You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White Fragility. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NightHeron (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made valid contributions, you have engaged me. Unwokengarvey (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anti-racism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You engaged me. Unwokengarvey (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't matter who "engaged" who; constantly re-adding the same material after others have reverted you is disruptive. Keep it up and you will be blocked. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your revision history on these topics with the assertion that any opposition to them is disruptive is disingenuous.

Two of you engaging me isn't my edit war, it's yours, and consistent with your previous revisions and statements. Unwokengarvey (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 07:07, 27 July 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was defending, cited contributions were removed to maintain a bias POV

Decline reason:

Being correct with your edits, if true, is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. You will need to describe how to resolve content disputes without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2023 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was aggressed, but have moved the discussion to aggressor Talk section to discuss resolution

Decline reason:

I'm seriously tempted to substantially increase the block, given this inappropriate unblock request. If you continue like this, expect your next block to be indefinite. Yamla (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2023 (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.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite block for linking two identical topics, explain yourself. Unwokengarvey (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just added a link between two things that are exactly the same.

Decline reason:

The two topics you linked were Gender-affirming surgery and conversion therapy, which are not the same and inappropriate to link in this way. Furthermore, you have previously been blocked for edit warring, which makes me believe you do not understand how to follow Wikipedia policies yet. Future unblock requests should address why linking these two topics was wrong and what you will do to avoid this mistake again. If the next unblock request tries to defend linking these two topics, I will suggest that your talk page access is revoked for wasting admin time. An extended discussion on if these topics should be linked should not happen on this page. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2023 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Conversion therapy ... practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression ... Methods that have been used to this end include forms of brain surgery, surgical or hormonal castration, aversive treatments such as electric shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, hypnosis, counseling, spiritual interventions, visualization, psychoanalysis, and arousal reconditioning Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is a surgical procedure, or series of procedures, that alters a transgender or transsexual person's physical appearance and sexual characteristics these are literally the same thing, no wonder nobody takes this site seriously

Decline reason:

Per Z1720's suggestion I am not only declining this request since it's clear you aren't serious about getting unblocked but revoking your talk page access. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2023 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]