User talk:Scbritton/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Scbritton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
February 2018
Your recent editing history at Proud Boys 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 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. 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scbritton reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
February 2018
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Pull a stunt like this again and you can expect a much longer block. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I submitted a new edit warring report against Darkness Shines; and, if that wasn't what happened, then something went wrong. Accusing me of pulling some kind of "stunt" when the entire process is difficult and nonintuitive, along with throwing me off the site for 24 hours is ludicrous.Scbritton (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- You reverted 3 different editors a total of 5 times. "ludicrous" is not the word that first comes to mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- You've missed the point I was making; I'm not disputing the number of times I reverted the entry - I'm saying there was a rotation of others continually reverting the change I made so they could avoid violating the 3RR rule. It would appear that the "pull a stunt like this" warning was about the error made in submitting the report against Darkness Shines, which, whether the mistake was mine or not, was not my intent. I am having a very difficult time assuming good faith here.Scbritton (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I submitted a new edit warring report against Darkness Shines; and, if that wasn't what happened, then something went wrong. Accusing me of pulling some kind of "stunt" when the entire process is difficult and nonintuitive, along with throwing me off the site for 24 hours is ludicrous.Scbritton (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Scbritton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Other users gaming the system by reverting a POV tag added in good faith. The point of a POV tag is to open a discussion without making changes to a page. Other users didn't want the tag there; so instead of discussing it, they removed it. This is over-the-top and arbitrary. Switching the names around was not my intent - I was attempting to file a new report against Darkness Shines. The reporting process is difficult and nonintuitive. Scbritton (talk) 4:27 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
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.
Scbritton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Requesting someone other than NeilN review this request, as NeilN's comment above, "Pull a stunt like this" in response to an honest mistake makes them appear partial in this case. Error was made in reporting another user for edit warring resulting in a block being applied to as some form of punishment, or "time out" or "cooling down period." In any event, I was attempting to file a NEW report against another user for edit warring, as multiple accounts were repeatedly reverting a small edit I made. Yes, I reverted more than 3 times which, when one uses the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, it is a violation of the rule; but when multiple accounts are reverting as a way around the 3RR rule, they are gaming the system and my good-faith actions result in the disciplinary action against me.
To summarize: 1) This appeal is based on apparent non-impartiality of prior review and thus I am asking for an independent review; 2) Honest mistake/error in submission of a new report resulted in block; 3) Edit war involved others gaming the system. Scbritton (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The spirit of the law is: "Don't edit war; it's disruptive even if you're right." There are a few exceptions to WP:3RR. "They made me do it" and "I had to revert so often because so many different people disagreed with me" are not among them. This block thus doesn't serve as a punishment but to stop you from continuing to edit war - and I don't see in the above that you believe your conduct was wrong, or that you'd change your approach if unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2018 (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.
Fair enough. Review has been made by an independent admin as I requested. And you’re right - I do not believe my conduct was wrong; as the initial change made did not make any edits to the actual content of a page to begin with. When others gang up on an editor to force/impose their will on a user, it completely destroys the “free and open” atmosphere that Wikipedia purports to be.
Thus, once the blocks are removed, I will be taking steps to leave and not return, using whatever appropriate means are available to me. Scbritton (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't that free and open. It's not for people who can't or won't adhere to community standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- How convenient that three or four people can use a rotation system to continually revert a neutrality disputed POV tag - which Wikipedia policy is clear about what to do when one is placed on an entry - to get around the edit warring rules; yet when the person who was following the policy regarding when, why, and how to place the POV tag on a page, in good faith, puts it up, gets the punishment. No; Wikipedia's policy is written to enable those who are established, administrators, and otherwise in the clique the ability to game the system regarding edit warring, and then have a convoluted, difficult notification process which ensures that only those who are "in the club" are able to enforce it to the letter, squeezing out the casual, novice editors who have made only a few small edits from time to time. The "community standards" aren't "standard", or "communal" at all. They're designed to keep the in-crowd in, and the out-crowd out.Scbritton (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
