You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I see that you've already been warned for edit warring at Sex differences in intelligence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you leaving comments on my talk page? Please comment on the talk tab of the article in question and we can collaborate! BoneCrushingDog (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sex differences in intelligence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2025 (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).

BoneCrushingDog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Bbb23:I was not familiar with the 3 reverts rule before I made the edits, every edit I have made has been in good faith and justifications for the edits have been given in the edit summary and the talk page. Before I made the first edit I opened a new topic on the talk page and asked for information, that talk page remains open and I would like to continue collaborating, I do not intend to make any revisions today or before some amount of collaborating can occur but serious issues remain on that page and after this ban I intend to continue to make good faith edits to correct themBoneCrushingDog (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted below, you were edit warring, so the block is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2025 (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.

That's not true. On January 19 at 20:55 you were warned about the rule. You removed that post from this page. You made three more reverts after the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The warning does not mention the 3 reverts rule, the warning says to try to collaborate and the use the talk page, I did both of those things. Unless I'm going blind, the warning does not mention the 3 reverts rule. (BoneCrushingDog (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC))BoneCrushingDog (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take your comment seriously. The notice links to Wikipedia:Edit warring, which explains what edit-warring is and what WP:3RR is. The warning clearly says "If you engage in an edit war, "you may be blocked from editing." Yet, you continued to edit-war with your additional reverts. Removing the warning, although permitted, in my view further confirms that you were not going to heed the warning. You did not "collaborate" after the warning, and discussion on the Talk page does not permit you to continue to edit war. I strongly urge you to reflect on your approach to editing during this block because your approach is unacceptable, and if you continue it after expiration of the block, you may find yourself blocked indefinitely. BTW, I removed your second unblock request. You are permitted only one unblock request at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:Let the ban stand if you like, I did make more than 3 edits within 24 hours. But you are wrong to insist without any evidence that I was aware of the rule and then lied about it. You first claimed that a warning about the 3 reverts rule was posted on my page, you were wrong, if the warning was about the 3 revert rule then it should have been in the message, not in one of several full pages linked. You claim I did not collaborate, I have been actively encouraging discussion on this article and have responded to every argument, all of my posts share a willingness to collaborate and compromise, why would you say I did not collaborate? As for my approach to editing, I have sought out collaboration and discussion since before I made my first edit, every edit I have made has been a good faith attempt to move the article closer to the source information.

If this is how you respond to having your claim disproven, then I strongly urge you to reflect on your approach to moderating. (BoneCrushingDog (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)) BoneCrushingDog (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed your request to Bbb23, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review. Do you want a third party review? 331dot (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Are you a different person from Bbb23? I'm sorry I do not know how this process works, I pinged Bbb23 because it is what I believed the requesting an unban page directed.

I don't know if a third party review would do any good, I'm not claiming to have not made 3 reverts. A 1 week edit ban seems severe to me but if that's the punishment so be it.

I would be happy if someone more familiar with the rules of editing would tell me what I should have done instead, is it really the case that a handful of editors can indefinitely block any changes to a page by tag-teaming reverts and refusing to give explanations until the 3 revert limit is reached? The last time a user proposed the changes I am proposing was in February last year and that person was met with the same unreasonable refusal to cooperate.

GeneralRelative has left several comments on my profile, has reverted my edits without providing reason, and has reported me to edit warring board, but has not made even a single attempt to collaborate on the open talk page.

Let's say in a week I learn from this ban and stop edit warring, what should I do instead?(BoneCrushingDog (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC))BoneCrushingDog (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I didn't participate in the talk page discussion this time because I saw that others had already addressed your arguments and the conversation appeared to be going in circles. If you scroll up on that talk page you'll see that I've engaged substantively with other accounts who made almost verbatim the same arguments as you did, and indeed in my last edit summary linked to a discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard where a consensus was reached against these changes. If you want to know how to conduct yourself in situations like this once your block expires, I suggest reading the essay WP:1AM. Generalrelative (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rather suspicious that these past accounts use remarkably similar language to you, in addition to arguing the same points in roughly the same way. Compare, for instance, your statement If this is how you respond to having your claim disproven... above with this from block-evading sockpuppet GBFEE: That's your response to resources showing your assertions to be incorrect? [1] I would suggest that a CU check might be appropriate here. Generalrelative (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: If you believe that the user is a sock, please file a report at WP:SPI. Making those allegations here is not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: I have read that post, where is a consensus reached? If there is one reached I cannot see it. Anyway my changes don't directly relate to Lynn or any "fringe theory", what is your objection to correcting the Hunt citation with the correct page number?

As for the talk discussion, it is not going in circles, two points have been made against my arguments, both have been refuted.

Two users have claimed that child scores justify the claim about adult intelligence, even if you don't consider Lynn's research, Hunt finds support for an IQ gap emerging or widening from childhood to adulthood, why can that not be discussed in this Wikipedia article? Whether the compromise is to have separate sections for adult and child IQ or to simply mention the developmental theory, as the secondary sources cited her do, either is fine by me.

One user seems to have been confused by the nonsensical page number given in the Hunt citation, and when informed of the correct content of that source abandoned their argument and claimed that the discussion was over and that a consensus would not be reached.

No one has even attempted to defend keeping the redundant paragraph citing only a single primary source which doesn't even have a page number. No one has addressed why the Hunt citation still cites the wrong page number. If you can address these, please do.

Your report to the edit warring board also says that I am "insisting on retaining my preferred language". Where on Earth does that claim come from? All of my talk post show an eagerness to collaborate and a willingness to compromise. I am still willing to compromise.

As for you baselessly claiming that I am actually someone else, I am not. Why does it appear that you are willing to take every step here except actually discussing the changes in the talk section? (BoneCrushingDog (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC))BoneCrushingDog (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can ask the blocking admin to reconsider, but then you should just ping them and not make a formal unblock request, which attracts the attention of other administrators. I am not Bbb23. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]