User talk:A bicyclette

A bicyclette, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A bicyclette! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please advise your previous user names and IPs

You are clearly not new to WP and I request that you advise your previous user names and IPs. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this is my first account.

I find that difficult to accept given that you have gone straight to making detailed edits of several pages. Have you been editing previously using IPs? Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, primarily IPs. I am an academic scholar studying a few topics.

I will be watching your edits closely as you seem to be making controversial changes on several pages that I follow. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Kingfisher and other Vietnam War pages. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop reverting and attempt to obtain consensus for your edit(s) Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SPI

I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam Mztourist (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please note discussion has progressed and your input is requested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam War operations templates

If you would like to make any significant changes to {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}} or any other templates, and would like a hand with the changes or implementing it, please feel free to drop me a line. (I figured to message here so that your request for further editor input doesn't get lost in the thread). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam war, image sizes

Please stop re-adding images to Vietnam war, read MOS:SANDWICHING and also respect WP:BRD. (Hohum ^@) 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that still trying to get a sense of the rules on images. The article is still very, very narrowly presented e.g. from the US perspective which terribly has shortcomings. I'm trying to fill in more details on the South Vietnam/North Vietnam/International side and using perspective pictures. A bicyclette (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please stop using px based image sizing per WP:IMAGESIZE policy "Except with very good reason, do not use px". (Hohum ^@) 18:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You have done it again, multiple times. Please stop resizing images until you know what you are doing. (Hohum ^@) 23:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Hohum, I'm still learning alot of the rules, and tried refitting alot of the images but they kept bugging. I tried resizing it so they fit with the page a few times.

I have no opinion on the images at this time, but as far as text goes, please respect that this article is already tagged as being too long and unreadable. You recently added over 1000 bytes to the Tet Offensive section. If you have anything more to contribute, please put it in Tet Offensive or another appropriate article. This one is over capacity. GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Yeah alot of articles are terribly written or from a smaller source of resources, the sections are not well done in a summarizing way. I've re-did the template for the timeline, none of it appears to have had been updated since 2005. I think this article as a whole could use a re-work. A bicyclette (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not need a"re-work" of incorrect information as with you reinstating the ARVN helicopter image that is clearly incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Its both badly written with non-logical paragraphs, and completely based on one sided history. Its written from the perspective of primarily Americans/in relation to Americans when its much more complex than this, ignoring the South Vietnamese/North Vietnamese perspectives A bicyclette (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent changes

I have noted your recent changes on numerous Vietnam War pages which add "US claims" or "US sources" in relation to casualty figures. I do not agree with these changes but rather than arguing them each time with you, if you wish to make this change you should raise this on the Military History project page where a consensus can be agreed. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Because these sources are US sources, which are not entirely reliable given the methodology employed.

As I said, raise it on the MilHist talk page and try to establish a consensus, until then they stay as is and you should stop edit-warring these. In addition you have added various South Vietnamese casualty figures without providing any WP:RS, you need to provide WP:RS for all of these Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

U.S. official "body count" numbers have been disclosed time and again as horribly unreliable; from a single one of the books on my shelf, Hackett's "About Face" relates stories of personnel from different units getting into fist-fights over various body parts which they might be able to claim, as well as other ridiculous official figures sometimes made up out of thin air. A bicyclette is completely justified in disputing them.

Our article on Body count, though unreferenced, says "The pressure to produce confirmed kills resulted in massive fraud.", which is entirely in line with the scholarly consensus.

But there's a very easy way of making this clear in full conformity with WP policy; reference each claim and say it is from U.S. sources. Mztourist, you're operating well beyond what the reliable sources, including many many former U.S. military sources, say. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mztourist, you need to reference each claim to an exact source and make clear that each is a U.S. claim. The only reason why I did not change back one of the earlier articles you had been extensively working on (Operation Oklahoma Hills) was that I looked at the history and found that the original insertion of the Northern casualties was not your doing. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 there is a process here that I have set out above, which is to raise this issue at Milhist, not edit war individual pages as A bicyclette is doing. Hackett's "About Face" is at best WP:BIASED and you say yourself that the article on Body count is unreferenced. I had thought/hoped that after proving you were not following CCI policy in relation to presumptive deletion you would leave me alone and go do something useful, but you continue to WP:HOUND me. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no. Trying to defend U.S. official body count figures, en generale, is utterly ridiculous. I have been concerned for some time about some of your points of view, and this confirms my worries. No reputable source will say they can stand as uncontextualized casualty counts, and you seem to be saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased. You can accept the scholarly consensus now, or fight through AN/I, or go as long as you want: you won't win. Nobody believes in the U.S. military figures unannotated anymore, and hasn't for decades. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring process and you just reveal your own prejudices/POV. The correct procedure is for the issue to be discussed at MILHIST and a consensus reached which would apply to all Vietnam War articles. Where have I "defend[ed] U.S. official body count figures, en generale" or "saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased"? Once more with the generalisations. I would be more than happy for the VC/PAVN figures to be presented knowing that they would be so laughable as to have no credibility whatsoever. Mztourist (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 acknowledged PAVN/VC losses were 1,100,000 while the US DOD claimed 950,765 PAVN/VC killed, so the body count actually underestimated PAVN/VC losses by approximately 15.6%. You're proven wrong again...Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the figure also calculates attrition losses which were regarded as quite heavy(as much as 1 or 2 out of 10) during travel through the ho chi minh trail movement downwards. A bicyclette (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The 191,000 and the 100,000 that Hanoi has posted, are figures on the Cambodian war. I don't understand the figure the 1995 article supposedly cites, is for 1954-1990. The specific period in question estimates 849,018. You can pull a simple translator on this. A bicyclette (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mztourist, I saw your additions to the body count page. Even aside from A bicyclette's points, you're assuming that both sides are talking about casualties in the exact same operations, which is not wise - for example, the U.S. body count exaggerations after direct combat have no connection, for example, to North Vietnamese losses in airraids on Northern-held territory like the Ho Chi Minh trail, which is why you're trying to compare apples to oranges - and you're ignoring the avalanche of U.S. admittals from the late 1960s onwards that casualty counts during U.S. operations in the field in South Vietnam were exaggerated.

Discussions about the total casualties across the entire war do not give any more helpful data on exactly how many KIA, WIA or other were actually suffered by VC/PAVN in any particular named operation (for example, Oklahoma Hills) where there are no North Vietnamese numbers available to compare to the claimed U.S. body count at the time. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User A bicyclette claims that the AP document is a mistranlation, which is a mistake that AP is unlikely to make and so he needs to provide WP:RS that proves that the AP figure is incorrect. Geoffrey Ward and Ken Burns recent book confirms over 1m PAVN/VC killed. Lewis Sorley in a Better War (page 384) cites Douglas Pike with a figure of 900,000 dead by 1973 and cites (footnote 34 on that page) that during a 1974 visit by Admiral Zumwalt to North Vietnam General Giap advised Zumwalt that the North had 330,000 missing and that James Webb confirmed Vietnamese losses of over 1.1m soldiers. In relation to the overall issue of body counts, the aggregate US figure was presumably an aggregate of all US body counts and estimated losses from bombing etc. I am not saying that body counts might not have been exaggerated on occasion, but your assertion that body counts lack any credibility is disproven by the facts which show that overall body counts and estimates actually underestimated PAVN/VC losses rather than overstated them. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

MZTourist I happen to be able to read the document, which was compiled in a national survey of their veterans, veterans families and other compensation boards that deal with giving money to survivors families. It has to deal with the pay that families do receive for their service. I'm telling you the figure is much more accurate than the words of Giap in 1980. The figures compiled by the DOD the US compiled was not even accurate either, given that ARVN/US battles almost always tallied the same, 1to10 ratio. You should read it, the "body-count" is false, and the "estimated dead"is generally false, otherwise the North would have already had every single person die when their army was in fact, expanding almost every year. A bicyclette (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette you are asking us to rely on a document whose provenance is unclear when we have multiple WP:RS that confirm that the figure is 1.1m or more, WP is based on WP:RS which I have provided and so the 1.1m figure is correct.Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette you need to provide edit summaries for all your changes other than ones you mark as minor. Buckshot06 as an Admin why aren't you enforcing this? Mztourist (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam war 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.

