User talk:Arthur Schaper

August 2019
Your recent editing history at MassResistance 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

April 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Your entire editing history consists of tendentious editing at MassResistance and its talkpage, in defiance of both sources and consensus. Oh, and a single user talkpage post on the page of a user who last edited 7 months ago. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

I have been getting the hang of posting and writing things for tech sites. Blocking someone for a few edits is just ridiculous. This goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia platform and goals. What's going on here?
 * This is clearly explained above. --Yamla (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note specifically, Wikipedia works differently than other sites and venues you may be familiar with. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:EW. If you are willing to abide by these and our other policies and guidelines, and will disavow your disruptive editing, you may be unblocked. If not, that's fine. Many other venues will be happy to have you, but Wikipedia may not be the place for you. --Yamla (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I understand what is going on. I have read over the rules, and I promise to abide by them. 2. I have no interest in further editing without going to the discussion board first. 3. My key interest is useful contributions and clarification for information that is added to posts.Arthur Schaper (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To affirm, I had no interest in engaging in "disruptive editing" to begin with. I have made myself more familiar with the different processes for edits and clarification of information i.e.WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:EW Arthur Schaper (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. Could you please also clarify what relationship, if any, you have with User:AncillaD, who as their only contribution to Wikipedia added your belligerent twice repeated edit summary to the actual article text here? Note, the article is not about the SPLC, but a movement called MassResistance, so the addition comes rather oddly. But you apparently liked the addition of your own words so much you were prepared to edit war to keep them in the article. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC).

I affirmed the comments made by User:AncillaD because this user was providing information to indicate that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a trustworthy source. There needs to be a large discussion within the Wikipedia community about regarding the SPLC as a legitimate. The comment added by User:AncillaD is meaningful in that it shows that there is another side to the SPLC. As far as any "relationship" with User:AncillaD, there is none.

Here's another source regarding the SPLC and its lack of credibility: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility."

If that does not suffice, there is the article written by Bob Moser, a former employee of the SPLC: The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

These comments matter because calling a group or an institution a "hate group" and listing that as valid simply because of another organization has little merit in and of itself. Objective information is essential, and there should be no reason to stifle that discussion.

As I wrote before, I am getting the hang of the proper editing and discussion process for Wikipedia. A larger "resolution" process is in order, cerrtainly.Arthur Schaper (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)