BT35
Discretionary sanctions in "Race and Intelligence" articles
See Arbcom decision, race and intelligence articles are under discretionary sanctions. This means that you should be in your best behaviour while editing those articles, and that you should be careful to follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
In this edit you are being very harsh with other editors in the page.
You are being reverted because a) people think that you are User:Mikemikev and/or b) you are being very very confrontational and/or c) they already explained in that thread why they think that the proposed edits are not good. The "sock" thing is because people think that you are a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (an alternate account used by Mikemikev to evade the block in his original account). The "troll" thing is because arguments similar to your own arguments have been bandied around for months, and people are starting to think that it's just a tactic to piss off the regular editors of that page.
Please try to be less confrontational. Try to accept that other editors might just not see things your way. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
And wikipedia is not a forum of discussion, that's why your comments are being removed as rants. Try limiting your comments to succint suggestions of changes, supported by sources. That means making specific suggestions of specific changes.
(if you keep commenting in the same line, then you will simply be reported to the arbitration enforcement board. Once there, you will probably be topic banned from race and intelligence topics, for "causing disruption in an article that is under discretionary sanctions" or something similar. Consider this a friendly warning from someone who has seen other editors follow the same line of comments.) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
AN/3RR
You have been reported for violating the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. The report is filed here: User:BT35 reported by User:Professor marginalia - Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Some articles of interest to you are subject to WP:ARBR&I sanctions
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Race and intelligence#Final decision.
You seem to be here on a mission, judging from your edit summaries: "I can understand that this information is devastating to your little dog and pony show.." Please reflect on whether you belong here, if you are not willing to collaborate with others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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.
KrakatoaKatie 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I was blocked for reverting three times? It says I should try to discuss changes first. How can I do that if they are removing my comments from the talk page (that's what I was reverting). They said I was "ranting", which is nonsense. I was providing quotes from reliable sources. Is it OK to delete comments you don't like and call them "ranting", presumably because they can't debate the point? Is there any way I can appeal this decision? BT35 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Instructions for appeal are given in the block notice, above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
BT35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see that technically I broke the rule. But it seems that a gang is removing reasonable comments they don't like from the talk page. Do they have the authority to do that? Isn't discussion the aim rather than sheer force of numbers? Since I was correcting what I believe to be unnacceptable behaviour, I think my behavior was justified. For this reason I would like to be unblocked. If this is not accepted, will it be possible to make a complaint about the people who removed my comments? Thanks. BT35 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your unblock request doesn't satisfactorily deal with your own conduct. You were given a warning about discretionary sanctions, which should have alerted you that somebody (an uninvolved admin, no less) thought that your conduct was disruptive and saw fit to warn you about it. Prior even to that, it's clear that several editors thought your comments were inappropriate or out of place, but instead of refactoring them or trying to discuss with the editors, you simply reinstated them repeatedly, which is edit warring. You're quite lucky that you weren't blocked under the Arbitration Enforcement rules. As for the conduct of the others, you could have raised it at an appropriate noticeboard, like WP:ANI, but there's not much validity left in your complaint given that you edit warred rather than try to resolve the dispute. If you acknowledge that the edit warring was disruptive and understand why you were blocked for it, then we can talk about a conditional unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 31 December 2010 (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.
BT35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh, right. Well, I thought I was reverting obviously unacceptable behavior, but if you say I should have gone to a noticeboard then I guess that's what I should have done. If I agree to do that in future, can I be unblocked? BT35 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason:
block expired Ronhjones (Talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are only a small number of things you can legitimately revert beyond the 3RR and they're listed here. If you agree to avoid that article, it's talk page and the other editors involved in the edit war for the 33 hours left of your block duration, I'll unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry
BT35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If I promise to mindlessly copy self-contradictory material from whatever texts I happen to find in my primitive backwater, like some kind of robot incapable of critical thinking or even remotely understanding the subject matter, can I be unblocked? BT35 (talk) 10:17 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
Your request does not indicate a willingness to work collaboratively nor contribute constructively. TNXMan 15:26, 3 January 2011 (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.
- Your request has been reviewed and declined by Tnxman207; you don't get to remove that. Please post a new unblock request that addresses the concerns noted by Tnxman307, rather than reverting the edit. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Your request does not indicate a willingness to work collaboratively nor contribute constructively." I know, I was being sarcastic.
- Which is exactly why your request was declined. If you would like to post a serious request, it may receive serious consideration. TNXMan 15:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Your request does not indicate a willingness to work collaboratively nor contribute constructively." I know, I was being sarcastic.
Notification of proposed motion
This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:
That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
- Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)
- 5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
- To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.
- Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.
- All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)