You again ignored my attempt to compromise by again re-introducing redundant info to the infobox with your edits here [1][2]. Furthermore, with these edits, you violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy by making a fourth revert of me. Reverts that take place just outside the 24-hour time frame, like the second I linked, also count towards 3RR. I would please ask that you cancel your edits and engage in a constructive discussion instead of constantly pushing your own version of the infobox without discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a revert. I just added information that was previously removed but kept some changes you made.

Please read Wikipedia's policy that I previously linked to you what constitutes a revert WP:3RR. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. You re-added the redundant information I removed, thus canceling out my previous edit. So, I will once again please ask that you cancel these two consecutive edits/reverts and engage on the talk page.
The part about the NVA/VCA dead including those killed in Laos and Cambodia as well is redundant since the conflict is regarded to encompase those two countries as well, and not just Vietnam. US/ARVN casualties also took place in Laos and Cambodia, but we are not pointing it out for them as well. Also, The link to the body count page is redundant since all of the significant information is now in the column with proper references. EkoGraf (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

Per the discussion at WP:AN3.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in an edit war, it might be a good idea to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

A bicyclette (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See Below

Conduct Concerns

While I understand the rule is to follow BRD now, and to discuss the topic, I understood from the initial edits to not revert entire edits without addressing adequate reasons. For example reversals based on not having a well-filled out source with specific page numbers rather than just the link, I understand ought to be done. The initial issue I had with USER:EkoGraf I understand is my fault, since I did not follow up with a talk, which I understand is much more important and apologize for this behavior. Pedantic editing of the infobox I also understand should not have been done, but did not realise that this was a rule violation in its entirety. I am somewhat bitter that some users will go out of their way to distort reports of war crimes which they disagree with, and should not react without seeking a dispute resolution. However, blanket reversals of my entire edits I still don't necessarily understand as being able to address, since discussion or attempt to compromise usually falls flat. I still do not agree with User:Mztourist or others literally whitewashing war-crimes because he feels a source is not reliable even if its academic as in here [3] and here [4] which I find just morally reprehensible from my earliest edits.

My account is 1 and a half month old, and I have not been a major wikipedia user for very long. But in that time period I feel I have contributed to this topic and not just strictly relegated to the few pages which have raised issues. My interest is primarily in covering history sections, and I have academic training. Currently I am interested in covering the Vietnam War in its entirety, including giving better balance to all sources and not just a handful of sources, since I find there isn't a whole lot of quality content on this topic here nor is there much balance in the same way other historical wars are accorded. Since starting my contributions a particular user who has been here for a while and actively monitors this entire topic, has launched 3-4 complaints against me the very first week including for some odd reason accusing me of sockpuppeting. I understand dispute resolution, or RfC boards ought to mediate this and have used it once in the past. Again the rules and protocols aren't particularly immediately easy to discern or understand, especially when my edits are blankly reverted and my attempt to revert them partially, are met with continual reversals. Despite this I feel I have made contributions to many other articles which there is not overlapping disagreements. I have made substantive contributions I feel to this topic broadly given there was considerable dearth of information, for example, the template timeline box [5] here remained relatively unchanged from 2005, until I had revised it completely here [6] or the changes I have made to the infobox page here [7] vs. the old version of the infobox here [8] which was much more outdated and in my opinion terribly inaccurate, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I understand there are clear rules to be followed and which I am coming to understand gradually, but I have had a difficult time dealing with a specific user who were/are actively reverting whole, my entire edits and contributions and not just parts they disagree with, have requested for deletion of my account for no reason, and have had engaged in active monitoring of my edits. I understand its my fault for continuing this behavior further, in being less cooperative than I should have been, but given that there is still a very uncooperative tendency on this topic Further I understand that I have tools at my disposal including reporting on the Edit Warring noticeboard now, creating a talk page discussion and waiting a 24-hour period and trying to create a dialogue before reverting.

Disagreement With Initial Block Prior To This Current One

I disagree with my edits being disruptive. While I still am largely figuring out the "consensus" framework, there's not a whole lot of agreement on the topics I edit which is fine, or many active participants to build consensus with. Instead there's a handful of editors who engage in some form of monitoring and have proceeded to completely erase my contributions, even when thoroughly substantiated with academic sources. The vast majority of my edits have been constructive additions, rather than deletions and my reversals were reversing deletions of my contributions. Since I tend to not edit step by step, and usually contribute sections 1000kb or more at a time, entire reversals I don't feel are fair grounds for a complete reversal.

The initial block I do not very much agree with either prior to the reversal. Prior to my edit I had created discussion topics which are quickly disagreed with for arbitrary and subjective reasons such as here[9]. Its hard to build consensus when their is already some users who actively moderate many of the articles I contribute to and flatly refuse to compromise for their own personal reasons. My entire edit was reverted rather than just a handful of disagreeable edits here [10], and I had created a talk topic on that page about changing heading topics. I had done substantive changes aside from just one heading title, which I thought would clarifying the text more given it was extremely scattered. I restored the edit here [11] but kept the original heading title which I assume was requested by the user, when it was raised as a complaint on my talk page here [12] but maintained the previous subheadings since I did not know we needed consensus to create new subheadings or to clarify topics. When USER:EkoGraf asked me to revert my edits repeatedly again, after changing back the headings he was still unclear on what I needed to revert so I had kept them prior to being reported. However when he clarified later on in my talk page, I had reverted them here and changed the topic subheadings back [13]. I was still despite that fact, reported for edit warring since I dared to re-organize and create new subheadings without consulting him, despite having attempted to agree to his consensus on the other issues.

Disagreement with Permanent Block Grounds

Since the user User:KarlSmith667, focuses on atrocities and war-crimes of that page and much of the user's editing history revolves around re-writing my attempts at introducing further sources and points, I don't see how said user's edits aren't disruptive, while mine is. He has a WP:PREC and his articles are way more WP:IDENTICAL than mine are. I have raised discussion points prior to the third revert, here [14] and here on the relevant user's page. [15] which went unanswered despite the user reverting my entire section, again, and contributions, again.

The offence I am currently banned for I feel is unfair. I contributed sections which were either removed completely, or distorted by another user which I reverted. These were justified on grounds that "it's too long", or that its vaguely similar, or using different sources to over-ride my points, or justified with "incorrect usage of source" despite me literally having to copy and paste the source verbatim. Example here where the user in question not only reverted my contribution, but had removed entire paragraphs I had contributed previously which I felt unfair [16] and here [17]. Furthermore I did change from my initial edit rather than revert entirely, and corroborated with further details where I felt it was needed such as here.[18]. After reverting the edit I substantiated it so that it became relevant after the initial claim was that it had no bearing the war-crimes section here [19].

I don't agree that my edits have been disruptive, given that there was substantive lack of details on alot of topics I have edited prior. There are a lot of persistent, strange edits I have reverted since being unblocked by User:Mztourist, such as accusations that cited points are "unreffed" eg here [20] and [21] here which my entire edits were simply reverted rather than disagreeable parts removed or discussed. Even with a vague, very strange reason to revert whole-scale my entire edit, I did attempt to clean up sections and reduce the redundat focuses of it here [22] in which I shortened discussion on the topic and linked the relevant page rather than kept the original. The user in question, which I reverted here has reported me no less than three times for being a "sockpuppet", for using "WP:RS" sources which are in fact academic and reliable, and has from the very beginning opposed many of the changes I've made to whitewash a few topics. The user in question tends to engage in a maniacal form of white-washing atrocities and war-crimes, and his very nature is towards censorship of opposing view points which I frankly do not tolerate, and that user has justified it by claiming cited academic sources are not WP:RS as with here [23] among past cases. Just to show case another example, again here [24] recent edits in which my changes were whole-sale disregarded rather than MZTOURIST attempting to either have partial changes or agreeing to my attempts at revisions. Likewise here [25] as well. This is unreasonable, as it did remove hyperlinks, and made it less clear, overall. The ENTIRE THING is reverted rather than just one part because the user feels all of my edits are bad, and the onus of burden is on myself to get him to agree with me is not reasonable. Another example [26] after I stated dialogue in the discussion page about managing the bloat the user is creating, which was not replied to, instead the user justifying on WP:BRD has reverted my changes again here [27]. None of the points I raise went answered. Again, the user is as of currently, reverting my entire edits, which is despite myself using academic sources and trying to introducing contrasting or disagreeing viewpoints here [28] and here [29] and here [30] as well as here [31] on very arbitrary grounds.

