User talk:2601:644:1:B7CB:D417:AECA:710A:207

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Stampede

I should mention that the information that you're trying to remove was added by user ZiaLater and user Dildor has helped with the neutrality of the article. The discussion is still open in the talk page, please don't disrupt the article to prove your point. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's policies, unreferenced information and original synthesis should be removed. 2601:644:1:B7CB:D417:AECA:710A:207 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Source added. Please stop removing the rest of the references. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Piecing together disparate sources to support your biased narrative violates WP:SYN and is against Wikipedia's policies. Also, being paid to edit Wikipedia violate's Wikipedia's policies. How can you sleep at night knowing your are helping a totalitarian regime destroy an independent country's sovereignty? 2601:644:1:B7CB:D417:AECA:710A:207 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia.

I will not get into detail of the ridiculous accusations. Just stop, please. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one violating the 3RR and deleting discussion templates. Your actions speak for themselves. Better get one of your colleagues to close the 3RR discussion I'm about to open. 2601:644:1:B7CB:D417:AECA:710A:207 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to inquiry

Hi again. In response to this inquiry, I advise you treat the matter as two separate issues. As to the content you object to, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant article and see if you can resolve the concerns you have about synthesis with the other editors. It may be that one side can convince the other (if discussion is kept civil and focused on the issues themselves, and not accusation of suspect motives) or that there is a middleground wording both sides can agree with. That may be a bit optimistic given the level of antagonism that has already breached into the dispute, but I've seen bigger disconnects vanish with an effort at discussion. If no understanding can be arrived at between the three of you (and anyone else party to the discussion on the talk page such that a consensus can be said to have been reached), you might want to consider an WP:RfC to get wider community input. If so, be careful to read the RfC guidelines before hand; it is critical that any RfC filing be phrased neutrally and civilly, and ideally it should present a proposed version (or versions) of the content which respondents can either support or oppose. Or similarly, pose a clear and relatively concisely-phrased question which respondents may support or reject. At a minimum it needs to be focused on content alone and avoid your suspicions about the motivations of other editors.

Regarding those suspicions, I would advise leaving that be. And admin already closed the thread, apparently finding the accusations unsupported, so I would accept that outcome. I tend to agree based on what I saw there, that you didn't meet the burden of proof. If you believe you have something more to provide to support the sock accusation, you might consider bring it back to ANI or SPI, but I can't say as I would advise it until you are a little better familiar with the policies and burden of proof involved. (But those are technically the forums at which such discussion takes place. For the present time, I advise you keep discussion focused on the content and sources themselves and away from speculation (or really any discussion) regarding other editors and what you suspect their motivations to be. Best of luck to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did not see your comments via your other account until after I sent this. Though I must confess ignorance as tot he exact reason why Bbb23 blocked you, I will say that it is problematic (if not per se disruption) that you are utilizing an IP address to engage in editing disputes and make filings at ANI while signed out of your regular account. I'd advise that you sit out this block and avoid trying to circumvent it with an IP editing, whether they be direct engagement with articles or talk page appeals. Indeed, to be on the safe side, I would not even respond to this message, because I suspect you will be tempted to pepper any response with comments about the "paid COI socks" (which I am increasingly certain does not describe the other editors in this dispute with you), which will only get you in more trouble with the blocking admin and the community generally (and I will be informing of Bbb23 of these posts so that they are aware of all relevant discussion on a matter they have acted administratively on). If you have waited out the block and still feel that you must press on the content issues, follow my advice detailed above regarding consensus discussion on the talk page. If you must take that course of action, you will need to be impeccably civil, non-accusatory, and present your arguments cogently and with out reference to supposed nefarious motivations. And also without any further account-abuse shenanigans. Be careful on all of those points, because your behaviour will now be under close scrutiny and I must tell you that you got off with a relatively light block, given you were IP socking. If you need help formulating an RfC neutrally next week, let me know and I will give what assistance I can with the time available to me. Good luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And anyway, I see you've just lost talk page access on your main account, which means any comments here, even in light of my outreach and posts above, may be seen as an attempt to circumvent that administrative decision, so I urge you to make no contributions anywhere, for purposes of editing or discussion, until the block on your regular account has expired. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:Given that Bbb23 blocked me for no justifiable reason, deleted my comment on your talk page,[1] and deliberately allowed Jamez42 to violate the 3RR,[2] I think this is a lost cause. When an admin openly takes sides in a dispute, allows a malicious paid user to openly break the rules, and abuses their privileges to stifle all criticism, then it's just not worth it to invest any more of my energy standing up for what's right. I started editing Wikipedia almost 8 years ago and I'm sad to see the project go to the dogs like this but it seems that resistance is futile.Augurar (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

---