User talk:Scbritton/Archive 1

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&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. 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pull a stunt like this again and you can expect a much longer block. --Neil N  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)

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)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)