77,625
edits
User talk:KnightGalarie: Difference between revisions
m
Protected "User talk:KnightGalarie": Permanently banned user ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
m (Protected "User talk:KnightGalarie": Permanently banned user ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 315: | Line 315: | ||
::Let me highlight your error. | ::Let me highlight your error. | ||
::<code>If you have a disagreement with another user, you discuss it with them, you don't keep trying to make your edit.</code> [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | ::<code>If you have a disagreement with another user, you discuss it with them, you don't keep trying to make your edit.</code> [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::Then why do admins get to? The only person edit warring was Apikachu. The only error here is that I was blocked for removing unconstructive edits, and the unconstructive editor ignored their messages. The disagreement was Apikachu's, not mine. I was restoring the page to the status quo, as is procedure on Bulbapedia. You can’t keep blocking me for following the rules--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | :::Then why do admins get to? The only person edit warring was Apikachu. The only error here is that I was blocked for removing unconstructive edits, and the unconstructive editor ignored their messages. The disagreement was Apikachu's, not mine. I was restoring the page to the status quo, as is procedure on Bulbapedia. You can’t keep blocking me for following the rules. I tried discussing it with the user, the fact that you’re blatantly overlooking that to justify your block and your message when it doesn’t apply means my block should not exist--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
::::I don't know what you think "admins get to", but you're not an admin. Nowhere should a reasonable person expect that staff and users are bound by exactly the same rules. Staff fundamentally have certain responsibilities to enforce order. | |||
::::You were disagreeing with Apikachu. I'm not overlooking anything at all. I'm carrying out our rules. | |||
::::You do not decide if you are right; if we "allowed" that, everyone would be right because of course they are, who's going to think differently about what ''they'' want. You don't judge your rightness. You follow the site's rules. And that means no edit warring. If you have a problem, talk with the user. If that's not working, go to staff. But you don't get a free pass on breaking rules. The rules are clear enough. Just follow them. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::If admins are not held to the same standards as regular users then there shouldn’t be admins at all. ''You have not proven that I edit warred''. You don’t get to block people just because you didn’t like that I followed standards and procedures to a T. It wasn’t my edit that I was reverting to, it was the website’s. And unless you’re saying Bulbapedia is wrong, I should not be blocked. If my block is upheld, then you are conceding it is about rightness because you continue to feel right about blocking me when all the other evidence says otherwise--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::You do understand that Bulbapedia has rules, yes? And if you break those rules, there are consequences...yes? | |||
::::::Can you describe to me where in our rules your actions were permitted? [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::May’s Blaziken, Dawn’s Piplup, Serena’s Braixen. Force Fire reverts first without explanation or consensus. He then has me blocked for edit warring and “Intimidating behavior” with no evidence because they weren’t following the rules. They were never blocked for his part in the edit war. He also previously blocked me (but not themselves) for allegedly edit warring over the use of “western”, which I successfully appealed. Every time they blocked me, they restored it to ''their'' preferred version, just so they could win, like getting upset that the toys you’re not supposed to keep to yourself are being played with, so you incapacitate the person who dared to stand near it. And on my previous block, the blocking policy was crafted in such a way that admins can do whatever they want, get away with it, and win every disagreement they get involved in, using aspects directly inspired by what Force Fire did to get me blocked. That was a straight power grab and everyone can see it. You shouldn’t be changing the rules just because they’re used against you. You shouldn’t be blocking lower users who follow the rules exactly as you do as best they can. My block is invalid. End of story.--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 18:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I understand you disagree with something that happened a while ago. I'd be happy to discuss that, but at this point, that's only a distraction. If we can settle the current issue, I'll come back to that^. | |||
::::::::So, just to repeat: Can you describe to me where in our rules your actions were permitted? [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::It’s not a past issue. It’s the same issue: Punishing me for following the rules. I showed that there was precedent for my actions, actions which are not against the rules. It’s not a distraction either because it shows that policy is riddled with flaws that are designed to hurt instead of help. What you are pulling is selective enforcement. For someone who blocked me for allegedly breaking the rules, you still haven’t proven I’ve broken any, and the burden of proof is on you. Considering Force Fire was upset that I wasn’t following unwritten rules, I’m seeing a lot of hypocrisy, and again, selective enforcement. If you can’t prove your reasons for blocking me, I shouldn’t be blocked--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Burden of proof? Sure, I'll follow that for a step or two. | |||
:::::::::::[[Bulbapedia:Blocking policy]] outlines how we block users. This establishes what a block is, how we enact them, and what violations we carry them out for. | |||
:::::::::::Under Procedure, it says: ''If a user fails to follow the policies and guidelines of Bulbapedia, official warnings should be issued by a member of staff, guiding them away from inappropriate behavior. A user who does not adhere to warnings and persists in rule breaking behavior, or substantially violates Bulbapedia's rules, may be blocked.'' There are several reasons you should be aware of edit warring, the infraction at issue currently. One: it's in your welcome template: ''Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.'' I honestly don't expect everyone to read it, but it's there. Two: in your first {{DL||block}}, you were warned about edit warring. You were told it was a blockable offense. Three: in the topic about {{DL||GalarPony}}, ForceFire explained edit warring in detail again. Four: in the topic {{DL||PeakA and GrammarFreak}}, you were warned against edit warring yet again. Five: in your {{DL||second block}}, you were blocked for edit warring. Six: in the section {{DL||Minor Appearances}}, Pokemaster97 reminded you about edit warring. Seven: your {{DL||Third Block}} was in part for edit warring again. | |||
