User talk: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 Requests for arbitration/Race and intelligence.

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)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Race (classification of humans). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text 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.  K rakatoa    K atie   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)


 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

left|400px

I'm so sorry

 * 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. TN X Man  15:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
By vote at 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)
 * '''Discuss this