Archives of this page (old edits):
Edwin Shade's Picture
Read my blog post of Edwin: https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_blog:Sean_Wesley/I_Found_Edwin!?venotify=created
User:2010leo has gotten three warnings. Please judge the validity of them. Thank you.
p-adic 23:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done C7X (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- In a general case, I agree that 3 months is too long (especially since if it's just a new user, it might be a kid who forgot to cite their edits). However, since it used to be 1 year, I didn't want to push for an even shorter block lest I be seen as "soft on vandalism". I suppose I can now, especially since this isn't an (at least American) election, where I'm drawing this restriction from. C7X (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to change the rule, could you suggest it at Googology Wiki talk:Policy#3-out rule in order to make the discussion more accessible? I note that most users are not blocked even once, and we usually use the warning template after asking to stop the violation and explaining the policy. Therefore the repeated violation is seriously irresponsible. Therefore I think three month is not long. (The blocked user might not notive a week-block if he or she is not so active.)
- p-adic 22:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Ytosk has gotten three warnings. Usually, we do not put multiple warning against multiple violation of a single rule before noticing the violation, because the user might not know the rule. On the other hand, this is harassment, which is oviously violating the rule. Therefore I put the warning for all the harassment.
- User talk:Ytosk#Warning on your harassment 1
- User talk:Ytosk#Warning on your harassment 2
- User talk:Ytosk#Warning on your harassment 3
Please deal with the harassment. Thank you. p-adic 00:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Patcail situation over again (extreme spam on the Googology Discord but no infractions here), at no point did any vandalism/harassment ever occur on the wiki, so the policy is ambiguous. C7X (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- > For example, vandalism, harassment, impersonation, racism, violation of rules or laws, and so on can be a reason of blocking
- is an ambiguous (and unique) mention of harassment in the policy, and at no point is the location specified. For example, could someone committing vandalism on another wiki be blocked here for it? It's a similar scenario since it's an online space being targeted by a specific action from the user without policy specification. C7X (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Edit: I have asked another administrator about this situation. (This isn't a community decision, in this case, so private contact appears to be fine.) C7X (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Right, we have blocked several users due to attitude outside wiki. I think that it is reasonable, because otherwise users can freely doxing, harassing, hate-criming, and so on at other places. Our policy is given for making this community better, and hence if someone intentionally tries to harass users anywhere, it is the case. Can we continue to discuss this at the talk page of the policy or your talk page? This is perhaps important, and I hope that the discussion will be more accessible for the future users. Also, it is good to add details on the harassment in the policy after the discussion.
- p-adic 01:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the place. My opinion is that the policy on harassment is obviously given in order to save users. Therefore it is irrelevant if a vandal harassed inside this wiki or outside this wiki. For example, all of the following should not be accepted:
- Harassment, death threatening, and doxing aimed at users in this wiki written somewhere. (Tetramur, Ytosk, and some GFE members did it.)
- Copyright violation and licensing violation to contents in this wiki occurred somewhere. (Patcail and some GFE members did it.)
At any rate, it is unreasonable to accept them only by the reasoning that they are given outside this wiki.
p-adic 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- > we have blocked several users due to attitude outside wiki.
- Giving an example from months ago, if I remember one example correctly, one user operated a website that contained conspiracy theories about the 2020 US election (for political reasons I won't get into whether these could be considered dangerous or not). Since I didn't want to get involved with off-wiki affairs, I did not block the user. However, this was months ago. It's possible that public opinion has shifted on whether behavior off the wiki should result in on-wiki consequences (i.e. towards a more on-wiki consequence opinion), in which case I will have the ability to warn a user for their inappropriate messages to me that were sent just today on Discord. (for context I note that this isn't a threat, but a consequence of both the actions and arguably the existence of evidence of them.)
