User talk:BeauPhenomene
Welcome!
|
May 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Race and intelligence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
R&I notice
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --John (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
BeauPhenomene (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not being disruptive. The editors on that page are POV pushers and are stonewalling. Further a disruptive IP at the ANI was adding comments attributed to me which were not added by me.[1] BeauPhenomene (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blatantly edit warring even without considering the tag team edit warring. Please review the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions there before requesting unblock. You need to show us that the block is no longer necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 19 May 2014 (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.
- Yeah, no. Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because right now you are serving no non-disruptive presence here. And that doesn't look likely to change. NW (Talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)