There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Estnot (
talk)
12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 13:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:El_C doubt it's hounding. what is the line between hounding and fixing bad edits of a total of 2?
Honest editors, who refuses to let others hide away significant information, should be rewarded. Being afraid of people like me refusing to censor well sourced and factual information, shouldn't be punished. But my only mistake I made was calling him a Vandal which is an arbitrary excuse to block me considering his editing patterns warrants his own ban.
When you notice a questionable editor deleting massive amounts of factual info, you naturally look at his edit history and see if he does the same deal. I merely glanced at his edits and realised very quickly he def has a solid bias of removing information he has trouble accepting. If I noticed vandalism, shouldn't I go fix it? Is that not allowed? It's not like I followed him for many weeks. I only took a shallow glance at his history once and couldn't help see disruptive editing. So fixed only a total of 2. That's it. 2 edits is hounding?
You need to know the fine difference between hounding and fixing vandalism.. A neutral editor would be thanking me and this ban won't last. If I want to correct wrongful edits, you need to make sure that my editing is not unwarranted. I wouldn't need to fix anything if he wasn't removing excessive amounts of information wrongfully.
Ie - an example of him hiding info
I gave him a warning for obvious vandalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
He Removed entire factual information from my edits first a day ago, and dishonestly claiming it wasn't worthy enough to be added in. Except when it comes to extradition case of Meng, when The US made an offer to Meng to free her in exchange for a Large fine and to plead guilty. Such info should be added in and not censored.
Later on, i took a quick look at his last edits and realised I couldn't turn a blind eye as he didn't just go a little wrong. He went excessive heavy on deleting other peoples' edits in an absurd manner. But I only addressed two most recent edits and that is all.
One of my so called first hounding reverts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053516329
When it comes to Huawei and accusations of espionage. There should be at minimum one mention of whether or not there is any evidence found to support the allegations.. One other user added it in. I noticed he completely Removed all that info from lead .. That is wrong. And why I reverted it and stand by it. I done nothing wrong to fix his excessive removal of information.
My other second and my very last so called hounding reverts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081
Ie.. He dishonestly lies and claims this information is unsourced. Then claims this information is not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is required essential information that shouldn't be removed. He Removed it because in his mind, hiding the fact that it is owned by China is important to him. Despite it doesn't change reality at all.
I want to ask you since you're supposed to be an expert on this, how should I react in the very same situation in the future? If i notice someone removing above aforementioned information- do i report him, give him a warning for Vandalism or just walk away out of fear of being called a "hound"? 49.180.171.190 ( talk) 17:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
49.180.171.190 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Calling out a Vandal is not Hounding
Hounding depends more on individual cases of severity. If his edits were only slightly wrong and I changed it despite it was perfectly acceptable. But whitewashed it. That is hounding. (He actually does Exactly that to me when I added in my edit on korea - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053509407)
I don't do that. Instead I saw edits that were extremely wrong and unacceptable to the point that he can be reported and banned for that degree of dishonest and disruptive editing.. That was the kind of severity that prompted me to warning him about vandalism and re-adding the information he has censored. Also I didn't hound him for many months.. I only reverted just two of his (censorship) edits outside the first article. Not extensive.
Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable source. Because when you put information that is factual and well sourced. Other editors cannot easily remove it even when they don't emotionally like the facts. That is the safeguards to maintain a neutral encyclopedia..Estnot is a disruptive editor here constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will def address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship.
Case 1 - first article
He first Removed entire factual information from my edits a few days go, and dishonestly claiming it wasn't worthy enough to be added in. Except when it comes to extradition case of Meng, when The US indeed made an offer to Meng to free her in exchange for a Large fine and to plead guilty. Such info should be added in and not censored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
Yet he removed it simply because he doesn't like that fact. And not because it is not relevant, significant or not factual. It is obvious vandalism which I seen before. He has no right as an editor to just remove it like that. He falsely calls it redundant except it's not even mentioned once and is also super important and essential for an encyclopedia to mention that true relevant fact.
...
This made me think what kind of person makes such flawed reasoning to remove information like that. So i glanced at his edit history and in just the past day alone, realised very quickly he also deleted a lot of other peoples' edits. Not just modify but outright censor out large amounts. I honestly should not had warned him after seeing this but instead report all his multiple cases of obvious censoring and False reasoning to notice board. Except i felt he deserves a warning for it first by me.
So case 2 of inappropriate deletion
He removed context of who owns a company. It's 9 words total yet he cherrypicked and had issues with acknowledging the fact that Wilson is owned by a company that is a subsidiary of a Chinese company. I reverted it, added a source, gave him a warning but he later removed it again and falsely claimed my source was unreliable. https://capitalmind.com/chinese-megadeal-in-sporting-goods/
It's not. Capitalmind is one of Europe’s largest independent corporate finance advisory firms. It is a perfectly decent source.
