Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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. danielkueh (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Do not remove comments from other editors on talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing your POV agenda that is not based in science and has nothing but a fringe basis. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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. danielkueh (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Captain JT. It looks to me that you have reverted at Race (human classification) five times in 24 hours starting at 00:54 on 25 June. You are constantly changing the lead of the article to reflect your view that race is a biological concept. This breaks the WP:3RR rule, so any administrator could choose to block your account. You may avoid a block by agreeing to make no further edits to the article until they are supported by consensus on the talk page. If you can't edit neutrally on this topic you may be banned from the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I thought it was around 3. Not all are reverts, eg. this[1] is collaborative. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want race to be biologically real, so your word 'subclassification' is a way to squeeze that idea in one more time. You are also tweaking the *lead* of a very controversial article, where all your changes ought to be clearly based on consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I want to report the fact that a significant number of scholars think race is biologically real. The article as it stands is extremely biased towards a US sociology POV, on a biological question. 'Subclassification' is simply the correct word to use in that context, race is a classification system, biological or not, not a population, the text I changed was simply incorrect and the change lent nothing to a biological POV. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 16 June your account has been used only for edit warring. You've acted as a WP:Single purpose account on the topic of race. You appear to get support from nobody else on talk pages, yet you charge ahead with your editing of article leads, to make them conform to your personal point of view about race. You don't seem to be here for any good-faith purpose. And, you already know how to find ANI as well as Jimbo Wales' talk page, which suggests you could be a returning editor, possibly one who is already banned from this topic. Rather than go through the machinery of WP:ARBR&I a simple block of our account per WP:NOTHERE would be more logical. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of attempting to discuss but encountering the usual stonewalling and flippancy. Please feel free to read the talk page and ask yourself which editors are incivil and uncooperative. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to help the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Single-purpose accounts on the topic of race get a very short leash. I think you are already beyond the tolerance we usually extend. See my comments in the section above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Captain JT Verity MBA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. Clearly what we have is a clique of editors opposed to race as a biologically valid concept. Just look at the talk page to see all of the quote mining, and assertions that their POV is only one, with no demonstration. I have provided numerous top biology sources which support race as a biologically valid concept, in some cases by extending the context of quote mines to reach the full conclusion. I absolutely am here to improve the encyclopedia, to claim otherwise is simply a slander against my person. Would my points be more valid if I edited My Little Pony and Fanta? Terrible decision not based on looking at talk page discussion. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is justifiable as you're a single purpose account editing disruptively. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Ha ha ha you idiot. Did you have seriously think you were going to accomplish something? Here's a hint: we do not have to respond to any of your points, because there are four or five of us and only one of you. Now go join the other blocked or banned "race is biological" editors. No matter how many unblock requests you make, no one is going to unblock you. --64.134.96.10 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind that your words do not come back to haunt you, 64. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Captain JT Verity MBA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hope my block is going to be reviewed. Clearly I have been dogpiled by a PC clique who refuse to address anything outside their fallacious echo chamber. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To date you show no sign of understanding Wikipedia community standards, our rules regarding neutral point of view and source quality, or working with other editors in a collaborative fashion. Until you can do those things no unblock is going to happen. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

I will not comment on your unblock, because I hold strong views on this issue and could not be impartial. But the IP editor who posted on June 26 at 19:48 has no authority here, and clearly is simply intending to create further conflict.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Captain JT Verity MBA, it is inappropriate to have more than one unblock requests, it annoys admins who review these cases so I advise you to remove one (probably the second one). I recommend you take the suggestion to read a guide to appealing blocks because it clearly states what administrators are looking to see in an unblock request. At the minimum, you need to persuade an admin that you will not edit war or push your point of view in these contentious topic areas against the consensus of other editors working on these articles. If you won't change your behavior, you'd quickly be blocked again. You've been told to change your approach and if you don't, you can't expect to be unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I promise not to edit war. My "point of view" actually is to fairly represent all views of academics rather than just the politically correct and biologically ignorant American sociologist point of view, and this is only point of view I will be pushing. Happily this is in line with Wikipedia policy. The clique of editors controlling this article are not. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other views here "politically correct and biologically ignorant American sociologist point of view" is not helping your cause. You're pretty much quoting the fourth bullet point here. You don't seem to realize that the current text was put there by an actual human being not a strawman for you to beat up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested review of your unblock request at WP:ANI#User requesting unblock. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#User requesting unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]