:::::::::::(The short version of all that is: you were warned, as our policy suggests...and amply. Honestly, I didn't realize it was explicitly so much. Consider yourself lucky this block is only 4 days. But anyway, back to your proof.) | |||
:::::::::::Under the section Blockable offenses of the {{bp|blocking policy}} is the section {{DL|Bulbapedia:Blocking policy|Edit/revert wars}}. It says: <code>An edit war occurs when users who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Bulbapedia generally treats three reverts/back-and-forth edits to determine if an edit war is taking place</code>. So, this is the crux of your block. This is the rule you broke. On [[EP001]], you reverted Apikachu a total of six times. And 6 >= 3. Even allowing for what happened in the past few hours, you reverted Apikachu four times. And 4 >= 3. Since you reverted another user at least three times, you were blocked for edit warring. | |||
:::::::::::That's my burden of proof. | |||
:::::::::::Now. If you'd like to read our policy/policies and try to explain, as I suggested, where your actions were allowed, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not speaking about unwritten rules or whatever you want to complain about. This site has written rules. You violated the written rules. You were punished according to the written rules. So if you want to complain, you can tell me where it was ''written'' that your actions were permitted. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: See, this is what I mean about you overlooking the rules and ignoring them to justify your blocks. I used the other person’s talk page ''twice'', and they made no such communications, using edit summaries ''only'', and the entire paragraph above what you quoted is about using talk pages to resolve disputes. They did not listen to either warning, and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for trying to avoid the very block you gave me. You did not warn me I was going to be blocked for this time. I was not told I was edit warring. Being told I was edit warring does not prove that I was edit warring. If Force Fire’s continual reversions of conteny he disagrees with is not an edit war, then the definition provided in the rules means nothing. If their excuses for edit warring are valid, then it applies to everyone. Precedent states that I was not edit warring. Unconstructive edits are allowed to be reverted. Therefore, the block is unwarranted and must be either lifted or reduced to a single day, because you did not follow procedure. Context matters, and you completely disregarded it in making your decision. It seems even when I follow staff directives, I get blocked for it--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
{{indent}}You are reading into our rules what you think they should say when they do not. | |||
You say: <code>I used the other personal l’s talk page ''twice'', and they made no such communications, using edit summaries ''only'', and the entire paragraph above what you quoted is about using talk pages to resolve disputes. They did not listen to either warning, and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for trying to avoid the very block you gave me.</code> The fact of the matter is, our rules do not make any allowance for a user to continue reverting another just because they're "trying" to communicate. Our rules are very clear. If you revert someone three times, that's an edit war and blockable. That's it. Simple. It tells you what you should do INSTEAD of edit warring. But "trying" to communicate does not mean that it's now impossible for your actions to constitute edit warring. You're supposed to discuss it...period. Not try to discuss it and keep reverting if they don't answer. If they don't answer, as I said: bring it to {{bp|staff}}. If you revert three times, you're edit warring. | |||
You say: <code>You did not warn me I was going to be blocked for this time. I was not told I was edit warring. Being told I was edit warring does not prove that I was edit warring.</code> The rules do not say that a user must be warned before they can be blocked in every instance. Warnings are meant to make users aware of inappropriate behavior. If they continue that behavior despite past warnings, they will be blocked. You have had many warnings. We are not required to warn someone who should already know they're misbehaving. If you don't understand it, especially after many warnings, that's your problem much more than ours. And you harp on about "proof"; what you're really saying is that no one should be able to enforce consequences on you unless you agree to them, and that's just not how it works. | |||
ForceFire is staff, staff enforce site policy. You are not staff. You do not get to act like staff just because you think you should be allowed to. Your comparison is invalid. | |||
You say: <code>Unconstructive edits are allowed to be reverted.</code> There is definitely no absolute permission for any user to revert "unconstructive" edits. That's a value judgement. No regular user gets to make those decisions all on their own; they can't, or the result would simply be anarchy, with everyone thinking they're right and not required to abide by anyone else. What's true is: any edit is allowed to be reverted. If you do it too much, it becomes edit warring. Pretty simple. | |||
[[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 20:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:If you weren’t supposed to give me a warning, why bring it up at all? In essence, regular users following standards and procedures, ie, site policy, is against site policy. YOU BLOCKED ME FOR FOLLOWING SITE POLICY AND PRECEDENT. That’s what you’re saying out loud. You can’t block me for interpreting what I’ve been told differently than you. You are selectively enforcing the rules in an effort to maintain powers you have accumulated too much of. If my edits can’t enforce site policy, then why have a site policy at all? Once again, I’m being picked on for edit warring I did not commit, and I have proven my innocence. You are so steadfast in your interpretations that anyone who happened to veer slightly from yours is a criminal. You are too prideful to admit you are wrong.--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::I brought it up because you wanted "proof". I was trying to be thorough and touch on our whole process. | |||
::Otherwise: I'm out of ideas. I'm impressed by your single-mindedness. | |||
::Just to give one last ditch effort to hammer the point home: if you make three reversions, you're edit warring and will be blocked. Take it to {{bp|staff}} before you reach that point in the future. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 22:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Proof that I was edit warring. Which you still haven’t provided. Proof that I was warned previously for a different incident does not prove that I have ever edit-warred. Calling me single-minded is a breach of the code of conduct and shows that the block is unfounded. Your only choice left is to unblock me, because you still have yet to prove my block is valid.--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||