User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10: Difference between revisions

User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10 (view source)

Revision as of 09:27, 2 November 2019

2,224 bytes added , 2 November 2019

→‎Ash's Rowlet and Pumpkinking's block

Nescientist

Administrators

11,905

edits

@@ Line 1,683: / Line 1,683: @@
 :::6) And that makes me confused as why you are speaking on behalf of Pumpkinking. I get being concerned about how a staff member handles a conflict, but thinking someone's block was too harsh when you don't know that user's history is baffling, almost as if you're putting your nose in where it does belong. And I did say it was resolved "for now", as in until Pumpkin's block expires and he makes whatever action he wants to make.
 :::A side note, as I stated above, I get being concerned over how a staff member handles a conflict, but I'm pretty sure you can't appeal for someone else to be unblocked or get a shorter block. Pretty sure only the person that is blocked can do that.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 05:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
+::::1) And I tend to agree with Pumpkinking, not with you: Claim 1 doesn't imply Claim 2, per basic logic (Pumpkinking already laid out). What's the problem with Pumpkinking's rewording? I don't get it. Let's just have someone mediate. All I can say is that I'm not comfortable with the current state of the page (with that weird hidden text reasoning).
+::::3) and 5) and 6) [[Special:Diff/3045654|This edit]] is not kosher - ignoring the circumstances, it's very likely a blockable offense that I'd happily watch staff issue a block for (and if it's someone with history, even for a month or longer). But my point is you ''need'' to consider the specific case: I believe Pumpkinking is "right" here (and you're "wrong"), they were trying to discuss but you just discussed different things and had it your way anyway. (I.e., assuming staff didn't try to resolve this at all, or assuming you weren't a staff member, I would do that edit myself.)
+::::Let me try to illustrate: the following is drastically simplified, but just imagine it was about some audio where someone says "Pikachu" but you falsely understand "Pichu", then someone (Pumpkinking or whoever) changes your "Pichu" to "Pikachu", then you argue or undo each other for a bit ("He clearly says Pikachu"/"Pikachu doesn't make sense here, he says Pichu"/...). At some point later, it's arguably edit warring to just undo your Pichu (once again, without an edit summary), but hadn't you been wrong ("stubborn"?) all the time, it wouldn't have happened. (It's more complex than that here, but the circumstances matter very much, that's what I'm saying. Plus, there's two parties here that could've done better imo. Yet what I'm understanding is you unilaterally issued a block that considered neither.)
+::::As for being able to appeal on someone else's behalf, I'm under the impression I might be able to do that (and if I wasn't the Editorial Board hopefully would have notified me by now). Anyway, it ultimately doesn't really matter, because even if there was no such "legal basis", my issues remain very much the same, and I'd request staff address them regardless. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 == Inconsistency ==