After removing my reliable source, he then justifies reverting my edit by claiming it doesn't have a source, despite he ridiculously just removed my source only minutes ago. He is wrong and editing disruptively.
Amer owns a controlling stake of 58%. So Amer is clearly the parent company. Who owns more than 50% stake in that company. Hence amer is undoubtedly a subsidiary of anta sports.
Even the current CEO of amer today is the same CEO of anta sports for good reason. It's just efficient to have just the one ceo for both companies.
https://www.ispo.com/en/companies/change-leadership-amer-sports-has-new-ceo
Yet he doesn't contribute positively.. But goes around and removing information by claiming frustratingly that it has no source. Which i don't agree so why I reverted his wrongful edit. It's true info that belongs to an encyclopedia. He just makes it seem like the info is all fake news despite I provided him a decent source that backs the information he removed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081
Case 3 of inappropriate deletion
- (occurred after i was blocked) he now hounds my edits and removes my added info completely
Japan chose to not Ban Huawei and had said it multiple times. That is real history yet he just completely Removed it all despite he can't liberally remove factual information like this. He creates a facade of reasoning but it's just fake reasons for his multiple deletions. Here he ridiculously lies about my source not mentioning Huawei in his reason to delete :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053515866
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053685634
Case 4 of inappropriate deletion
When it comes to accusations against Huawei. People has to know what the current evidence is, if any in the lead section. He doesn't like the factual information of that so he deleted other peoples' edits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053516329
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053683419
It's petty to hide information like that..Even if you don't like the facts, you cannot just bury it on Wikipedia because it doesn't change reality. I believe Wikipedia should be a safe place for information and not removed out of bs petty reasons. And when someone removes information in a disruptive manner, it has to be called out. Maybe in reality, that makes me super unpopular with many politically partisan individuals who despises me for wanting to add in that Japan has refused to ban Huawei or that the US gov offered to end Meng extradition if she paid a Large fine and pleaded guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053517183
So be it because I feel there is little wrong to defend information that has a right to be on Wikipedia..and believe my punishment is excessive and very arbitrary considering fixing vandal style censorship, shouldn't be punished like this. If Wikipedia is to remain an encyclopedia. It needs to encourage editors to address vandalism and not intimidate them or be punished for noticing biased disruptive editing and countering it.
P. S. I am the same user 49.180.171.190. Just my IP address changing by itself automatically as I am using my phone internet. 49.180.30.187 ( talk) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First of all, this is too long to read. Second, your account is indefinitely blocked. We're not going to unblock your IP address until your account is unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
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 is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Estnot (
talk)
12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 13:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:El_C doubt it's hounding. what is the line between hounding and fixing bad edits of a total of 2?
Honest editors, who refuses to let others hide away significant information, should be rewarded. Being afraid of people like me refusing to censor well sourced and factual information, shouldn't be punished. But my only mistake I made was calling him a Vandal which is an arbitrary excuse to block me considering his editing patterns warrants his own ban.
When you notice a questionable editor deleting massive amounts of factual info, you naturally look at his edit history and see if he does the same deal. I merely glanced at his edits and realised very quickly he def has a solid bias of removing information he has trouble accepting. If I noticed vandalism, shouldn't I go fix it? Is that not allowed? It's not like I followed him for many weeks. I only took a shallow glance at his history once and couldn't help see disruptive editing. So fixed only a total of 2. That's it. 2 edits is hounding?
You need to know the fine difference between hounding and fixing vandalism.. A neutral editor would be thanking me and this ban won't last. If I want to correct wrongful edits, you need to make sure that my editing is not unwarranted. I wouldn't need to fix anything if he wasn't removing excessive amounts of information wrongfully.
Ie - an example of him hiding info
I gave him a warning for obvious vandalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
He Removed entire factual information from my edits first a day ago, and dishonestly claiming it wasn't worthy enough to be added in. Except when it comes to extradition case of Meng, when The US made an offer to Meng to free her in exchange for a Large fine and to plead guilty. Such info should be added in and not censored.
Later on, i took a quick look at his last edits and realised I couldn't turn a blind eye as he didn't just go a little wrong. He went excessive heavy on deleting other peoples' edits in an absurd manner. But I only addressed two most recent edits and that is all.
One of my so called first hounding reverts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053516329
When it comes to Huawei and accusations of espionage. There should be at minimum one mention of whether or not there is any evidence found to support the allegations.. One other user added it in. I noticed he completely Removed all that info from lead .. That is wrong. And why I reverted it and stand by it. I done nothing wrong to fix his excessive removal of information.
My other second and my very last so called hounding reverts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081
Ie.. He dishonestly lies and claims this information is unsourced. Then claims this information is not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is required essential information that shouldn't be removed. He Removed it because in his mind, hiding the fact that it is owned by China is important to him. Despite it doesn't change reality at all.
