truth is i was convinced by Anna and chose not to sock, and it had nothing to do with this unblock request, which i was not even planning to make and was just convinced by Anna to make it, i was more than happy to wait till 11th october, i was told to be patient, and Anna did understand that the page I was concerned about as a matter of fact did have bad faith edits, and that I was just supposed to be patient, and I was convinced of it! I am unhappy about how I actually did understand something, but still people are not ready to believe me, and to be honest i didn't even know that writing on a talk page using my IP was even counted as socking i thought everyone is entitled to give suggestions, but after promising Anna i did not even write anything on any talk page eitherDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not go against you "for no reason at all". It went against you because you were evading your block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a biased and vindictive editor, who has made loads of bad faith edits on certain pages, and you most certainly have an agenda against them, and therefore you have an agenda against me, and I really don't want to talk to biased people like you, the truth is my block was set to expire 11th october, and now it is indefinite due to a small misunderstanding and that is not correct, i did not sock after having the conversation with Anna, and did come clean to her about socking in the IRC itself, so i did not betray her trust, and to be honest i wouldn't have had to sock at all if wikipedia didn't have bad faith editors like you, take your recent edit on Karan Singh Grover page, the source clearly says he was brought back on fan demand, u still removed the good faith edit by rishika who was just properly citing the source! According to you certain pages should not have information that doesn't suit your taste even though the well known sources have that information right in thereDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it was not a "small misunderstanding" . you mislead a volunteer into believing that you had reformed from evading your block and understood how / why to become a better editor. you hadnt. your continued comments here are clear evidence that you did not "get" what was wrong with your editing and actions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mislead anyone, I told them clearly that i have socked, and promised her to not do it again, and your obsession with me and a few wiki pages is very amusing, hope people get to know about these bad faith edits you make soonDurr-e-shehwar (talk)!

did you tell her "i was socking 10 minutes ago"? if not, you misled her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wow u really have an agenda against me and a few pages don't u, how frikin biased r u? like i said i didn't know that talking on talk pages is even counted as socking, i thought socking meant editing pages, bye Durr-e-shehwar (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and once i promised Anna, i did not even edit any talk pages, just incase it counted, but i was never sure, bye i am sleepingDurr-e-shehwar (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

We've wasted enough time here with WP:SOCK/WP:CIVIL/WP:CIR. DMacks (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told him explicitly not to sock. Here are some quotes of what I said. Only my lines are shown because posting what others wrote is not allowed without their permission. (Sorry about the spelling. I was typing fast.):

09:32 UTC "...the only business you have at wikipedia, at all, is to log in with your original account and discuss terms of unblocking. period..."
09:32 UTC "...you are not permitted to discuss anything at any other page..."
09:33 UTC "...unless unblocked, you have no business involving yourself with articles..."
09:34 UTC "...the only way you can influence what is in that article is to get unblocked first..."
09:36 UTC "...if you promise not to sock any more and all looks well, you can be unblcoked..."
09:40 UTC "...ok. and not matter what, do not register more accounts and do not edit with an IP. if you do, you will never be unblocked and never influence the article. play by the rules, and you might be unblocked. not promises..."
09:41 UTC "...you must convince administrators that you understand why you were blocked and promise, honestly promise, that you will never ever ever sock again and you will discuss things and not keep reverting..."
09:42 UTC "...but promise to me (and for your benefit) that you will not sock again with an account or IP..."
09:46 UTC "...no edits at all under any account or IP..."
09:56 UTC "...happy to help. :) bye for now. :) an no more socking!!! :) :) :)..."

He socked in the middle of all of that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Durr-e-shehwar, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—UY Scuti ^Talk 11:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]