These reasons stated above is why I currently don't feel I should be solely punished for reverting constructive edits I have made. I understand I should have raised a discussion page and waited 24 hours, or atleast appeal or request protection of a section or wikipedia further ways to settle ongoing disputes rather than taking matters into my own hands. Since other users have not engaged in dialogue which I raised, upon reverting my edits wholesale, I feel this is unjustified removal of my contributions despite myself following standard citation rules. Since I now understand there are protocols to follow, I still don't appropriately see how I can engage users who out-rightly refuse or do not discuss my considerations and will blank my entire edits but understand that there should be a time-period that I wait before reverting, or to request protection of a section, or atleast continue trying to dialogue if my entire edit has been reverted.

(talk) 23:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; WP:TLDR. This request is far too long. Please make a new request that is much shorter, ideally a short paragraph.

---

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.

• A suggestion - condense all of that into a few sentences which address the key facts of why you were blocked and why whatever the problem was will not recur. Admins are volunteers with their own important things to do, and I suspect few are going to want to read a short novella of a request - I'm certainly not going to read all of that, especially not with 29(!) links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any unblock. User:A bicyclette refuses to follow numerous WP policies, including: WP:RS; WP:BRD; building consensus; not edit warring; providing edit summaries; referencing properly rather than providing bare urls etc. despite being told of these repeatedly. He can't claim lack of knowledge as an excuse, if he had any inclination he could have stopped editing for a few days and familiarized himself with the relevant policies, but hasn't bothered, instead racing off and changing hundreds of pages at breakneck speed and now claiming ignorance. All of his actions create unnecessary work for other Users; we don't need Users like this. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Look, there's a difference between actual knowledge of the topic and protocols on wikipedia. Constituting an indefinite ban is unreasonable, for not sticking with protocol. With that said, there is no consensus for you to claim ownership of articles, and since day 1 have reverted my edits, repeatedly. This is unreasonable, since you do the very opposite and proceed to not build consensus where you see fit, instead arbitrarily claiming random reasons to completely re-write or erase sections or edits you disagree with. A bicyclette (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, he (almost literally) came of an edit war block and started another. You have been (A bike) reported by multiple users, reverted by multiple users, warned by multiple users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you noticed, all of my edits were reversals of deletion of my contributions. Not deletions or vandalism. There's no indication or good reason my edits were non-constructive, at all, yet they were deleted whole sale. A user actually reverted several edits I have made, almost 3,500 kb worth of text, that I have contributed in one reversal on grounds that the article was too long. Its quite amazing how a few users obsessively monitoring 1 or 2 sections decides to control all dialogue. Neither has there been any consensus that MZTOURIST attempts to build, straight away on my first edits he goes and complaints to adminboards about me being a sock-puppet, or proceeds to report me to admin noticeboards, while reversing my edits. This isn't a start to any form of dialoguing participating with MZTOURIST. (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette you just don't get consensus and WP:BRD do you? If a page is stable then that is the current consensus, you then come and make a change which others disagree with and revert and rather than following BRD and taking it to the Talk Page and the relevant board to try to reach consensus you edit war. You have already repeatedly shown that you are unwilling to slow down, learn and abide by policies and work to build consensus and so you should not be unblocked. Mztourist (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Its interesting how you feel consensus should be built. Here is a great example at Operation Masher where you do your very great white-washing of history and think consensus means its just you, and everyone else you agree with. [32] someone made an edit with a reference link. I of course noticed it here [33] and reversed it. In which you reversed it arbitrarily only to get reversed here [34]. In which I reintroduced it here [35]. In which you revert it once again [36]. This isn't consensus, this is you deciding that others aren't allowed to edit because you assume ownership of all topics. This is you going here [37] and deciding that no, you are just going to refuse a compromise despite it being discussed here. If you are telling people to WP:BRD while refusing to even discuss, what's the point?[38].A bicyclette (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What Mztourist did is irrelevant to your appeal. Only your actions matter. Refusing to understand what you did wrong and insisting "it is that bloke over there" is a reason you were banned. The best you can do is to say "yes I get that I should not edit war, not matter how right I think I am" agree to never do it again and accept a short(sih) ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, but the comment he is making I feel I should reply to. The only discussion I have literally ever achieved from his comments are a flat no, a blanket reversal on literally all of my initial edits and I don't see why he should even comment here given that this is an admin's decision to make, not his. I understand a consensus ought to be done, but users are doing 2RR without even discussing the issue, as was raised above with KarlSmith667 and MZtourist. No concerns are raised, only that they disagree with any edit I make, and refuse to talk about it. A bicyclette (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mztourist and Slatersteven. In my opinion the block should be upheld. A bicyclette violated 3RR three times and was well on his way to violating it a fourth time (in less than two weeks) before being blocked. The first time he was only warned. The second block came after he ignored the 3RR policy, despite being warned of it, and ignoring all attempts to discuss the problem. He also argued he didn't violate 3RR, despite being established that he did. Just 12 hours after his first block expired, he started edit warring again and violated 3RR. He then argued his edits were correct, despite ignoring 3RR once again. At this point he was blocked a second time. Within hours of his second block expiring he again started edit warring, even making full reverts this time. At this point, I am getting a feeling that editor A bike doesn't think he made a mistake when violating 3RR or mostly ignoring attempts at finding a compromise, because he thinks the info he has been adding and removing is correct. This, in combination with him jumping right into edit warring as soon as his block is lifted, shows a high disregard of Wikipedia policy in my opinion. PS In regard to his mention that he canceled his revert of my actions (regarding the subheadings) after I warned him - this is incorrect, he only partially reverted back, not fully. EkoGraf (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Look User:EkoGraf, you reversed my entire edit and left a message that stated will I revert my 2RR of you. When you raised complaint about heading changing, I had inadverdently left it the first time but reversed your entire edit of my topic. I kept the subheadings because you didn't clarify it, but did end up changing it your preferences, while maintaining my paragraph changes. I didn't think it was fair reverting my entire edit because you found trouble with 1 heading topic change, which i acknowledged and reverted. Hence why in its current state it wasn't an issue. You failed to clarify about subheading topics, and didn't acknowledge I made paragraph changes which constituted the bulk of my edits. A bicyclette (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you check my edit summary I stated that I generally had a problem with your whole edits because they were too massive of a change of the article's content which would warrant a wide-ranging discussion among multiple editors. That's why I made a full revert. As for your change of the headings, as I stated and as you saw from my edits I had a problem with all of your subheading changes since they were undiscussed. After you made a partial revert of yourself you asked me to be more precise what needs reverting back. I told you what you didn't change back (so yes I did clarify it) but you never responded back nor did you fully revert yourself in that regard. You also didn't cancel your revert of Slatersteven, which I pointed out. In any case, the main point here is you cann't ignore Wikipedia policy because you simply think you are right in your actions (as others have warned you repeatedly). Its up to the administrator's now. EkoGraf (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Thuy Bo massacre

On 28 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thuy Bo massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 145 Vietnamese civilians were killed during the 1967 Thuy Bo massacre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thuy Bo massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thuy Bo massacre), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Congrats on this, User:A bicyclette. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request #3

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).

