Von Clown
Welcome!
edit
|
Discretionary sanctions alert, please read
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Discretionary sanctions apply to discussion on article talk pages
editYou've got to stop the accusations. Either stick to discussions about how to improve the article and avoid discussing other editors or expect to be blocked or topic banned. Follow WP:AgF and WP:Civil. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I posted a list of definitions of race, from biologists. What are the chances you're going to edit them in? Von Clown (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- None. I'm not familiar enough with the article. I was concerned about your behavior, not the content of the article. There are many articles that have ended up on my watchlist that I don't edit. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
edit
Your recent editing history at Race (human categorization) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Von Clown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. The article is biased towards a minority POV, and I'm trying to fix this. Are you basing this block on mind reading? I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, that is all. You appear to be confusing an abrasive tone with non-constructive points. Those things are absolutely separate, and my points are constructive. This block is made with a false and invented reason. Von Clown (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your abrasive tone shows clearly you are not here to work with the Wikipedia community. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2019 (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.
- "Oh wait, you people know sod all about biology and only parrot Marxist gibberish from your fake science anthropology departments" is enough to establish that you're not here to edit constructively and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. No mind-reading needed. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's entirely accurate. They have censored biological arguments from the page. They need to be put in. It is your regulars that are violating NPOV. And you're blocking me because of what, a mean tone? The first stage is establishing the mainstream view in the relevant field, I was doing that before you blocked me. Von Clown (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Von Clown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocking editor is biased towards an anti-white POV, i.e. thinks the fact of white replacement is a "conspiracy theory" and blocks people who disagree. Von Clown (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request; I am declining this request and removing talk page access as it seems clear that further requests will not be productive. Should you choose to have a change of attitude, you may use WP:UTRS to request unblock; you will likely need to agree to a topic ban from race related issues in order to be unblocked, in addition to demonstrating that you will have a collaborative attitude and can work with others without making statements like this. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2019 (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.