User talk:49.180.171.190

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at 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:. 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)