2,357
edits
User talk:KnightGalarie: Difference between revisions
→Edit warring
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
{{indent}}You are reading into our rules what you think they should say when they do not. | {{indent}}You are reading into our rules what you think they should say when they do not. | ||
You say: <code>I used the other | 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 345: | Line 345: | ||
[[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 20:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | [[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?--[[User:KnightGalarie|KnightGalarie]] ([[User talk:KnightGalarie|talk]]) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) | |||