A bicyclette (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand there are clear rules to be followed and which I am coming to understand gradually. With the user User:KarlSmith667, I have raised discussion points prior to the third revert, here [39] and here on the relevant user's page. [40] which went unanswered with the user reverting my point. I contributed sections which were either removed completely, or distorted by another user which I reverted. These were justified on grounds that "it's too long", or that its vaguely similar, or using different sources to over-ride my points, or justified with "incorrect usage of source" despite me literally having to copy and paste the source verbatim. Example here where the user in question not only reverted my contribution, but had removed entire paragraphs I had contributed previously which I felt unfair [41] and here [42]. Furthermore I did change from my initial edit rather than revert entirely, and corroborated with further details where I felt it was needed such as here.[43]. After reverting the edit I substantiated it so that it became relevant after the initial claim was that it had no bearing the war-crimes section here [44]. These aren't blanket reversals given that a few key points and criticisms were modified from the original section on the #Allied War Crimes section, and I filled detail where it was properly called for.
Since I've been a user for a total of less than 1-month, I wasn't sure about the previous rules which led to my previous blocking. E.G I did not know that failure to respond to discussion in an edit-war could constitute a block, so I just allowed User:EkoGraf to proceed which led to my first block. I also felt blanket deletions of my contributions, and reversing them when no discussion is made, wasn't a rule violation, which clearly it is. Partial reverts or modified reverts I understand fits into the definition of a reversal, and dialoguing or waiting a time-period ought to be done. I understand its my fault for continuing this behavior further, in being less cooperative or patient. Clearly there are routes which I did not use of which I should have been aware, such as dispute resolution boards as well waiting longer time-periods to build a WP:BRD response, as well as appealing when issues become uncooperative as well as making edits when discussion or dialogue has begun. I disagree that consensus ought to be used to limit or remove opposing viewpoints, as I have highlighted the previous appeal examples of blanket, unjustified reversals, however seeking proper meditation and administrative responses should be prioritised over blanket reversing.

Decline reason:

There is consensus not to unblock at this time. Editor is advised to wait several weeks and read relevant policies and guidelines before requesting unblock again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 28 June 2018 (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.

• If you wish to make subsequent statements, please just post a standard comment without unblock request formatting; only one open request is needed. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb to say that I'm minded to unblock. I respect the opinions of User:EkoGraf and User:Mztourist but the note below this shows that this editor has the potential to be productive and not disruptive. Perhaps with some further guidance (mentoring?) we get them back on track. However A bicyclette needs to understand that I will be closely monitoring their editing and we will reblock at the first sign of edit warring. This would be a final chance to show that you can edit collaboratively. Awaiting comments from others ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it must be made clear this means that 3RR means "no more then 3 full or partial reverts, no matter how right you are".Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose He has no understanding of consensus as shown by his recent comment: "I disagree that consensus ought to be used to limit or remove opposing viewpoints", nor any interest in building it or learning and complying with WP policies and procedure. His contributions are poorly-written and poorly-referenced POV and his argumentative approach has wasted a lot of time of numerous other Users. This block has only been in place for 3 days! Let him wait 3-6 months, learn WP procedures and then he can apply again Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocking admin I agree. I am usually completely amenable to unblocking editors who promise not to repeat their previous errors but until they explain why "I disagree that consensus ought to be used to limit or remove opposing viewpoints" is compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia then I strongly feel they should remain blocked. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well this is where I disagree with. My edits were not attempting to remove opposing viewpoints, they were attempting to introduce additional or competing views, which has been consistently removed by two particular users. You should see the nature of my edits, in which no user has contacted me attempting to dialogue the issue, and when I did they are flatly refused, every-time which is why I stated dispute resolution, or attempting to have other editors mediate instead of directly dealing with stubborn users. I mean you should just check USER:KarlSmith667's edit history. His entire contribution is limited to reversing my edits. The user MZTOURIST has in the last 2-3 days completely revert much of what I contributed and throughout my entire contribution history. The first comment on this page is from him, in which he tells me he will watch my edits entirely, and reported me for being a sockpuppet, while reporting me thrice which has fallen flat. Just examples from 3 days such as here in which he claims academic books are not WP:RS [45] and here [46] and here [47] and here [48] and again here twice [49] [50] and here[51] and here, [52] and here [53] and here [54] and here [55] as well as here [56] on very arbitrary grounds. The user in question has a notoriously shady history of trying to own articles and white-washing war-crimes, atrocities and other matters because sources he doesn't like are considered not WP:RS, for example these from Operation Masher he reverts, constantly, despite other users unverting, based on his own definition of WP:RS. This is quite shameful he would proceed with these kinds of edits. From one of my first edits he has reverted it, consistently, without dialogue and with very shaky explanations. [57] someone made an edit with a reference link. I of course noticed it here [58] and reversed it. In which he reversed it arbitrarily only to get reversed here [59]. In which I reintroduced it here [60].A bicyclette (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"The user in question has a notoriously shady history of trying to own articles and white-washing war-crimes". You're really not helping yourself here, you know. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I already gave up trying to reason with the user, given that the user instead of trying to dialogue why he has reverted my edits, in the first week he reported me four times in one week, which were all turned down. If he is amenable to not stubbornly try to assume ownership of articles I will be open to dialogue since the only times consensus was achieved was when other admins or users mediated, instead of direct meditation. You can also check my latest edit which was reverted, again by User:KarlSmith667 despite having brought up unanswered discussion twice here [61] and [62] in which they go unanswered. This forms a deliberate form of censorship, rather than consensus building. A bicyclette (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay I apologize Black Kite (talk), for having written it in a manner of No Personal Attacks. Obviously I wasn't trying to undermine the appeal, and should have removed these characterizations. A bicyclette (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You are doing yourself no favours. As long as he agrees to abide by 3RR under all circumstances there can be not valid reason not to unblock.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OK lets make this easy

A bicyclette are you willing to not make more then three edits that partially or wholly alter what another users has written over a 24 hour period?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC) A yes or no will suffice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I understand there are rational processes to dispute resolution, and trying to form consensus. It is more productive a use of time to have other users be involved, if issues arise, than spend time remaining blocked, quite honestly. I made honest contribution and the issues I have been banned for have been quite narrow in the broad scope of what I was broadly trying to achieve (greater source usage, more modernized version of a historical topic given the vast changes in the literature in the past decade). A bicyclette (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some mysterious IP reverts of my edits being made on Thuy Bo massacre a page created by A bike. Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have an accusation to make make it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:A bicyclette, I came here today with a view to supporting a conditional unblock, but seeing your digging in and making personal attacks instead of offering a constructive way forward, I can not do that at the moment. I strongly suggest you follow the suggestion made by MSGJ in declining your latest unblock request, and take a little while to think about why you were not unblocked and how you can change that next time.

  Specifically, there are some key Wikipedia policies which are not going to be relaxed and with which you have to comply. One is edit warring (see WP:EW), which encompasses more than just the bright-line WP:3RR rule - simply agreeing to not make more than 3 reverts, as others have suggested, is not sufficient. Content disputes are solved by discussion and not by edit warring (and even if you have big changes reverted, they're still there in the edit history to be retrieved should that be decided by discussion). But the key policy here is WP:Consensus, and that is mandatory no matter what you might personally think of it. If a discussion fails to reach a consensus, the way to proceed then is via the steps outlined by Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution policy - but first, that consensus-seeking discussion has to take place. Finally, No Personal Attacks. Accusing another editor of "white-washing war-crimes, atrocities..."? Absolutely unacceptable, and you have no chance of getting unblocked unless you change that approach. In fact, any further personal attacks here will probably lose you your ability to edit this talk page too.

