User talk:Syong Lee

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finley22 Waterman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove this? Or will you report me for that?? XD --Syong Lee (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Mubariz Ibrahimov 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. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony.--Syong Lee (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out WP:BURDEN before you dig yourself deeper. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the claim here, however the user is not challenging any particular source or content but removing a whole random packet of content. This way what the user considers bad content gets removed but also everything else. The whole issue here is that the user reverted without a discussion.--Syong Lee (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: this is a WP:DUCK of User:Finley22 Waterman Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider all of the removed content individually. Many removed items are sufficiently sourced and will be lost.--Syong Lee (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, because I haven't seen any real denial of this - are you using multiple accounts? Please note that, if your answer is not in line with what the Checkuser results return, you're much less likely to get any good faith down the line. m.o.p 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]