User talk:49.180.171.190

ANI-notice

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)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for harassment (WP:HOUNDING). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

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 constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship.

Case 1

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 Chinese company. I reverted it, gave him a warning but he removed it again and falsely claimed it's not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is very relevant for an encyclopedia intro.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081

Case 3 of inappropriate deletion

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/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/1053683232

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.

49.180.30.187 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Calling out a Vandal is not Hounding 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 constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship. Case 1 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 Chinese company. I reverted it, gave him a warning but he removed it again and falsely claimed it's not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is very relevant for an encyclopedia intro. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081 Case 3 of inappropriate deletion 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/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/1053683232 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. [[Special:Contributions/49.180.30.187|49.180.30.187]] ([[User talk:49.180.30.187|talk]]) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Calling out a Vandal is not Hounding 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 constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship. Case 1 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 Chinese company. I reverted it, gave him a warning but he removed it again and falsely claimed it's not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is very relevant for an encyclopedia intro. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081 Case 3 of inappropriate deletion 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/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/1053683232 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. [[Special:Contributions/49.180.30.187|49.180.30.187]] ([[User talk:49.180.30.187|talk]]) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Calling out a Vandal is not Hounding 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 constantly censoring information in an inappropriate manner. I don't make such accusations lightly. After my ban expire, i will address this fully in third opinion or Admin to report his censorship. Case 1 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 Chinese company. I reverted it, gave him a warning but he removed it again and falsely claimed it's not relevant despite showing who actually owns a company, is very relevant for an encyclopedia intro. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1053491081 Case 3 of inappropriate deletion 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/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/1053683232 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. [[Special:Contributions/49.180.30.187|49.180.30.187]] ([[User talk:49.180.30.187|talk]]) 17:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}