- > Our policy is given for making this community better
I see. I would also like to ask, do you agree with my decision to warn the second user as well? Although the messages aren't as severe, they could still be up for interpretation (such as voiding). C7X (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Edit, made before posting: The user suggested drowning you in semen. I have evidence as well C7X (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Since your new edit was published before writing this, I do see what you mean. I'll review the images, since YtoSK's #2 seems to be based on a possibly incorrect statement that I told YtoSK (the reason you didn't have a Discord was because no professional mathematicians used one, can remember reading this but can't remember where). This still gives Y at least 2 warnings, depending on if that's false, causing defamation, counts under the harassment policy (likely). C7X (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- On Ytosk's 2:
- On what information a harassment is based is irrelevant, isn't it? Even if you informed Ytosk of a wrong statement, it does not matter the fact that Ytosk should not harass others.
- For example, in a standard interpretation of human rights, people are not allowed to offend others without legal justifications, even if the targets are criminals or very strong athletes. No additional situation justifies personal attacks. A personal attack based on a wrong belief, a personal attack toward criminals, a personal attack toward very strong athelete. and so on are not allowed, and treated as illegal personal attacks.
- p-adic 02:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- About to edit this, looking through the Discord this was from a thread started about the regiment project copyright thing, which is probably more important than the source of the misinfo from my last response. Although if anything I think that makes it look more like a harassment attempt. C7X (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Edit: What is the threshhold for harassment here? C7X (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
In natural language, there is no strict definition or threshold of the meaning of a word. We usually consider it by a case-by-case discussion. At least, I think that the four attitudes are harassments.
In a relatively closed community like discord, i.e. a community where people do not take their inappropriate attitude so seriously, people tend to "learn" that they are allowed to do whatever they like. This is also the case. Even if Ytosk is too young to judge what he or she should not do, he or she should be responsible for what he or she did. (I do not know how yound Ytosk is. This is just an assumption from the immatured attitude.) The true kindness is not allowing whatever children do, but is explaining what they should not do. At least, other users seem to do so.
p-adic 03:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- All I am able to say is discussion is ongoing on Discord. C7X (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- But the discussion does not give any decision of this wiki. At least, this incident gives a proof that discord is not an appropriate place for discussion on this community, as people do not immediately blame harassment. I am certain that the closed place where people are allowed to freely harass other is not better than this open place.
- By the way, it is better to have a clearer explanation at the policy on how to deal with harassment, right? (I thought that we do not need an additional explanation, because I believed that it was obvious that harassment, death threatening, and doxing aimed at users of this wiki are not allowed. But if you think that it is ambiguous, then it is better to update it. Since the policy is currently protected or prepared for protection, I do not have a right to add the explanation.) Anyway, thank you for handling this issue.
- p-adic 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
About the blocking of Ytosk
- I wrote an article about the blocking of Ytosk. I hope you will consider this.
- Hexirp (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK C7X (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I am curious about why Ytosk likes to harass me. I just gave several polite and detailed feedbacks on Ytosk's works. Several of them were unfortunately ill-defined, and based on common misconceptions. I sincerely pointed out precise issues, and I supported the trial. What made Ytosk so rude against me? If Ytosk had become an evil only because of the experience that the ill-definedness has been revailed by me, it would be unreasonably childish. Therefore I guess that there is another reason why Ytosk hates me. Could you tell me a possibility if you know something? Thank you.
p-adic 13:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
About the warnings to User:Yukito
As stated in this post, it was not a googologist Yukito you warned.
- I thought that C7X created the non-existing page to warn yukito, because yukito has never created an account to edit this wiki. Isn't it correct? (Was there already such a page?)
- p-adic 06:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC) p-adic 06:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC) p-adic 06:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- This page shows a profile picture. For accuracy, I will move the warnings and discussion there C7X (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The warnings on my talk page
Since these warnings were:
1. Given by a person who is a party of the relevant dispute.
2. Said person is currently blocked on the grounds of power abuse.
I request that all these warnings be removed immediately.
If Pbot wants to complain about something I've done, he should use the proper channels. And if an admin finds any of his complaints justified, that admin can issue a warning. Let's do things properly here, please. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)