User talk:Scbritton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #20616 was submitted on Feb 14, 2018 05:14:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Kinda

Ridiculou, newb gets fucked over is what is being said here, calm and let's talk to the man and help Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this up at ANI, we'll see how it goes Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw the ANI thread, and I've unblocked this account. I'll leave a longer message below, but I type slowly so please be patient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If I was touched by a feather at this point, it would knock me over. What’s ANI? Scbritton (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow

Well colour me surprised... Scbritton (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not disappoint me, please. Issue's post to me talk page, I'll help you out Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Note on unblock

I've undone the indef block, with the agreement of the blocking admin, to give you another chance. You last statement on this page before the block was made indefinite was interpreted as a parting diatribe, but I know sometimes people get angry when they're blocked. You also mentioned you were planning to retire, I'm not sure if that's still the case or not, but it's up to you.

If you're going to stick around, the important thing to take away from this is: if multiple people are disagreeing with something you've done, you shouldn't re-do it. See WP:Consensus. There is no reason to assume a cabal of some kind, it's likely just 4-5 people who care about the article, have it watchlisted, and all disagree with you that the tag was appropriate. Even if you think there was a cabal, the solution is to get outside eyes on the situation, following the steps at WP:DR, not repeatedly re-adding something that 4 people have removed. That is never, ever, going to work.

I'm concerned that you say you weren't edit warring, and the others were. That isn't how it works here, see WP:Edit warring. The 24 hours block was 100% within policy, and (IMHO) was 100% correct, you were definitely edit warring. If something like this happens again, then a much longer block is likely. But if you can accept that sometimes consensus is going to be against you, and work "within the system", then hopefully there won't be any further problems. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the thing: there is a difference between making a change to the actual text content of an article and putting a neutral POV disputed tag at the top of a section that I, as a reasonable person (I’m assuming that reasonable people were disagreeing with me - and that is fine), believed in good faith to not be neutral. In the past, I had edited the article directly to change a term from “far right” to, if I remember correctly, “conservative,” and it was reverted within minutes, with little or no constructive explanation. To -avoid- edit warring, I opened a discussion at the time, and got shut down. So, I decided to walk away, let things settle, and brainstorm ideas. Remembering that I’ve seen the disputed POV tag on other articles, I looked it up, read up on when, and how, to use it, and, still believing characterizing a group as “far right” (and just because a newspaper is a “secondary source” doesn’t remove any bias) is not neutral, I firmly believed - and still believe - that it was perfectly reasonable to put an NPOV (or whatever the acronym is - I’m typing this on my phone right now) and open up a discussion on the talk page, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKIPEDIA’S INSTRUCTIONS.

It was reverted before my talk page update was even finished, with the comment “WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn’t sufficient grounds for a npov tag.”

THAT is what pissed me off, to use the terms used by Darkness Shines above, as it seemed to confirm to me what my “diatribe” (your words, not mine) ended up saying which led to the indefinite block - because it looked like if someone is interested in pushing an agenda or a certain point of view, they simply can work with others of similar mind to gang up and circumvent the 3RR rule.

At this stage, whether it’s right or not is largely irrelevant. It has definitely left a very bad taste in my mouth, for precisely the reasons that Darkness Shines laid out above. That, and the person who declined my indefinite block appeal made it seem to me as if the expectation was for me to come back begging and grovelling to be allowed back into “the club” - something that I will never do, whether it’s for Wikipedia or anyone else.

So, no, I don’t plan on editing any other articles at this point - first, because I make edits when I see a perceived need, and second because I see no point in wasting time making edits only to have them unceremoniously reverted with terse, impersonal and, frankly, insulting comments as to the reason.

If this is perceived as another “diatribe” then so be it - though that is not the intent of this. I’m simply trying to lay out my side of the issue as to what happened and why. Thank you to Darkness Shines for standing up for me.

To summarize here -

1: yes, I violated the 3RR rule; I’m not proud of that fact, but it happened. My aim is not to vandalize, disrupt, or mess up Wikipedia, but to improve it. The 70-odd edits I’ve made over 7 years should prove that point.

2: If putting a POV tag on a page can cause such massive consternation and spawn an edit war (regardless of who is the warring party) then there is an underlying problem and someone should look into that.

3. I still do not understand how the “diatribe” (not my words) translates to, as JzG put it in the block notification “personal attacks and inappropriate use of TP”,

4. I fully agree with Darkness Shines that the indefinite block was overly harsh.

5. I also think NeilN’s comment when the 24 hour block was imposed contravened the civility policy, because (a) I wasn’t trying to “pull a stunt” and (b) had no idea what he was talking about to begin with anyway; and it seemed like I was being berated when the block was imposed to stop me - apparently - from edit warning, but the link went to the error I made on the edit warring notification page, which made it seem like the “stunt” was something to do with that error, and thus, it was punishment rather than a protective action.