  I think you genuinely have something to offer (otherwise I wouldn't be spending my time making these suggestions), so please try to take this all in and show us you can work well with others in a collegial environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, fully, I read thoroughly the process of BRD, which I only came upon after being banned and wasn't quite aware of a lot of the protocols to follow. I understand much of the rules now, and will be patient on this matter. Personal attacks are off-hand and irrational, but given the difficult nature of the relationship between us two since he was the absolute first editor I interacted with and was very upsetting, this was unavoidable when he had commented, again, but I will refrain from personal attacks. I understand its the nature of the internet to not take things personally. A bicyclette (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • One thing I should point out (and I'll ask others to be aware of it too) is that Wikipedia's processes can appear very confrontational at first, especially when a newer user makes big changes and just sees them reverted. Experienced editors can easily forget how upsetting that can be to someone who doesn't yet understand the way things work. User:A bicyclette, I suggest you have a little rest and enjoy the sun, and then come back and make a new unblock request in the light of this conversation. Maybe give it a couple of weeks as MSGJ suggests, which should give you time to read all those daunting policies? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreeing not to violate 3RR within 24 hours is a good first step. But to simply engage in discussions just because policy says so and without the aim of reaching a consensus (and actually stating you are objecting to a consensus if its not according to your personal POV) then I think you should really take your time learning how Wikipedia really works. Consensus is one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia. POV-pushing and personal attacks (for any reason) are also not allowed. Also, implying you will simply wait a longer period (more than 24 hours) before reverting someone again is also not proper. As others have said, take some time during your block, several weeks, or a month if needed, to learn Wikipedia's policies. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

A bicyclette (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting a second unblock request. I have read and reviewed the guidelines thoroughly, and would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia in regards to contributing to several topics, alongside and aside from the previous one I have engaged in which has warranted my block. I understand fully that consensus is the first step, mediation is the second step, and edit-warring ought to never be a step given its disruptive nature of editing. I understand also, that difficult users exist and are unavoidable given that many topics can quickly become personal or emotional for other users, and finding middle-ground is necessary although if BRD cannot be reached I understand either request administrative attention or seek broader consensus on topics. My edits have I don't feel violated academic or scholarly protocols other than behavioural ones, and have fully complied with the WP:VERIFY, and have strove for WP:NPOV despite sometimes not appearing as such. I recognize that previous WP:GOODFAITH edits by users such as Slatersteven, EkoGraf and so-on went ignored by myself and I recognize it as a fault. I had initially assumed hostility and treated many edits in good-faith with suspect, as I was initially greeted by WP:BITE WP:NEWCOMER from a certain user engaging in WP:HOUNDING when he had declared he "will watch my edits". My previous unblock requests had unfortunately devolved into discussions against said user in the previous requests. I do believe that building consensus on issues is the best route, given that consensus is less prone to deletion, vandalism and other WP:DISRUPT editing from others who receive it in a negative tone, and objectively stating the facts therefore ought to be done. I agree that edit warring will not be done by myself, and that dispute resolution should be done in light of continual disputes. Furthermore, the conduct or the initial tone of a discussion should be positive to encourage the formation of consensus, rather than negative which only serves to further antagonize others to double-down on opposing contributions I have made. If issues continue to arise I understand appropriate noticeboards should be used.

I understand fully the fault of myself in not complying with the 24-hour 3RR period when other users have deleted my contributions as well, and that had led me to the three previous blocks including the last one, in which I still do not agree with the block given I had adequately tried to discuss deletions of my contributions. Giving adequate time is necessary for discussion to form, and if a failure to reply is reached I ought to either proceed with the edit after a 24-hour period or request mediation.

I am not in a rush to get unblocked any-time soon and can understand it if this decision is prolonged- or a block time with a reasonable time-scale is introduced (e.g. not indefinite or several months as a previous non-admin requested) A bicyclette (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block evasion was certainly not going to get this request accepted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:22, 28 July 2018 (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.

A Bike, lets explain this again.

A. it does your case no end of harm to constantly bring up another users actions, it looks like you are using "but the other boys did it" deference, this is not a valid unblock reason. You have been told this more then once and continue to ignore it, that does not inspire confidence you will in fact take in any of the other advice you have been given.

Added to this is the fact you have been advised to back of and wait a while, that does not mean less then a week.

Added to this is you still seem to have the attitude that your initial block (and yes you did edit war, end of story) was not justified. Strongly implying that you will in fact do this again if you think your case is strong enough to outweigh policy. Hell you even seem to imply that whilst you will obey the letter of 3RR you will still revert just not within 24 hours (and if you do not get your way will just edit or take it to the admins, this could well be seen as tendentious editing).

I suspect that if you are unblocked you will get another one within a week given the above attitude.

You need to A, Accept that just because you think it is right, you have no right to make that edit. B, Once an edit of yours has been rejected you MUST seek consensus before reinserting it. C, read wp:3rr and show you get what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Slatersteven, I'm willing to wait another week, given that I've been on vacation for the last week and for another week. I'm just putting this in earlier so that there's enough time to review it. not currently in a rush to get unblocked anytime soon. I understand I should avoid referencing another user, however my experience on wikipedia has been coloured by strange accusations from the first day here by said user, who came in at quite a negative tone and in a negative manner, which I assumed was an attempt to scare off potential contribution. I think this is quite important to highlight, although the block was entirely my fault since it did not involve said user. A bicyclette (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And it did not mean two week either, I seem to recall months was the suggested time scale. I also cannot help but note that rather then agree to what I have suggested you go back to "but the other guy". It is not important or relevant you have been told this. Again none of this inspires any confidence that an unblock will be productive, and that in fact you will just push to envelope when trying to see how far you can wikilaywer your way through disputes ("well the other guy started it", "well it was not "technically" 24 hours").Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was MZTOURIST who suggested 3-6 months, but the user in question has harassed me since I started editing because he for some odd reason thinks I'm a sockpuppet of other users he had gotten into a fight with. The talk page archive won't publish so I can't really revert it, but others suggested several weeks, which I'm fine with. I don't really feel motivated to try to contribute anymore any substantive content any-time soon given its been quite exhausting to deal with procedural issues but personally don't enjoy the current status of a block that is indefinite. A bicyclette (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There's still a lot of WP:NOTTHEM in this unblock request. However I may consider unblocking if you agree to abide by WP:1RR on all articles. Pinging Black Kite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I apologize, since I didn't assume it was a hard-rule for WP:NOTTHEM and will refrain from such. I've found it quite difficult to engage in discussion since I found my edits reverted with the sole justification being to create a bold-revert-discuss, while at the same time not willing to compromise when I do create discussion. I have had only real issue trying to form consensus with User:KarlSmith667 and another user, and not sure how to follow-up if other users are unwilling to, just write strongly oppose or unable to discuss me adding sections or paragraphs. I can agree with 1RR, and am not in a rush to get unblocked anytime soon. A bicyclette (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You realise this reads to everyone else as "I'm right, if people would just stop reverting me it would all be perfect"? Guy (Help!) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No this isn't what I intended, at all. I can agree with the 1RR system which works fine with many user that I discussed with, but I'm not quite sure how to proceed with a user who is WP:HOUNDING my edits deleted my entire edit history without reasonable cause. The edit history of User:KarlSmith667 is almost entirely revolving around WP:HOUNDING my edits, and I don't see many alternatives other than reporting to administrative boards which so far I've been not doing. A bicyclette (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what I am saying. You say you will do something and pretty much in the same edit you say you will not do it, you do it. Also 1RR means just that, you cannot make more then one revert in one 24 hour period, there is no ambiguity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've just updated the request as it was previously quite a bit scattered and the tone had issues with WP:NOTTHEM. I have stated to agree with the 1RR issue already regardless, and was attempting (if poorly) justifying why my request appeared as WP:NOTTHEM.

