Analyticalreview

April 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The page White Mexicans has one of the worst levels of vandalism on Wikipedia. User "Pob3qu3" is completely inventing levels of information the Mexican government has never published at all. This is also his second warning on the page and third warning related to this topic total. I sent a page protection request but the core issue is that the majority of the contributors disagree with him and yet he has this obsession with wanting Mexico to appear half "European" (which no governmental publication even comes close to validating). Analyticalreview (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement about the content of an article, you need to discuss it on the talk page. Do not edit war and please stop accusing other editors of vandalism when they are not doing that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

He has been discussing this issue for months on the talk page with other users (and myself) and refuses to stop vandalizing. Yes, it is vandalism, because what he is writing is explicitly not what the governmental publications are stating. What I was told is that on Wikipedia you need to write directly what the sources are stating. You can read them all yourself. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

First, you need to read the Wikipedia article on vandalism because what you are describing is not considered vandalism here. Second, if you are having a disagreement over the content of the article, the appropriate response is to discuss it and try to develop consensus on the talk page. If that doesn't work, then make use of one of several dispute resolution options that are available. The answer is not edit warring. If you continue to edit war, you will almost certainly be blocked. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research"

I think a user doing the exact definition of "original research" is vandalism. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to make your case based on the sources and Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than taking an absurdly broad reading of definition of vandalism that also ignores the rest of the vandalism policy. I'd also encourage you to assume good faith in these sorts of disagreements. Incorrectly accusing people of vandalism while you yourself are violating the WP:3RR and WP:EW policies will only put you on the fast track to being blocked. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Mexicans, White Mexicans, and Demographics of Mexico) for a period of 1 month 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector - Pinging to let you know I site blocked the user for this solicitation of proxy edit warring. Since you gave the initial block, let me know if you think this is a bad block. My intent is not to undo your block but to address the edit warring and the solicitation. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There was no "solicitation" at all. These are users that previously already had disagreements with the user that is currently vandalizing. It's so strange how you are faulting the majority of the active editors due to the actions of one that is clearly against the majority opinion (and using "original research"). Analyticalreview (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks for letting me know, and good block IMO. All of these editors are also causing problems on eswiki. Analyticalreview: as I just got done explaining to Pob3qu3, you were edit-warring over this content instead of discussing it, and I set the block I did so that you could continue participating in the discussion without continuing to disrupt the articles with your petty reverts. You chose to ask someone else to continue edit-warring for you instead; this is block evasion by proxy and is treated no differently from sockpuppetry. Please take note Uruguayan989 and Xuxo: we block editors who engage in sockpuppetry, you will not be warned again. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"and I set the block I did so that you could continue participating in the discussion without continuing to disrupt the articles with your petty reverts"

There is no more discussion to be had. The majority of editors agree that Pob3qu3 has no intention on being reasonable and instead is spouting false information via "original research" (which is explicitly against Wikipedia rules yet you do nothing about it). Also, I asked for Xuxo's assistance on the matter way before I was ever blocked on the page. Look at the dates. I expect you to do your homework a bit better. Uruguayan989, yes, I did ask him to revert any vandalism on the page that pops up yesterday. Why are you so hellbent on defending vandalism? Analyticalreview (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. You didn't ask Uruguayan989 "to revert any vandalism on the page that pops up". You wrote "I am currently blocked from the page due to the blatant vandalism from the other user and am requesting you revert the changes on the page while I am gone". This is clear proxying and battleground behavior. If you can convincingly show that Pob3qu3 is editing in bad faith, do so at WP:ANI. Proclaiming it "vandalism" will not suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)