AnywY, this is far longer than I intended, but I wanted to get everything down so it’s on record.

Tolongdid't read, just calm and it'll be grand. Seriously if you want I'll try to help Ya, what you got to lose? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's tl'dr, then at least skim over the summary (5 points at the end) and I've highlighted what I think are the salient points within. Scbritton (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you will open a new section on the article talk page, and there you will explain, with sources your position. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD appears to contradict what you are saying here Scbritton (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Grand, so you keep going to be bitter or do you actually want to edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I’m not bitter. I’m actually very grateful to you for intervening on my behalf regarding the indefinite block. I am annoyed that the situation escalated the way it did, but that is a separate issue and I’m going to let that go as the edit warring was clearly, now that I’ve had more time to reflect on it, on my end. The point of me including the link to WP:NPOV above was to address your comment about procedure, because your explanation of the procedure and my understanding of the linked instructions appear to conflict. As for wanting to edit, the jury is still out on that one. This experience was not one I want to repeat, and it seems to me as if any good faith attempt I make gets reverted anyway, so I’m asking myself if I really want to expend the energy, or focus on other stuff I need to do. That’s not bitterness, it’s simply an evaluation of what matters most to me. Scbritton (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• If putting a POV tag on a page can cause such massive consternation and spawn an edit war (regardless of who is the warring party) then there is an underlying problem and someone should look into that. Not to get into all of this comment, but this part is correct. Just not in the way you probably meant. The thing you seem to be missing out is that it takes two sides to edit war. There were a number of editors reverting you, and only you reverting back. Hence the problem is easily identifiable. It was your behavior in that instance. Too many editors seem to think that WP:NPOV trumps WP:V, but it doesn't. If you check out the Five pillars of Wikipedia, you will see that WP:V is a part of the first pillar. First and foremost, we are an encyclopedia. Everything is based on reliable sources, and nothing can be based on an editor's own knowledge or beliefs.

There's also the issue of WP:GEVAL, which is a part of our NPOV policy, which itself is very different from the way journalists treat neutrality. It's often stated in journalism that a neutral story is one in which you can't tell which side the writer is on. But that's not the standard, we use here. Our standard of neutrality is that we always take the side with better sourcing. So WP believes in climate change and evolution and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, alternative medicine or creationism. If you check those articles, you will see what I mean. When one side is almost certainly right, then WP will, without further ado, take that side and write from that POV. That's how we treat neutrality. So sure, it may not have been neutral in a politically-correct sense to call the Proud Boys "far-right", because there's some dispute. But the preponderance of reliable sources called them "far-right", meaning that WP takes the side that the Proud boys are a far-right group. That can change, but only with the use of reliable sources, and only by showing that there is either a significant controversy, or that the position taken by WP is a minority one.

Responding to your comments at ANI in response to my own note:

that was 6 months ago Yes, it was. I never said nor implied that it was all that recent.

and the comments were on the talk page because I was attempting to reach WP:CONSENSUS after my edit was reverted with a one word descriptor which stated, "No." You responded to the first person to engage you by accusing them of cherry-pick[ing] their "reliable sources" to serve their own personal ideologies and political agendas., and proceeded to engage in the discussion as if the three of us disagreeing with you was some sort of personal affront. You started, continued and ended that discussion with the exact attitude editors are expected to go out of their way to avoid having. Even my attempts at levity (which predate your participation in that thread) were met with what appeared to all involved to be anger and resentment. Hence, it was disruptive, because no-one was going to be able to get through to you to make you understand what we were saying, (which was, not incidentally, that your suggestion violated WP policy). It was not a productive discussion.

Now, you have asked for and been given a chance to ensure that your future engagements with other editors will be productive, and that's a good thing. Had the thread at ANI not been closed, I'd have gone on to offer you the following advice: for the next few months, I strongly suggest you adopt a very non-confrontational approach to editing. Having presented a number of editors with a bad impression, you will have a bit of work to do to undo that. But I believe that you can, if you decide to do so. I for one, will not hold our past interactions against you, so long as they're not repeated. I can't, however and unfortunately, speak for others here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First, if an edit is reverted, it should be done so with a constructive and detailed reason as to why. Simply saying “no” tells the editor who’s work was rejected noting at all; and can be interpreted very easily by that editor as arrogance. Whether it actually ‘’was’’ arrogance or not is immaterial, but to many people - myself included - with little or no experience as to what Wikipedia is like (look at the number of edits I’ve made over 7 years), nor have the time to really delve into the intricacies and complexities of a tightly-knit community such as this one, writing is a very personal thing, and to have it unceremoniously thrown into the trash like that is - whether it was intended to be or not - insulting. So when a response like mine gets posted, perhaps the editor(s) who reverted might want to take a step back and ask themselves what their part in the conflict was - was their reversion with an appropriate explanation, or did it just trash the person’s material with a one word, “no.”

I have, more recently, looked at the Milo entry, and it is far superior now than it was - and that is good; so I don’t have any need to go over there and attempt to improve it right now.

Lastly, I still don’t know why you felt it was necessary to come in on that discussion and add your 2 cents’ worth when it was clear that I was endeavouring to be constructive and discuss the situation with the aim of making my thoughts understood, while understanding the postitions of others.

In fact, it came across - at least to me - as if there was some other motivation on your part, and, while I really am trying to assume good faith, I cannot see how it was helpful, and I thought that, by raising ancient history as you did, it was very uncool.Scbritton (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply saying “no” tells the editor who’s work was rejected noting at all That's what talk pages are for. At that point, if you felt the revert was wrong, you should have gone to talk instead of reverting right back. And no reverts should have been made while the issue was being discussed. Bad behavior on another's part doesn't excuse bad behavior on yours.

...to have it unceremoniously thrown into the trash like that is - whether it was intended to be or not - insulting. A lot of things can be insulting. One of the requirements of editing WP is that you be able to get over it. It's quite well understood that being reverted can feel insulting, but ultimately, that feeling is not respected here. I've been reverted more times than I can count, and the only times I revert right back is when it's a blatantly obvious policy violation.

WP's focus is entirely on the content it presents, not the editors who produce it. As a result of that, this project is under no obligation to allow any individual editor to continue editing, and our policies do not say anything about the rights of editors not to be sanctioned. Indeed, many editors have been blocked or topic banned for actions they took entirely in good faith, or for events which were beyond their control, because sanctioning them in that way solved the problem. In other words, we are here because we want to be, and the privilege of editing remains ours only so long as we don't disrupt the project. It is an entirely one-sided relationship. All of us are skating on thin ice with respect to our participation here, it's just that those of us with experience have gotten rather good at skating.

Lastly, I still don’t know why you felt it was necessary to come in on that discussion and add your 2 cents’ worth when it was clear that I was endeavouring to be constructive and discuss the situation with the aim of making my thoughts understood, while understanding the postitions of others. You say that it was clear you were trying to be constructive, but you would be the only person to whom that was apparently clear, judging by the comments in that thread, including by Darkness Shines, who was the first to stand up for you. To be clear, you were unblocked because you were given the benefit of the doubt, not because you have already proven anything.

In fact, it came across - at least to me - as if there was some other motivation on your part, and, while I really am trying to assume good faith, I cannot see how it was helpful, and I thought that, by raising ancient history as you did, it was very uncool. Allow me to offer you some words of advice, passed down to me by my father and his brothers, who in turn, learned it from their father and uncles. "Get over it, cupcake." The assumption that I'm here in bad faith (note that I did not actually object to you being unblocked, and in fact, stated quite clearly that you are "welcome to try again") doesn't jive with my followup here. And even if it were true; it doesn't matter. If someone with bad intentions gives you bad advice here, rest assured that someone with better intentions will come along to correct them. And if someone with bad intentions gives you good advice, well, it doesn't really matter what their intentions are, does it?

One final note. On talk pages (including user talk and Wikipedia-space pages like ANI), it's accepted practice to indent replies one level in from the comment you're replying to. The way you do this is by putting colons (:) in front of each line. (This also prevents you from having to insert blank lines between paragraphs.) The number of colons is proportional to the number of levels of indentation. You can see how I've indented your response above while editing this section, or you can check out User:MjolnirPants/Indenting, which demonstrates both the technical steps and best-practices of talk page indentation. Additionally, you can use an asterisk (*) at the beginning of a line to indent it one additional level and prepend a a bullet, and you can use a hashtag or pound sign (#) to indent one additional level while prepended a number which will increment by 1 with each subsequent line prepended by a hashtag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the colon thing. Previous edits/replies were entered on my tablet or phone, and the indentation wasn't taking properly.

In reference to the rest of your reply, I have one word:

Groupthink.

Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a number of takpage edits from my phone, and I also work in software development, and I can assure you with complete confidence that prepending the correct number of colons will always produce the proper result, regardless of what device you use.

In reference to your own response, I have one abbreviation: WP:CIR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BITE Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't your first account, you're not exactly a newcomer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, except this IS my first (and only) account.

Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)