User talk:Smalltime0

Note
--Neil N  talk to me 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Wikipedia articles are edited based upon consensus. Edit-warring against this consensus w/r/t the well-sourced description of Richard B. Spencer as a white supremacist is disruptive, and if you continue, you will most likely end up blocked for escalating periods or indefinitely, if you demonstrate by your editing behavior that you're not interested in abiding by our policies and norms. You have two options here: accept the consensus, or work to change the consensus. You may not simply ignore the consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Last warning
When you (and everybody else) were warned against changing the description of the subject from "white supremacist" to "white nationalist" at Richard B. Spencer, I see you moved over to edit warring the same change about the same person into Alt-right. Looking at the timestamps, I don't see how you can possibly have thought that was acceptable, even apart from the fact that edit warring is never acceptable on Wikipedia. You're a hair's-breadth from a block for disruptive editing right now. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

The current sources don't support the descriptor. At best the wiki description is incorrect, at worst it is libel. Spencer believes the Chinese and Jews to be intellectually superior to whites. He has said so many times. He thinks that Africans are physically superior. He thinks Europeans have a geographical advantage with some sort of happy medium of racial traits. He is, I think, an idiot. But he doesn't believe whites to be superior to other races.
 * Please read NorthBySouthBaranof's note to you above carefully. He gives you good advice for how to stay within Wikipedia policy, and hence how to stay unblocked: "You have two options here: accept the consensus, or work to change the consensus. You may not simply ignore the consensus". Bishonen &#124; talk 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

April 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Neil N  talk to me 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * "Just because there is a consensus on the talk page". Maybe stop digging? --Neil N  talk to me 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Very experienced editors participated in the RFC, including two admins. An arbcom member commented after the RFC. And now you have Bish and me looking at the page. I'd strongly suggest dropping the libel angle as you are obviously unfamiliar with what the term actually means, legally. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because of WP:IDHT, I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this block. The user remains free to use WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)