• There's certainly a good bit more WP:NOTTHEM than I'd like to see in this unblock request. But blocks are meant to prevent further occurrence of whatever the problem was, and a 1RR restriction plus a commitment to discuss and follow consensus, coupled with an agreement to use the relevant forums for dealing with interpersonal issues, should hopefully achieve that. An editor doesn't have to agree with their block or accept all blame in order to be unblocked, they just need to convince us of an appropriate change in approach. I would support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Just to expand a little, if one editor feels they have a legitimate concern regarding another editor, they don't have to drop it in order to be unblocked - they just need to convince us they will pursue it through the appropriate channels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette can you please stop editing comments (and especially your unblock request) after people have replied.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The previous one I tried to archive, but I didn't realize I can't create archive pages. None of my edits here for comments have been edited, but my unblock request has been. A bicyclette (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to update your unblock request, I think the best way is to add a subsequent comment to the end with a new signature and timestamp. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, noted in case of next-time. A bicyclette (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose any unblock. I believe that A bicyclette has been IP socking and have opened an SPI as detailed below. Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well I can't respond to these accusations given I'm currently blocked, but this what, your 2nd attempt at accusing me of sockpuppeting? Your 5th or 6th time reporting me to an admin board, of which previous ones turned up to warrant nothing? This is what, the 10th report or whatever of a user for sockpuppeting? Just a cursory look at the edits you have cited as "evidence" show pretty unreasonable similarities, e.g. I added two photos, another user restores photos, I added photos you feel are are irrelevant same with another user, or I used a bare reference a handful of times or I put a reference before or after a period or user the word academic. These are what, 1 or 2 edits out of over a thousand edits I have made? You made what, over a thousand edits in just one week and think everyone who disagrees is the same Dino person just like the first time you reported me? I think there is far more productive use of your time rather than literally monitor, 24/7 every single edit I have made since you somehow have extensive knowledge of all of my edits going back to May 31st and cited times when I used a word or two. When I did use an IP as 172.86.241.193 and 172.86.245.217 before making my account, you accused me of being a sockpuppet for quite vague reasons and rolled back all of my edits. You seem to still have an almost bizarre obsession with me, and not giving a clear reason for RVing all of my edits while telling me I was vandalizing the page. There is far more important, better, and interesting use of one's time than take everything personally on wikipedia, and a far more healthy, rational way to see people than think everything is a grand conspiracy by someone who sleighed you in the past. This is you again WP:HOUNDING me, a look at this page shows you have literally commented on everything that has come up about me, all discussions I have raised and have typed a bold oppose for your own reasons. I really do pity this kind of behavior. A bicyclette(talk) 09:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to say this does begin to look ma lot like hounding. I think an IBAN may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am frustrated and disappointed at how you and some other users here continue to give A bicyclette the benefit of the doubt. His edits have disrupted hundreds of pages that I watch and I have had little time for content creation since he arrived on WP as I have been spending all my time on talk pages. I have been watching his edits closely since the beginning due to suspicious similarities with other banned users who push a similar POV, one of whom was blocked just a few days before A bicyclette's first IP edits. As you know, A bicyclette managed to get himself permanently blocked without me being involved at all, however his block was for exactly the issues I identified earlier: edit warring and 3RR; not following WP:BRD or seeking consensus and insisting he's right. If my SPI is unsuccessful an IBAN will not work as my focus in the largely on the Vietnam War and that is the area where A bicyclette has made most of his edits. Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disrupting hundreds of pages? You don't own these pages, you will just delete my edits when I add information and tell me to create consensus with you while boldly opposing any edits when discussion is brought up. My block I admit was quite careless and I can see I was in the wrong for behaving that way. However you have begun monitoring every single edit I make, since I begun editing, and this is WP:HOUNDING. Doesn't it just occur to you that not everyone will agree with you, and that many people will quite often disagree with you? And that this is the reason why you get into so many disputes? You have edit-warred me, much more often than I have edit warred you, since you are edit-warring my contributions, and not just an article itself regardless. Look, you don't own this topic, and won't get your way everytime. Not even forgetting some decency ought to be had by you, since the result of your past reports by you or whenever your noticeboard reporting has often resulted in you throwing a tantrum at the admin who turns it down, eg your dispute with User:Buckshot06. You can have ownership of this topic again I'm not going to bother, but you should atleast have some decency to not just delete everything on pages you didn't create, as well as keep stalking my page and get angry every time something doesn't go your way. A bicyclette (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Then an IBAN would work, as it would prevent the pair you you going at it hammer and tongs. And I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt, I have said I expect that if he is unblocked he will get a block again fairly quickly (and have made it clear I do not trust the users protestations of remorse). But you seem obsessed with getting him banned, thus an IBAN we mean he cannot frustrate you anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And how would an IBAN work in practice on any Vietnam War page? If A bicyclette makes an edit I disagree with I can't revert it and can't discuss it on the Talk Page, so it would just mean that the first (and last) person to make an edit after the IBAN gets their way and the other has no recourse? Please explain if I have misunderstood. Mztourist (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Only if you are the only two people who ever edit that page. So it is no different from any other IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes for many of the battles we are the only ones editing those pages and so an IBAN won't work. As previously noted, A bicyclette got himself banned without my involvement (while I took a short wikibreak) and to do that he aggravated several other Users and so its not just me who has issues with him. My opinion is that undue assumptions of good faith are being given to one disruptive User with insufficient consideration of the aggravation caused to other hard-working Users who have had to deal with him. The only basis on which I would support any future unblock is if A bicyclette is topic banned regarding anything to do with the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, as poor-quality as your pages on battles that you created are, I don't care so much. But you don't even have the decency to give a reason for deleting my edits. If you are making it your life mission to just shut down competing views, I get it, but at least do it constructively and not just through deletion. I still don't even get why you think I'm a handful of other past users you get into disputes with, because your behavior isn't one that inspires cooperation and collegial respect. A bicyclette (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

SPI

I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Bike, if you wish post a response here and I will post it at the SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven (talk), you've been very helpful and I can't thank you enough for the support over the last few days here.

---

My advice

A bicyclette, I've seen other users get into these kinds of situations. As irritating as it may seem, and however great the templation to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, you must remain within the strict letter(s) of the law. 3RR is pretty clear policy, and you should make sure you abide by it. My forthright and sincere advice would be to back off significantly at this time, and go somewhere else to edit some other articles for a while (couple of months at least). Or better still, take a WP:WIKIBREAK. Go carefully through, in that time, making no Vietnam-war related edits, the problems and lessons of your last periods of editing, including strict adherence to sources, and the rules that you've run afoul of here. DO NOT GET TEMPTED INTO 3RR for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, for a start. Happy for you to e-mail me should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Section for SPI Reply

Hey Slatersteven, thanks again, and I hope this is not too much for a response. ​ I can't reply directly but there is a longer reply I had given on my Talk page, but the user Slatersteven has kindly offered to copy and paste my response. A cursory look at the edits he has cited as "evidence" show pretty unreasonable similarities, I added two photos, another user restores photos, I added photos he feel are are irrelevant along time ago same with another user, or I used a bare reference a handful of times or I put a reference before or after a period or user the word academic. But I think contextualizing his accusatory nature is important, since this is his 4th or 5th reporting me, and I think his 10th time reporting other users in the past year or two?
Anyways I think its important to first contextualize his behavior towards me, and second to contextualize the nature of his edits. My first welcome to wikipedia was from the gracious USER:Mztourist, here [63] when he tells me to report all previous socks or IPs, and then declares "I will be watching your edits closely". From this incident and before the user has been constantly WP:HOUNDING me prior to me even beginning to edit on Wikipedia, when I did use an IP as 172.86.241.x, and assumes I'm some other individual among many others he had a squabble with in the past. This isn't the first-time he has accused me of socking, as he has reported me here [64]. In less than a week of me starting to edit, he had rolled back several edits for his own personal reasons and has reported me twice more here [65] [66]. Since then he has kept a very careful and close monitoring of my edits, either without explanation, stating he is "RVing to last good edit", that sources are not "WP:RS" despite being published and acceptable under WP:RS criteria, or because he finds one disagreement such as improper citation format. Just examples, the following are some 1KB+ reverts for a one-week time-span since June 25th: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. Additional reverts here, less than 1KB, for a one week time-period: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. There are much more examples on his edit history, he has well over 1000 in just this week with many poorly justified or just consisting of deleting points he doesn't like while giving a poor excuse for deleting content that follows wikipedia guidelines which frankly creates plenty of ground for other users to disagree with him. Given he is actively monitoring my edits, 24/7 in a very neurotic and bizarre way, with extensive knowledge of much of it and in a very neurotic way draws from things I did several weeks ago, its hardly surprising there are superficial similarities with times I uploaded a photo and times where some guy restores a photo in a gallery. None of this is new of course and this odd pattern of stalking, RVing and harassing has extended from one my very first edits, in which he gives a poor reason for deleting points I contributed here when I restored an edit from another user in January that he deleted for faulty reasons. [92] [93] and it extends throughout his history.
He has without fail, replied to almost all of my talking discussion with an opposition and has refused all my attempts to dialogue on issues, even if it isn't related to him, some examples here: [94] [95], here [96][97], [98] and here in which he bizarrely accuses me of "getting revenge" or some nonsense. Its fine if he has legitimate things to say, but he has nothing constructive to offer, and usually, if not entirely gets wrong what I'm contesting or opening for discussion. Its quite clear that he has a strong motivation against me.
I'll further comment that the very topics he edits and the way he carries it out creates plenty of grounds for conflicts with other users. He is frankly interested in trying to remove anything which may have a negative or "less than perfect" portrayal of one side in the Vietnam War and has a very strong and odd edit history surrounding war crimes, with one good example here [99]. He has managed to delete or obfuscate anything which would portray his obsessions negatively, e.g. he has managed to get this article deleted Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre, in which I had restored with proper citations which he is now contesting as not reliable here again, [100] just like he did here [101] and here [102]. He uses the exact same tactic, of contesting a source, then stating that the source as not WP:RS despite nobody replying to him, and when others disagree with him he will find arbitrary or technical or whatever ways to get that contribution tossed out or attack the editors just like he did with an admin here for disagreeing with him [103]. This very tactic of establishing his own guideline for WP:RS is bizarre way and will obviously create lots of disagreements. He is already motivated by the very idea that all sources from vietnam is propaganda here [104] and that every source on massacres and such from vietnamese witnesses is inherently unreliable and propaganda including major works published in the US that uses vietnamese sources based on his own WP:OR and which pops up as a justification repeatedly through his edits and recently here [105]. This is not only in my opinion, an extremely prejudiced view, but one by its very nature will create conflicts with other editors. Given this topic, the way he attempts to censor it, and the very fact that many, many people will disagree with him its not surprising that other users will contest his edits.
Discussing WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT is another topic for another day, but just to further point out his harassing behavior I'd recommend checking out my page. Here is discussion on the feud he begun by launching harassment reports and so-on against me, here [[106].]. Here are some examples in which he offers his views on me to the blocking admin here [107]. This is fair and all but he has proceeded to comment on virtually everything else on my page including my recent unblock requests here [108], here [109] and raised the complaint after I raised another unblock request recently here [110]. I've never come across anyone quite like him, and frankly I'm quite disappointed to have. A bicyclette (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You still do not seem to understand WP:NOTTHEM. Your edits were problematic. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is in response to a sockpuppet investigation, not for here. A bicyclette (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

AS I said if you post a paragraph here you want added to the SPI I will add it on your behalf, but only a paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Revised

Hey Slatersteven, will this do? Thanks again. Version is a truncated reply found [111]. A cursory look at the edits he has cited as "evidence" show pretty unreasonable similarities, I added two photos, another user restores photos, I added photos he feel are are irrelevant along time ago same with another user, or I used a bare reference a handful of times or I put a reference before or after a period or user the word academic. The user is openly WP:HOUNDING me since I joined in late May when here [112] he tells me to report all previous socks or IPs, and then declares "I will be watching your edits closely". This isn't the first-time he has accused me of socking, as he has reported me here accusing me of being some other individual he had gotten into a dispute with [113]. I think contextualising this report is important, because the user has three dishonest things going against him which will create conflicts, the first I'll highlight is his WP:OWNERSHIP of articles in which he simply deletes things he doesn't agree with from anyone which is why he gets into all these disputes with other users, the second is him WP:ORing published, acceptable sources and openly violating wikipedia guidelines just because he doesn't agree with them. The third issue is to contextualize this report in the longstanding harassment and hounding campaign he has launched against me since the first day I joined. In less than a week of me starting to edit, he had rolled back several edits for his own personal reasons and has reported me twice more here [114] [115]. Since then he has kept a very careful and close monitoring of my edits, removing entire sections while justifying "RVing to last good edit" or because he finds one disagreement. These are all poorly justified and would create ample ground for conflicts with other users. Here are some examples of some 1KB+ reverts for a one-week time-span period between June 25th and July 2nd, the period of my block: [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]. Additional reverts here, less than 1KB, for a one week time-period: [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]. A quick look at his edit history shows he has made, dozens of edits a day in a matter of a week, all for not conforming to his views, but he draws examples of where somethings overlap with mine from 1000s of edits I have made spread across a month for vague similarities. Second is his attempt at WP:OR, in which he tries to contest sources and openly deletes paragraphs with published, academic texts and established newspapers because they are not WP:RS according to him. The way he goes about doing it is incredibly strange and conflict-prone since it covers what are sometimes sensitive topics, namely war-crimes and atrocities and going about claiming anything he disagrees with is WP:PROPAGANDA or not WP:RS. Some of the examples highlighted above show that, but here are some; in which he first tries to build a one-man consensus here and feels just because he feels that way that sources are therefore not WP:RS. [141][142][143]; afterwards when he gets called out he will get into fights with other users as in the past here with an admin [144]; failing that he will try and fail to build consensus [145][146]. Most of these are before June 25th, despite all this, he will continue with arbitrarily deciding which sources are not WP:RS and continues his bizarre pattern of deleting things in the "articles he patrols". The third problem with this user is the user has a strong history of getting into frequent conflicts with others, and now the user is obsessed with getting me removed from Wikipedia through other means. An admin brought this issue up in discussion nearly a month ago and the user hasn't stopped trying to get me banned, here [147]. The user in question has also commented every time something happens on my page here are some examples in which he offers his views on me to the blocking admin here [148]. This is fair and all but he has proceeded to comment on virtually everything else on my page including my recent unblock requests here [149], here [150] and raised the latest SPI complaint after I raised another unblock request recently here [151]. This isn't limited to that, the user actively stalks my talk discussions and attempts to get it derailed, every single one I've written, with some examples here: [152] [153], here [154][155], [156] and here in which he bizarrely accuses me of "getting revenge" or some nonsense. The User still believes I'm some other user he had disputes with, and still thinks he owns articles, and has a bizarre, paranoid tendency to create "some enemy" that stalks or harasses him. I'd report the user for WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT, and its quite self-evident its the case and this is just another example of that. The user has consistently A bicyclette (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to SPI Comments

​ Guy, you could atleast open the floor for me to reply before just simply agreeing to this user's 4th or 5th attempt at getting me banned on very superficial evidence, for simply no reason other than I introduce some points that offend him. Given I can't even defend myself on that page rather than just try to brush aside my response. These edits are a handful of edits, on what, 100s of edits the user has made in that week? I've made 1000s of edits which followed WP acceptability guidelines, and coincidentally the same user has made 1000s of edits of my own edits, and finds anyone who disagrees with him is me. A bicyclette (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked the contributions of the IPs, if it's not sockpuppetry then it's meatpuppetry. All display a fixation with the same idiosyncratic agenda as A bicyclette. That said, we can all use WHOIS, so I suggest we close as WP:DUCK and move on. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(FROM [157])

Okay I'm just going to check these supposed meatpuppets of mine. Two or three of the IPs, 124.x, 125.x, 126.x seem to be the same user or user location/proximity given that they apparently had a noticeboard report or whatever and banned for sockpuppeting. The nature of their edits seem to be rolling back MZTOURIST's dramatic edits here in which he did some mass deletions here [158]. 66.x., another user seems to be editing across a bunch of random topics and rolling them back. User 173.x seems to have a strange range of edits, and mind you, his edits were on the day the article was on the front page, which is why there was a whole host of edits on that page, including ones that MZTOURIST kept rolling back from non-IPs as well, if you would check its edit history. 184.x seems to be deleting or editing a bunch of things, but his conflict that MZTOURIST reported me for was apparently putting pictures in a gallery. 113.x edited a page I have never edited, and didn't even look at until this report.

Now let's look at these alleged behavioral incidents. I used the word unvert, once on my talk page much earlier than that other user did, and since I was the page creator while MZTOURIST was actively not only opening up 3-4 article page talk about it being poor and bad quality and so-on while mass-editing the entire article while it was on the front page, but also actively discussing on my talk page about why I should remain banned. Its not surprising there's probable overlap between someone reading my talk page and editing the article. This is especially when undid, revert, undo and so-on tend to fall into the same verbal spectrum of meaning. Apparently bloat is also a rare, unused word, and the user cites a case of me using bloat on June 13th, of the over thousands of edits I have made. Moving on, the fourth one is me adding what he perceives as excessive images nearly a month ago, on June 1st, and another user reverting his edit of image deletions he claims on the grounds of them being excessive despite being highly relevant to the topic and putting it in a gallery, this for some reason counts as the same thing. Moving onto the fifth one in which I added what he perceives as irrelevant images (although its a subjective matter, given they seem to be relevant) simply because it was a Model D or whatever and not a ModelE or whatever nearly 2-3 weeks ago despite being completely relevant to the article and component, and some user reverting his entire edit which also contained a picture. Apparently this counts as the same thing to him. 6 and 7th I'm not even going to address, these are very common and its ridiculous these would be used as evidence. "Claims of being an academic", just look at the supposed other user in which MZTOURIST attempts to call out some book for being not WP:RS simply by just linking one article in an academic journal, and which the IP user responds with "One source or document hardly constitutes a refutation. I don't think you understand the nature of academia.173.64.109.152". I don't even think they are calling themselves an academic. Neither would I for the most part given that I'm not even in the field of history. I'm just not going to dignify a "mini-novella justification". A bicyclette (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Since discussion on both the SPI and the unblock request has died down I'll comment on a few discussions concerning the SPI that MZTOURIST has been updating. From User:Mztourist

I never said that A bicyclette acknowledged the two IP addresses, 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 as his, rather that they were acknowledged as being socks/dynamic IPs of each other. Its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere", it awaits behavioural investigation. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The last time you opened up a complaint about this, which was promptly rejected, it was already raised that these IPs were used prior to my account creation. This is not a sock and it does not establish whatever claim of behaviour precedent you want to try to establish. Obsessively using the same arbitrary lines of evidence despite it already being shot down should be ruled as WP:HARASSMENT.

TheVicarsCat Apologies I read your comment too quickly and confused the IPs. A bicyclette acknowledged the other 2 IPs here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive#31 May 2018: "None of the original ones this user is accusing me of, is me. The only ones that are, are 172.xx IPs, which are my edits." I am not making any attempt to "silence any opposition" merely pointing out that its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere". As can be seen below an Admin has undertaken a behavioural review and found WP:DUCK Mztourist

WP:DUCK seems to be a subjective assessment. Regardless, this is not the definitive proof that the User is desperately seeking to try to establish a permanent ban for me, a goal he has had since my account was created.

IP User:142.118.176.170 geolocated in Ontario Canada (near to A bicyclette's original IP edits) yesterday made a series of edits to Vietnam War casualties, particularly this edit: [26] which removed the sentence: " It is unclear whether or not this figure includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing in action" and undermined the Woodruff quote, both of which A bicyclette objected to previously. Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand how big this province is? The IP looks to be geolocated to the Greater Toronto Area, far away from where I am located in Southwestern Ontario. I guess I should take responsibility for every IP edit from a province with a population of 14 million, just like I should take responsibility for every edit that seems to unhinge User:Mztourist far away from here. Just like how I should take credit for Dinonam and the other previous editors who you've been in disputes with.

I personally have more productive use of my time than to have some half-crazed editor keep taking shots at me without being able to reply, and keep having to fend off these constant harassments from him. At this point I don't really care if an unblock is granted or not, but I'd suggest admins keep watching this user, since he is already going out of his way to conduct WP:ORIGINAL, and thinks him patrolling articles somehow grants him the sole right to approve of what goes into this very broad topic. I'm going to break WP:PERSONAL and say his behavior since day one shows WP:BITE and WP:HARASSMENT, since he assumed I was some other user and has continually harassed me when I begun. He obviously appears to WP:OWNERSHIP of a handful of articles he is obsessed with. I really do pity someone who doesn't have a single productive thing to do other than harass other Wikipedia editors. A bicyclette (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to read that you don't care if you are unblocked. Since your block has been in effect calm has returned to the pages you edited and I and a number of other Users you have sparred with have been able to work productively on content creation and improvement, rather than spending all of our time arguing with you. Long may it last. Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I'd rather be unblocked. I don't see how you thinking just deleting anything I contributed is "article improvement" while you only ever read like 3 books and only cite them and think its the only acceptable source. Nothing I contributed ever broke wikiepdia scholarship guidelines. I really did learn alot from my experience here though on the nature of people. It really is a sad, bored life if one is dedicate it full-time to censoring things that gives them cognitive dissonance. Its perfectly acceptable for people to patrol for technical, reliable source or wikipedia guideline infringements but others who think them "patrolling" for things they cannot fit into their worldview as if they are some guardian is laughable and that it somehow contributes anything useful or has any decent aims to it is a joke. I think I can understand the kinds of people totalitarian governments like to recruit for state censorship departments. A bicyclette (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note

Okay since the unblock request has stalled, I recently did actually edit from an IP under 74.58.148.148 geolocated to Montreal, Canada and gauged MZTOURISTS' response which he did here [159]. For example, me cleaning up bare references and redundant references here while inserting points unnecessarily deleted [160] or using the exact same source he used while clarifying the statements in the article [161]. These edits are not in any way non-constructive, since it is deleting article improvements, and even on very mundane issues like cleaning up references it is shut-down other contributions. These edits are clearly quite questionable, and likely motivated by personal reasons so points raised by the user on my block on this page should be carefully heeded. A bicyclette (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits made even as an IP, while your named account is blocked, could be considered block-evasion and can lead to further sanctions per Wikipedia's policy. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, so Mztourist was within his rights, per Wikipedia's rules, to make the revert. Please, again, learn Wikipedia's policy and your account may be unblocked one day. EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not could be, are. Always. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Note that continued block evasion may lead to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. Blocks and bans apply to individuals, not to accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Guy You should read it carefully, I did not comment on that noticeboard. Since nothing is being done concerning my unblock request, and since all issues seem to be stalled, I made deliberately constructive edits, none of it had inherent grounds for disputes, deliberately given it was cleaning up references and bare references, source checks and so-on. I personally do not feel there is a current fair process given persistent efforts by another user to stall my requests, and moderators and commentors does not seem to be fair weighing of evidence or an actual indepth look at the nature of the edits, and way too much focus on comments from a user who continues to harass and patrol my edits in an effort to shut down contributions. The article prior used like 1 or 2 sources, and falsely attributed information while using bare references and attempts to shut down anything I contributed has been persistent from a user attempting to get me banned since I started for no real clear reason other than a grudge. I find this simply unfair. There is probably good reason why the articles i just edited have at most 1 or 2 users ever contributing to them. A bicyclette (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You self-identified as 74.58.148.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edits from that IP are block evasion. The SPI is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

SPI 30 September 2018

I have opened a new SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Piccadillysquare was blocked as a suspected sock of A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SPIs November 2018

6 further IP proxy incidents on 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 25 November: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI January 2019

A new SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI 4 May 2019

A new SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI 7 May 2019

New SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI 23 September 2019

New SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)