I want to ask you since you're supposed to be an expert on this, how should I react in the very same situation in the future? If i notice someone removing above aforementioned information- do i report him, give him a warning for Vandalism or just walk away out of fear of being called a "hound"? 49.180.171.190 ( talk) 17:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
49.180.171.190 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Calling out a Vandal is not Hounding
Hounding depends more on individual cases of severity. If his edits were only slightly wrong and I changed it despite it was perfectly acceptable. But whitewashed it. That is hounding. (He actually does Exactly that to me when I added in my edit on korea - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053509407)
I don't do that. Instead I saw edits that were extremely wrong and unacceptable to the point that he can be reported and banned for that degree of dishonest and disruptive editing.. That was the kind of severity that prompted me to warning him about vandalism and re-adding the information he has censored. Also I didn't hound him for many months.. I only reverted just two of his (censorship) edits outside the first article. Not extensive.
Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable source. Because when you put information that is factual and well sourced. Other editors cannot easily remove it even when they don't emotionally like the facts. That is the safeguards to maintain a neutral encyclopedia..Estnot is a disruptive editor here constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will def address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship.
Case 1 - first article
He first Removed entire factual information from my edits a few days go, and dishonestly claiming it wasn't worthy enough to be added in. Except when it comes to extradition case of Meng, when The US indeed made an offer to Meng to free her in exchange for a Large fine and to plead guilty. Such info should be added in and not censored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
Yet he removed it simply because he doesn't like that fact. And not because it is not relevant, significant or not factual. It is obvious vandalism which I seen before. He has no right as an editor to just remove it like that. He falsely calls it redundant except it's not even mentioned once and is also super important and essential for an encyclopedia to mention that true relevant fact.
...
This made me think what kind of person makes such flawed reasoning to remove information like that. So i glanced at his edit history and in just the past day alone, realised very quickly he also deleted a lot of other peoples' edits. Not just modify but outright censor out large amounts. I honestly should not had warned him after seeing this but instead report all his multiple cases of obvious censoring and False reasoning to notice board. Except i felt he deserves a warning for it first by me.
So case 2 of inappropriate deletion
He removed context of who owns a company. It's 9 words total yet he cherrypicked and had issues with acknowledging the fact that Wilson is owned by a company that is a subsidiary of a Chinese company. I reverted it, added a source, gave him a warning but he later removed it again and falsely claimed my source was unreliable. https://capitalmind.com/chinese-megadeal-in-sporting-goods/
It's not. Capitalmind is one of Europe’s largest independent corporate finance advisory firms. It is a perfectly decent source.
After removing my reliable source, he then justifies reverting my edit by claiming it doesn't have a source, despite he ridiculously just removed my source only minutes ago. He is wrong and editing disruptively.
Amer owns a controlling stake of 58%. So Amer is clearly the parent company. Who owns more than 50% stake in that company. Hence amer is undoubtedly a subsidiary of anta sports.
Even the current CEO of amer today is the same CEO of anta sports for good reason. It's just efficient to have just the one ceo for both companies.
https://www.ispo.com/en/companies/change-leadership-amer-sports-has-new-ceo
Yet he doesn't contribute positively.. But goes around and removing information by claiming frustratingly that it has no source. Which i don't agree so why I reverted his wrongful edit. It's true info that belongs to an encyclopedia. He just makes it seem like the info is all fake news despite I provided him a decent source that backs the information he removed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081
Case 3 of inappropriate deletion
- (occurred after i was blocked) he now hounds my edits and removes my added info completely
Japan chose to not Ban Huawei and had said it multiple times. That is real history yet he just completely Removed it all despite he can't liberally remove factual information like this. He creates a facade of reasoning but it's just fake reasons for his multiple deletions. Here he ridiculously lies about my source not mentioning Huawei in his reason to delete :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053515866
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053685634
Case 4 of inappropriate deletion
When it comes to accusations against Huawei. People has to know what the current evidence is, if any in the lead section. He doesn't like the factual information of that so he deleted other peoples' edits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053516329
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053683419
It's petty to hide information like that..Even if you don't like the facts, you cannot just bury it on Wikipedia because it doesn't change reality. I believe Wikipedia should be a safe place for information and not removed out of bs petty reasons. And when someone removes information in a disruptive manner, it has to be called out. Maybe in reality, that makes me super unpopular with many politically partisan individuals who despises me for wanting to add in that Japan has refused to ban Huawei or that the US gov offered to end Meng extradition if she paid a Large fine and pleaded guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053502096
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053517183
So be it because I feel there is little wrong to defend information that has a right to be on Wikipedia..and believe my punishment is excessive and very arbitrary considering fixing vandal style censorship, shouldn't be punished like this. If Wikipedia is to remain an encyclopedia. It needs to encourage editors to address vandalism and not intimidate them or be punished for noticing biased disruptive editing and countering it.
P. S. I am the same user 49.180.171.190. Just my IP address changing by itself automatically as I am using my phone internet. 49.180.30.187 ( talk) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First of all, this is too long to read. Second, your account is indefinitely blocked. We're not going to unblock your IP address until your account is unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
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 is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |