Googology Wiki
Advertisement
Googology Wiki

Miraheze wiki

Have you made an account on the wiki? i.e. is this you or an impersonation attempt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moooosey (talkcontribs) 20:33, December 13, 2019 (UTC)

It's not me. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 17:13, December 14, 2019 (UTC)

Member of the panel

Hey, do you want to be the member of the panel? We are discussing it here. Triakula (talk) 12:05, February 8, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late response. I assume this is no longer relevant? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 09:37, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
I think that it is still relevant because you have not answered it and you are one of the most appropriate members for the panel.
p-adic 10:23, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
I thought the idea was just abandoned. After all it's been almost three months, and I don't see any hint of such a panel existing.
Am I missing something? If the offer is still on the table, then I'd like to hear more details. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:28, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
Denis admitted to be a member here. Just because there is only one article other than fake articles, we do not have opportunity to ask the members opinions. At least, we already have the voting page. If there will be another topic, then we need to ask opinions.
p-adic 12:31, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Warnings

Here I list data relevant to warnings.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 1 (disbled)

{{warning|rule=[[Googology Wiki:Policy#Vandalism|Harassment by labeling]]|source=[[User_blog:Literally_Legendary/How_do_I_understand_Rayo%27s_number%3F|A comment '''"Inventing a number which is larger than Rayo's number (excluding naive extensions) is beyond the ability of everybody here. I cannot do it. You cannot do it. And the OP also won't be able to do it in the forseeable future."''']]}}

Explanation: The comment is a reply to a comment by p進大好きbot, and hence the "You" in the comment means p進大好きbot. It is a harassment by labeling that others, especially p進大好きbot and the OP, cannot invent a new number larger than Rayo's number. It is irrelevant to the accuse that Plain'N'Simple does not careabout the existence of p進大好きbot's numbers, because people should not do such an insulting labeling from the beginning.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 2 (disabled)

{{warning|rule=[[Googology Wiki:Policy#Vandalism|Harassment by labeling]]|source=[[User_blog:Literally_Legendary/How_do_I_understand_Rayo%27s_number%3F|A comment '''"You have spent so much time explaining, the you haven't any time left to listen. "''']]}}

Explanation: This comment is a reply to a comment by p進大好きbot, and hence the "You" in the comment means p進大好きbot. It is a harassment by labeling that p進大好きbot has never listen to Plain'N'Simple, even though p進大好きbot actually spent one year to both explain Plain'N'Simple's elementary mistakes and listen to Plain'N'Simple's intention. For example, since Plain'N'Simple's explanations of truth predicate were completely wrong, p進大好きbot guessed that Plain'N'Simple was talking about something irrelevant to mathematics. Therefore p進大好きbot actually pointed out the possibility that Plain'N'Simple was talking about philosophical notion instead of mathematical notions:

  1. "Aren't you confounding the mathematical statement "Con(ZFC)" with the philosophical statement "ZFC is consistent"? Otherwise, I am not understanding why we need to assume that it is true. At least, I have never accepted that ZFC is consistent, because I think we do not have to do so."
  2. "It does not make sense for me. What does the truth value mean? Are you talking about a philosophical statement? In mathematics, there is no "definite truth value" of an undecidable statement. Say, if we work in ZFC set theory and assume that it is consistent, what is the "definite truth value" of Con(ZFC)? You have no answer."
  3. "Could you tell me what "assumption" means in your context? From what you said, you are not talking about axioms. But any mathematical evaluations refer to philosophical assumption, and hence I do not understand why you need other "assumptions"."
  4. "One possible misconseption: You are implicitly standing on the position where you identify "integers in the real world" and "standard integers". I mentioned the former one as "philosophical", because we have no mathematical approach to talk about it. What we can do is to believe "any statements on numbers provable in reasonable popular theories do not conflict real phenomena". More precisely, I guess that you are implicitly believing in the Σ_1-soundness of ZFC in the real world, rather than the consistency of ZFC, because you are talking about the recursive enumerability."
  5. "You asked "If the truth predicate is completely irrelevant, then what good is it?", and it implies that you explicitly required a connection to a philosophical truth in your mind. You are just identifying Con(ZFC) with the consistency of the base theory ZFC. It is mathematically incorrect, and is quite philosophical assumption."

The answers by Plain'N'Simple was the following:

  1. "No. I'm asserting that the two statements mean exactly the same thing, for most intents and purposes."
  2. "I was specifically talking about recursively-enumerable properties of integers. (omitted) There is nothing ambiguous or "philosophical" about it."
  3. "Sure I have an answer: If ZFC is consistent then the computer program I've just mentioned would never halt. Hence Con(ZFC) would be true. (again my statement here assumes that our most basic intuition about ordinary integers are valid, and that there are no "nonstandard integers" which can encode proofs that our computer program could miss)"
  4. "Anything which isn't self-evident, yet still required to evaluate the string. This includes both the axioms themselves and whatever mechanisms that are suggested to get "truth" out of these axioms."
  5. "Seems like you are the one who has this misconception, as my concept of "the integers" as absolutely nothing to do with the real world, and has everything to with the formal concept of standard integers."
  6. (Plain'N'Simple skipped the comment.)

Also, Plain'N'Simple clarified

  1. "Busy Beavers, for example, are not dependent on any external assumptions. Either a given TM halts or it doesn't halt. If it halts after N steps, then the value of N does not depend on philosophy or axiomatics (with the exception of some really elementary assumptions about numbers and arithmetic)."
  2. "We aren't debating some grand philosophical questions about the nature of the universe."

So, evidently p進大好きbot asked the intention so many times and Plain'N'Simple clarified that Plain'N'Simple is talking about mathematical notions instead of philosophical notions at least 8 times. There are many other examples, and p進大好きbot tried to understand Plain'N'Simple's misconceptions so patiently throughout one year. This proves how the insulting labeling is a rude harassment.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 3


Explanation: This comment is a reply to a comment by p進大好きbot, and hence the "You" in the comment means p進大好きbot. It is a harassment by labeling that p進大好きbot has never listen to Plain'N'Simple again. See #Warning 2 for the reason why this labeling is inappropriate.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 4


Explanation: This comment is a reply to a comment by p進大好きbot, and hence the "person" in the comment means p進大好きbot. It is a harassment by offensive words towards p進大好きbot, who is sincerely explaining how inappropriate to label others and how wrong Plain'N'Simple's explanations are.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 5


Explanation: This comment mentions to ARsygo, and hence the "you" in the comment means the admin. It is a harassment by fake claims for a trial to deceive the admin without specific citation of what p進大好きbot did. It also includes offensive words, regarding the patient explanation by p進大好きbot for Plain'N'Simple's inappropriate labeling and wrong explanations as "crazy responses".

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 6 (disbled)

{{warning|rule=[[Googology Wiki:Policy#Vandalism|Harassment by labeling]]|source=[[User_blog:Literally_Legendary/How_do_I_understand_Rayo%27s_number%3F|A comment '''"This all started in a year-old discussion, where I was talking about philosophical things like "the nature mathematical truth" and P-bot, some how, misunderstood non-exact statements in english to mean (wrong) statements in mathematics."''']]}}

Explanation: This comment mentions ARsygo to report p進大好きbot by false explanations. See #Warning 3 for the reason why the labeling is an obvious fake. p進大好きbot pointed out the possibility that Plain'N'Simple was talking about philosophical notions instead of mathematical notions at least 5 times, and Plain'N'Simple clarified that Plain'N'Simple was not talking about philosophical notions at least 8 times. Therefore it is quite unreasonable to insist that Plain'N'Simple was talking about philosophical notions and p進大好きbot "some how" does not understand the possibility. Since there are so many evidences for the incorrectness of Plain'N'Simple, this is suspected to be an intentional fake to deceive the admin.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 7 (disabled)

{{warning|rule=[[Googology Wiki:Policy#Vandalism|Harassment by labeling]]|source=[[User_blog:Literally_Legendary/How_do_I_understand_Rayo%27s_number%3F|A comment '''"In retrospect, both of our clarification efforts were poor, which is why we continued to speak one past the other."''']]}}

Explanation: This comment mentions ARsygo for self-justification including a fake labeling toward p進大好きbot. See #Warning 3 for the reason why the labeling is an obvious fake.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would need to look for the list of links of Psi's comments on philosophy, which linked to messages from August. C7X (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 8


Explanation: Plain'N'Simple doubted p進大好きbot's claim that Plain'N'Simples's logic deducing "Godel's [2nd] incompleteness theorem implies both of NBG+Con(NBG) and NBG+Neg(Con(NBG)) are consistent as long as NBG is consistent." is completely wrong, and created the blog post. p進大好きbot clearly commented "Anyway, it is good to check the precise statement of Godel's theorem and the definition of Con(X), instead of using their intuitive wrong understanding." in order to tell the possibility that Plain'N'Simple misunderstood them. Say, it is reasonable to guess that Plain'N'Simple confounded "unprovability" with "independency" because p進大好きbot has ever pointed out that Plain'N'Simple (under an alternative account with username "PsiCubed2") is confounding these two elementary notions three years ago. After p進大好きbot's comment, Plain'N'Simple closed the comment session and wrote "EDIT 1: Due to abusive replies, comments have been disabled on this blog post." even though p進大好きbot's comment actually pointed out the cause of the error. Indeed, Plain'N'Simple was essentially misunderstanding the precise statement of Godel's theorem by the confusion of the unprovability and the undecidability, according to "EDIT 2: Got it! It was a simple oversight on my part which can be explained in a single line: "The fact that statement Y is unprovable in X only implies X+Neg(Y) is consistent. It does not imply that X+Y is consistent."". So, the misconception was essentially continuing not only for one year, but for three years even after p進大好きbot clearly pointed out the elementary mistake. Nevertheless, Plain'N'Simple insisted the precise feedback is garbage. This is an obvious insulting.

p-adic 15:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Fake explanations

During the harassments, Plain'N'Simples persistently repeated fakes insulting p進大好きbot.

  1. A comment "I do not require anybody (least of all P-bot, who is insanely hostile towards me) to spend any time on me."': It is an obvious fake, because Plain'N'Simple clearly requested to cost time by saying "If one of my answers seems to contradict another, point it out and ask for clarification. And don't stop until you have a perfectly clear understanding of what I'm saying." even after p進大好きbot spent one year to explain Plain'N'Simples's misconceptions and to ask intentions.
  2. A comment I've repeatedly attempted to clear this misunderstanding among us, and he repeatedly ignores these attempts.": It is an obvious fake by the evidences explained in #Warning 3, #Warning 5, and #Warning 6, which explain how sincerely p進大好きbot try to understand Plain'N'Simple's intention and how inappropriately Plain'N'Simple answered.
  3. A comment "After I said this so boldly, I guess it is understandable why P-bot simply ignored my further attempts at clarification which seemed (and were) contradictory to that explicit statement.": It is an obvious fake by the evidences explained in #Warning 3, #Warning 5, and #Warning 6, which explain how carefully p進大好きbot tried to understand Plain'N'Simple's explanations.
  4. "I'm talking downright personal attacks here. Not "correcting mistakes" or "pointing errors". Just wild attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question, which are repeated again and again and again on every new thread I start.": Obvious fake, because the thread includes p進大好きbot's list of Plain'N'Simple's elementary misconceptions, which actually includes 17 mathematical errors. See #Mathematical misconceptions for the list.

In addition, Plain'N'Simple insisted "You continue to call my attempts to explain myself "fake" and accuse me of being a liar. What's even the point of me trying to explain anything if you label it "fake" anyway?" as if Plain'N'Simple has never used those fakes, even after the fakes were clearly disproved.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Fake apologies

Usually, the warning template can be invalidated if the warned user sincerely apologise for them and admins appreciate the apology. However, Plain'N'Simple refused to apologise, even if ARsygo and p進大好きbot requested the apology many times so that we can be certain that Plain'N'Simple can be better. To be more precise, Plain'N'Simple has ever apologised only for what they have not requested the apology for:

  1. "Yes, I used to be rude and over-judgemental towards people who made obvious mistakes.": Off-topic apology because nobody is talking about the apology for rude actions towards people who made obvious mistakes.
  2. "I've already apologized for forgetting about your Large Garden Number when I made that comment.": Fake apology because what Plain'N'Simple wrote was "The Large Number Garden honestly slipped my mind when I made that comment. I meant no insult.", which does not include apology but just include the justification of Plain'N'Simple's attitude. Also, it does not matter for #Warning 1, because the lack of the knowledge of existing numbers does not justify the labeling, Generally speaking, we should not label others n that way.

So, we cannot expect Plain'N'Simple to become better any more. To be fair, Plain'N'Simple has ever apologised once by saying "And yes, I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained. I also admit to making some actual errors due to overconfidence, which I've since then corrected. Is that sufficient?" for only one issue among many harassment issues.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreement and disagreement of the incident

Here is a list of Plain'N'Simple's agreement and disagreement of the incident:

  1. "ARsygo, I agree with every item on P-bot's list. I am not trying to argue for some alternative crackpot version of mathematics.": Plain'N'Simple agreed that the inappropriate attitudes pointed out by p進大好きbot are true.
  2. "I'm not willing to pretend that this is a one-sided issue where only I need to apologize. There's plenty of blame to be laid on both sides. I've given the first olive branch. I've stopped being confrontational. I apologized for some things. I've done all of this unconditionally, even though P-bot remains hostile and continues to claim that I'm liar and that 100% of the blame is mine.": Plain'N'Simple disagreed with the request of apology.
  3. "And I don't see how I am "harassing" anybody just by refusing to continue this madness. The situation has gone completely out of hand, which is precisely why I'm bowing out of it.": Plain'N'Simple disagreed with the existence of harassments, even after so many evidences have been clearly given.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical misconceptions

Here is the list of Plain'N'Simple's misconceptions which have already been pointed out by p進大好きbot in the thread.

  1. The value of BB does not depend on a model. (False statement)
  2. The termination of a Turing machine does not depend on a model. (False statement)
  3. A Turing machine is nothing more than a computer with unlimited memory and unlimited running time. (False formlisation in the context of BB)
  4. Rayo(1924) is ill-defined unless we specify a model. (False statement)
  5. Rayo's number is irrelevant to Goedel numbers. (False belief)
  6. We can easily define Rayo's number using "symbols" method. (False belief)
  7. We have an easy way to imitate "symbols" method without using Goedel numbers. (False belief)
  8. The statement "ZFC is consistent" is something we must accept as true when we work with ZFC. (False belief)
  9. Neg(Con(ZFC)) states that there is a proof in ZFC that 0=1. Barring the existence of crazy constructs such as "nonstandard integers", this is logically equivalent to the statement "ZFC is inconsistent"
  10. There is no difference between ZFC and "ZFC" in Con(ZFC) formalised in ZFC.
  11. Truth predicate should assign Con(ZF) the value of "true". (False belief)
  12. The assignment of truth values to basic statements completely arbitrary as long as the assignments are logically consistent. (False statement)
  13. Either NBG+Con(NBG) or NBG+Neg(Con(NBG)) are inconsistent, (False belief)
  14. Non-standard integers in NBG are not sets. (False statement)
  15. 12 can be verified by "proof by contradiction" (False proof)
  16. Godel's incompleteness theorem implies both of NBG+Con(NBG) and NBG+Neg(Con(NBG) are consistent as long as NBG is consistent. (False proof)
  17. PTO(T) for a formal theory T roughly characterises how fast functions provably total in T can be. (False statement)

etc.

p-adic 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

About P進大好きbot thingy

It looks like... the warnings here should be kept... as Fandom clarifies the border of blocks via the talk page. Can you deal with the user as soon as possible? ARsygo (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why were the warnings deleted? I think that is unfair and that is a violation of the policy of Googology Wiki. The warnings should be kept here and be discussed by users, and after that, admin should check the discussion and decide the banning. koteitan (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that C7X thought that the warnings were invalid. In that case, C7X should have voided the warnings and warn p進大好きbot, but somehow C7X did not void the warnings and block p進大好きbot. I don't like reading so many logs of dispute, so I may be misunderstanding something. In any case, I don't like the current situation of user putting warning template for harrassment each other. So the rule itself was actually sanction game. We should consider revising the policy, by referring to Help:Harassment_and_bullying after consolidating this problem. In any case p進大好きbot just followed the rule so he should be allowed back after everything is settled. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As you seem to like following the rule of Wikipedia, I show you what is written here.

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space.
User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

So basically Wikipedia thinks that warning templates on user's talk page is not a good idea for solving problems. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I would propose that someone rewrite the current rule, so that ARSygo can understand and follow. After that, p進大好きbot is allowed back, and he should follow the new rule. The warning template was considered invalid by one of the admins, C7X, and therefore we will not discuss it here, and just follow the new rule. What do you think, ARsygo? 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 14:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To me, I guess C7X states that the user's account will be disabled by Fandom soon, since the new Fandom desktop is quite cumbersome to use, but unfortunately it is also a forced migration, so, try ask P進大好きbot again and have a discussion with it. (Thankfully, C7X promotes me to become a bureaucrat, since C7X wants to leave the Fandom network, by disabling the account)ARsygo (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
If C7X is leaving, you are the only one responsible now. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 15:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning 9 (removal of warnings without admin's permission)

Hexirp (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This is done because I accepted p-shin-daisuki-bot's proposal. Hexirp (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking (by five warnings)

I accept warn-3, warn-4, warn-5, warn-8, and warn-9 as valid warnings. Therefore, by the policy, I have placed you on a three month posting block. -- Hexirp (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Links to specific statements are provided below.
  1. warn-3: comment
  2. warn-4: comment
  3. warn-5: comment
  4. warn-8: article
I will remove these from now on. -- Hexirp (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This is a request from p-shin-daisuki-bot. -- Hexirp (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
You can be sure that I won't be returning after those 3 months are over. For the record: I am completely shocked by what happened here in the past week. I know perfectly well that I did nothing to deserve either the block or the endless attacks that accompanied it. But I won't fight it, because if this community can do such a thing to one of its senior members, I don't want to be a part of it anyway.
I hope that one day the situation here will change. If and when this happens, I'll be happy to come back and contribute my time and energy and knowledge here. Till then - Ciao. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Warn-8 and Warn-9? 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Warn-8 is the warning for the insulting harassment "Had somebody replied with that one liner, I would have gotten it immediately. Instead, I got the usual garbage of "you conflate X with Con(X)" which had absolutely nothing to do with my error." violating Googology Wiki:Policy#Vandalism, while warn-9 is the warning for the removal of valid templates without permission by admins violating Googology Wiki:Policy#How to warn users. None of them have been apologised.
p-adic 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. I was somehow confused, but now it is clear. Thank you. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

About my block

  • Since it seems that some of the admins here (Kyodaisuu, C7X, perhaps also Hexirp and ARSygo) agree that the entire incident:
  • 1. Was a misunderstanding
  • 2. Happened - at least in part - because of P-bot being over-provocative and over-aggressive.
  • And since also:
  • 3. The admin who blocked me did so without giving me any chance to defend myself.
  • I ask that:
  • 1. My block be lifted.
  • 2. My warnings record be cleared. I mean seriously, the majority of these accusations aren't even coherent. It is clear that the only reason P-bot put those warnings up is to give the admins a "justification" to block me, and not because they make any kind of sense. I do not appreciate having this kind of "criminal" record when I violated no rule. So I ask you, the admins, to remove these warnings.
  • P.S.
  • I've never ever asked for P-bot to be blocked. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I need the other person's opinions before I will unblock you, actually. (p.s.: It looks like you forgot to sign your message above, please sign it ASAP, thank you.) (and also, I need your opinion on your Letter Notation as PEGG nearly reaches Q). ARsygo (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Who do you mean by "other person"? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
        • The other active users, including other admins as well. Does it answer your question? ARsygo (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In order to avoid tone-policing and harmful labeling, I wrote Japanese comment and Google translation.
  • Japanese: 僕は反対します。あなたが私を批難することで自分を正当化しても、それはあなたがハラスメントをした事実を変えません。あなたが謝罪を明確に拒み続けたことも変えません。あなたが謝罪を拒んだため、現在のルールが定める最小のブロック期限は3ヶ月です。あなたは自分だけはルールの例外になると思い込むべきではありません。
  • Google translation: I disagree. If you justify yourself by criticizing me, it doesn't change the fact that you harassed me. It doesn't change that you kept explicitly refusing to apologize. The minimum block deadline set by the current rules is 3 months because you refused to apologize. You should not assume that you are the only exception to the rules.
  • Japanese: あなたはアドミンと秘密裏にコミュニケーションを取り、誤った判断を促したという事実に変わりはありません。そしてアドミンがブロックをした際に、それに反対することもなく周囲に嘘の情報を流し僕の名誉を毀損しました。従って、あなたがこの事件の主犯の一人であることには異論の余地がありません。
  • Google translation: The fact remains that you communicated secretly with Admin and prompted you to make the wrong decision. And when Admin blocked, I didn't oppose it and gave false information to the people around me, damaging my honor. Therefore, it is undeniable that you are one of the principal culprit in this case.
  • Japanese: なお、アドミンに意見を聞いてみることには賛成です。アドミンだけでなく他のアクティブユーザーにも意見を聞きたいです。
  • Google translation: I'm in favor of asking Admin for his opinion. I would like to hear from other active users as well as admins.
  • p-adic 11:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Plain'N'Simple: See Hexirp's message above as "I accept warn-3, warn-4, warn-5, warn-8, and warn-9 as valid warnings. Therefore, by the policy, I have placed you on a three month posting block." If we look at the warning messages 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, you wrote no response message, and you even mentioned in the above thread "But I won't fight it." meaning that you did not defend yourself when your were blocked. Therefore, just wait until the block period is over. I actually want to erase the warnings after the block period is over, because I don't like hanging the warning message in the talk page forever, but I am not sure if it is allowed in the current policy... 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I didn't know that this was the procedure. I just saw that suddenly I got blocked, without anybody approaching me to ask for my side of the story. Quite frankly, I got the impression that nobody was interested in hearing me out. How on earth was I supposed to guess that Hexirp expected some kind of "response message"? Nobody approached me. There wasn't even a tiny hint that anybody here cared about what I had to say about the matter. Whatever P-bot said about the situation, was accepted blindly. Even when I tried desperately to de-escalate while his comments became wilder and nastier, for some odd reason everybody chose to accuse me of this continuing madness.
      • So yeah, when the situation seemed that hopeless, I said "I won't fight it". Why fight it, when (a) there is no chance of achieving anything, and (b) it just makes things unpleasant for everyone? What would have been the point?
      • But now, unless I am mistaken, the situation has changed. I've read comments by you and other admins. It seems that many admins (perhaps even the majority) now realize that I was not 100% at fault in this incident. I've seen you guys repeatedly call out P-bot's over-aggressiveness in his interactions with me (and with others). So I figured: Hey, these guys aren't so bad. I think that this time they'll hear me out.
      • Was I wrong about that? Or are you guys willing to hear me out? If my assessment was wrong, then I apologize for wasting your time. Otherwise, I ask that we have this discussion now. You want a formal defense? Let's start with this:
      • 1. Quotes from a mutual debate where both sides were far from saints, cannot constitute "harassment". Doubly so, when you've acknowledged that the other party was over-aggressive, provocative and rude. You will notice that every single warning I've received falls into this category. In short: there is not case against me at all here.
      • 2. Admins should not judge disputes in which they are personally involved, due to conflict of interest. P-bot is not an admin, but the same principle applies here: He is personally involved. He is also a very respected and trusted member here, which comes with a great responsibility. So a situation where (a) P-bot hands out warnings regarding a dispute he is a party of and (b) an admin just cursorily scans these warnings because he trusts P-bot - that's not a proper way to make a decision. Least of all, a serious decision such as blocking another respected member for 3 months.
      • 3. Correct me if I am wrong, but the point of the Warning System is to warn violators before they get banned, is it not? To give them a chance to change their ways? So isn't giving a person 4 warnings at once and then immediately blocking them, kinda misses the entire point of the Warning System? My point is: Even if p-bot's claims of harassment were true (which they are not - see #1), this does not justify blocking me without any kind of warning.
      • I will also add that this entire fiasco started when I reported P-bot. I didn't want him banned or anything. I just wanted an admin to tell him to stop chasing me around and cool down his rhetoric a bit. I am still at a loss to explain, how such a routine request turned into this, and how - suddenly - I need to defend myself against completely outrageous accusations.
      • Now, what do you say after you've read my statement? This last question is to all the Admins here, by the way. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)::
        • The policy states "The warned user can justify or apologise for the attitude below the warning, but must not remove or edit the warning by himself or herself. In that case, an admin will check the discussion, and clearly comment whether the justification or the apology is acceptable or not. Users can freely give opinions against the decision, and the admin can change the decision through the opinions. If the justification is judged to be acceptable and the user asks the admin to remove the warning, the admin will remove it. If the apology is judged to be acceptable, then the admin will add the status to the format. We regard a warning given in this way referring to a violation which has no accepted justification or apology as a valid warning." You did not justify or apologise below each warning messages, which means that you did not defend at all, and Hexirp checked the warnings and made some of them as valid warnings. After so long time from the blocking, it is too late to defend now for unblocking. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 19:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but this is downright ridiculous.
          • I am, of-course, forced to accept your judgement because I have no choice and I'm not looking to cause any trouble. But there are a few things that I would like to say for the record:
          • 1. Not listening to a person's defense just because "it's too late" or because of "policy" is not a way to build a healthy community.
          • 2. From the very beginning of this fiasco, I was treated unfairly. It all started with a routine complaint by me, which was never really considered. ARSygo asked both of us to calm down. I did, while P-bot's comments continued to get nastier and nastier. I tried to de-escalate, while P-bot went completely berserk. Suddenly I'm asked to apologize and defend myself. And when I do, P-bot calls me a liar and calls my apology "a fake apology". The whole situation was that of witch hunt. And this - too - is not a way to build a healthy community.
          • 3. C7X was 100% right when he-called P-bot's actions "power gaming". Unfortunately, doing that is very easy when you have admins that care more about "policy" then about the actual welfare of their community. Policy can be gamed, which is exactly what have happened here. I have no doubt at all, that if the admins here actually listened carefully to both sides, none of this would have happened.
          • 4. P-bot may have succeeded in scaring me away from here, but if you think this is - in any way - a satisfactory resolution then you are mistaken. The admins have basically thrown a veteran contributing community member to the dogs just to appease one person. And the worst of it: They're inviting P-bot to do this again. The next time somebody annoys him, he'll nuke them too. And you know why? Because he knows that it will work. He knows that the minute he decides to target a person, the admins here will just gobble up every piece of slander and bogus accusation he throws at this person. In danger of repeating myself: this is not a way to build a healthy community.
          • 5. People usually choose to participate in communities they are respected in. If you block a veteran contributing member for 3 months without even giving them a fair hearing, then - in most cases - you've just completely burned your bridges with that person. It's positively cute, how the admins expect me to just waltz back in here after 3 months and resume normal operations as if nothing happened. Yeah, I know, I have a history of Don-Qixotic tendencies, but even I have my limits.
          • 6. My response to ARSygo and PEGG and Q: If you wanted my advice, you should have thought about that before you helped kick me out of here.
          • 7. I'm completely and utterly done here. Enough is enough. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
            • > I am, of-course, forced to accept your judgement because I have no choice and I'm not looking to cause any trouble. But there are a few things that I would like to say for the record:
            • Japanese: 虚偽の"record"をしても意味がありません。誰もあなたに受け入れることを強制しませんでした。ただあなたが自分の非を一切認めず、謝罪を頑なに拒否しただけです。多くのユーザーがあなたの不愉快な行動が不適切であることを認めたという現実を直視してください。(一部のユーザーは古参ユーザーのハラスメントは容認すべきだと主張していましたが、FANDOMの規約に反したそんな提案はもちろん論外です)
            • Google translation: There is no point in making a false "record". No one forced you to accept. You just refused to apologize, not admitting your fault at all. Face the reality that many users have admitted that your unpleasant behavior is inappropriate. (Some users have argued that harassment by older users should be tolerated, but of course such proposals that violate FANDOM's rules are out of the question.)
            • > Not listening to a person's defense just because "it's too late" or because of "policy" is not a way to build a healthy community.
            • Japanese: もしあなたが本当にdefenseしたいのでしたら、嘘をばらまかず、誠実にそう訴えればよかったのではないですか? 謝罪もなく、嘘を並べて、adminたちを侮辱し、policyに繰り返し違反し、defenseの機会を自ら放棄し、それでも「not listening to a person's defense」と主張して誰が納得すると思っていますか?
            • Google translation: If you really wanted to defend, wouldn't it be better if you didn't tell a lie and appealed in good faith? Without apology, who would be convinced by lying, insulting the admins, repeatedly violating the policy, abandoning the defense opportunity themselves, and still claiming "not listening to a person's defense"?
            • > From the very beginning of this fiasco, I was treated unfairly. It all started with a routine complaint by me, which was never really considered.
            • Japanese: あなたが真面目に考慮しなかっただけです。あなたの不愉快な態度は元々多くのユーザーを不当に傷つけてきました。被害者がどう受け取っていたかについて少しでも考えたことはありますか?
            • Google translation: You just didn't take it seriously. Your unpleasant attitude has originally unfairly hurt many users. Have you ever thought about how the victim received it?
            • > ARSygo asked both of us to calm down. I did, while P-bot's comments continued to get nastier and nastier.
            • Japanese: 嘘をつくのはやめませんか? ARsygoさんは明確にあなたの非を咎めましたし、あなたに謝罪すべきだと言いましたし、あなたが警告されることを示唆していました。
            • Google translation: Would you like to stop lying? Mr. ARsygo clearly blamed you, told you that you should apologize, and suggested that you would be warned.
            • > And when I do, P-bot calls me a liar and calls my apology "a fake apology".
            • Japanese: 嘘をつかないでください。あなたは謝るべきことを一度も謝っていません。全く無関係なことを謝罪したふりをしただけです。ソースは上に掲載されています。
            • Google translation: Don't lie You have never apologized for what you should apologize for. I just pretended to apologize for something completely irrelevant. The source is listed above.
            • > C7X was 100% right when he-called P-bot's actions "power gaming". Unfortunately, doing that is very easy when you have admins that care more about "policy" then about the actual welfare of their community.
            • Japanese: ではあなた以外にどのアクティブユーザーが実際にpolicyに違反していますか? いないでしょう? policyは1つの例外を除いて濫用のしようがないように作られています。その例外は「No firm rules」で、これは実際にCloudyさんにより濫用されましたが削除の議論中です。ユーザーが健全にwikiを使っている限り、policyによってブロックされることはありません。
            • Google translation: So which active users other than you actually violate the policy? Isn't it? The policy is designed so that it cannot be abused with one exception. The exception is "No firm rules", which was actually abused by Cloudy but is under discussion for removal. As long as the user is using the wiki soundly, it will not be blocked by policy.
            • > And the worst of it: They're inviting P-bot to do this again. The next time somebody annoys him, he'll nuke them too.
            • Japanese: また決め付けで侮辱するのですね。既にあなたの他にUsernameさんが僕へ不適切な決めつけとハラスメントの煽動を行っていますが、Usernameさんはブロックされていますか? アクティブユーザーの誰もUsernameさんのことを相手にしていませんし、僕も相手にする必要はないと思いました。あなたはこういった侮辱的決め付けを繰り返しても、他のユーザーから信頼を失うだけです。これまでは古参だからという理由だけであなたが許されていたかも知れませんが、今のコミュニティは古参であっても誠実にpolicyを適用します。FANDOMの規約にも、特定の誰かを特別視してはならないことは明記されています。あなたには特権がないということを自覚してください。
            • Google translation: You also insult by branding. In addition to you, Username is already improperly branding and inciting harassment to me. Is Username blocked? None of the active users dealt with Username, and I didn't think it was necessary to deal with it either. Repeating these insulting brandings will only lose the trust of other users. You may have been allowed in the past just because you're a veteran, but now the community applies policies in good faith, even if you're a veteran. The FANDOM Terms also clearly state that no one should be given special attention. Be aware that you are not privileged.
            • > People usually choose to participate in communities they are respected in. If you block a veteran contributing member for 3 months without even giving them a fair hearing,
            • Japanese: 前提が間違っています。あなたは自分で謝罪と弁解の機会を放棄しただけです。
            • Google translation: The assumption is wrong. You just gave up the opportunity to apologize and excuse yourself.
            • p-adic 09:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Plain'N'Simple: Just one question, if you want to answer, because you insist that you want to be listened. If you don't want to answer, that is OK. You said
              • P-bot calls me a liar and calls my apology "a fake apology"
            • Where is the sentence that you apologized? Where did p進大好きbot said that your apology is "a fake apology"? I just don't want to read through the long discussions of this dispute. I respect the decision by Hexirp. That's all. If Hexirp changes his mind after reading your defense here, he may write something. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
              • It's right here, on my talk page, conveniently labeled "fake apologies" :-)
              • My original apology, funnily enough, is also quoted right there.
              • And if you are serious about hearing me out, then I strongly urge you to read the thread on ARsygo's talk page. It's in section 25 there (titled "Can you please explain..."). It's that place where P-bot constantly called me a liar and became more and more violent, while I desperately tried to explain myself, de-escelate and eventually bow out from a completely impossible situation. Go read it, and judge for yourself.
              • As for Hexirp, I urge him to read that too. Because it is quite clear that he didn't do that before he reached his decision.
              • Note: I'm all for resolving this in a mutually respectable way. If you are also willing to do that, then this may be a first step towards fixing this disaster.
              • Note 2: You may have noticed that I'm no longer responding to P-bots statements. I'm not doing so, because it is clear to me that he isn't interested in an actual mutually-respectful conversation with me right now, and I'm not interested in having another mud-fight. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
              • Also, Kyodaisuu, I have a question for you:
              • If you trust Hexirp's judgement, why don't trust C7X's judgement as well? Both are decisions made by admins. And if C7X's claims regarding P-bot's power-gaming are correct, that's very very serious business. So why are you so willing to brush C7X's statement aside, while - at the same time - you accept Hexirp's judgement without question? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
                • I see. So your apology was "And yes, I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained. I also admit to making some actual errors due to overconfidence, which I've since then corrected. Is that sufficient?" Maybe "fake apology" is not appropriate choice of word, but it is not an apology for calling p進大好きbot as "toxic and judgemental" as in warning 4, for example. C7X blocked p進大好きbot for one year because of "sanction game". Hexirp pointed out that the sanction of one-year block was too heavy and community agreed to Hexirp, and p進大好きbot was unblocked. It was by communities discussion, not by a single admin, so I respect the community's decision. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
                  • That's not the quote I was talking about. I'm talking chiefly about apology #2: "The Large Number Garden honestly slipped my mind when I made that comment. I meant no insult.". Calling this "a fake apology" is a downright lie.
                  • As for the statement you've mentioned, here is the context in which I've made it: [1]
                  • Look at the comments there. You will see a very heated, very ugly argument in which both sides are frustrated beyond belief. Now ask yourself, if under these conditions, saying "You are toxic and judgemental. I'm done talking to you" can be called "harassment" by any stretch of the word.
                  • Indeed, I'm specifically asking for your own personal judgement on this one specific point. Please follow the link and go to the 2nd-from-last discussion in the comment section (the one started by P-bot). If you tell me that you've carefully read the entire discussion there and considered the context, I'll accept whatever verdict you arrive at without further protest. But please, do check it out.
                  • And now, let's not waste any more of our time on arguing back-and-forth. Let's focus. I've asked you to look at the evidence regarding this one specific point. Are you willing to do that? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
                    • (indent back) I don't mind if you apologized for warning 2, because Hexirp did not take warning 2 as the valid warning. As for warning 4, you are frustrated and insulted p進大好きbot as "toxic and judgemental". p進大好きbot requested you to apologize for that, but you refused to apologize. Now I agree to Hexirp that he judged warning 4 as a valid warning. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
                      • This is downright insane.
                      • P-bot has repeatedly bullied me, called me a liar, twisted my words (while ignoring my attempts to explain myself) and... well... generally being extremely toxic and judgemental towards me. Yet you expect me to apologize for calling out on his behavior, in a situation when I was under direct fire from him?
                      • Sorry, but no. I will not apologize for saying the truth. A truth, by the way, that you are aware of. You've called out on P-bot's aggressiveness and provocativeness many times. And had you actually spent - say - 5 minutes looking at the links I've given you, then you would have absolutely no doubt that my statement of "toxic and judgemental" was 100% justified. Was it blunt? Yes. Was it overly rude? Perhaps, but given P-bot constant rudeness, I don't see how you can blame me for not responding calmly.
                      • But I guess it doesn't really matter. It is clear that you've already made up your mind. You've completely ignored the evidence I've given you and the context in presents for the things I've said. You refused to look into the actual event that you're judging. I've given you a link to a full transcript of what happened, and there isn't even a hint that you've taken that context into account when you made your judgement.
                      • So I'm done banging my head on this brick will. And since I've already been duped once into believing that I'll get a fair hearing, I'm telling you in advance: It won't work again. I'm done wasting my time on a place that show such disrespect to it's members. And it's not even a personal issue. Today it's me, tomorrow it will be someone else. That's precisely why every serious googologist (except P-bot's closely-knit group of friends) have left here. They may not like me very much, but they understand the dangerous precedent that has been set and they don't want to be next in line.
                      • As parting words, I would like to repeat to you what C7X said to P-bot: Please stop and think what you're doing. Stop and think what this is doing to your community. Think what kind of people this atmosphere attracts, and what kind of people it scares away. Then ask yourself: Is this what you really want?
                      • Goodbye
                      • (I'll return here in a few months to see if anything has changed) Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
                        • You said "I'll accept whatever verdict you arrive at without further protest." but you didn't accept the verdict. You accept my verdict only when I am with you. Anyway Hexirp is suggesting you to give a defense, so this is your last chance. "You refused to look into the actual event that you're judging." is not true, but I don't blame you for that, because I don't like such battle. I just don't like this whole battle. I don't want to get involved in this whole issue. But as you requested me to give an opinion, I did. That's all. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 11:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
                          • Japanese: Hexirpさんが反論を聞いてくださると言った直後に「Good bye」と言うということは、論理的に反駁できる内容がないということでしょうかね? 反対意見に対して何ら論理的な反論をせず、代わりに同じ主張を繰り返したり中傷をしたり、結局この人は何がしたかったのか分かりませんでした。Plain'N'Simpleさんが素直に謝罪して反省すれば以前のように尊敬される研究者として一目置かれたでしょうに、逆にPlain'N'Simpleさん自身の株を落としてしまうような言動を選んでしまうなんて、本当に残念ですね。。このwikiを離れてからもPlain'N'Simpleさんがどこかできちんと更正し成熟することを祈っています。
                          • Google translation: If you say "Good bye" immediately after Hexirp says he will listen to your counterargument, does that mean that there is nothing that can be logically refuted? He did not make any logical objections to the dissenting opinion, instead repeating the same claims and slandering, and eventually did not know what he wanted to do. If Plain'N'Simple apologized obediently and reflected on it, he would have been regarded as a respected researcher as before, but on the contrary, Plain'N' Simple would drop his own stock. It's really a shame to choose what you say and do. .. I hope Plain'N'Simple will be properly rehabilitated and matured somewhere after leaving this wiki.
                          • p-adic 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
                      • @kyodaisuu
                      • Japenese: まさに下で説明した通りの流れですね。Plain'N'Simpleさんは無関係なことしか謝罪をしていないのに、あくまで「謝罪はした」「よく見ろ」と主張するばかりです。Plain'N'Simpleさんがブロックされる前と何も変わっていません。それはそうと、fake apologyが不適切ならどう呼ぶべきだったのでしょうね? 無関係な方はirrelevant apologyでいいとして、謝ってすらいない方はvoid apologyとかがふさわしいでしょうか?
                      • Google translation: That's exactly what I explained below. Plain'N'Simple only apologizes for irrelevant things, but he just insists that he "apologized" and "look closely". Nothing has changed since Plain'N'Simple was blocked. That being said, what should I have called if fake apology was inappropriate? For those who are unrelated, irrelevant apology is fine, and for those who do not even apologize, is void apology suitable?
                      • p-adic 16:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
                        • I understand your anger. But I don't think this thread is the place to invent new words. Hexirp (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
                        • I've changed my mind. Yes, it is not strange that you are trying to find an alternative word. But, yes, I am just worried that the discussion will go off the main topic. Hexirp (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
                          • Japanese: 1点誤解があると思うのですが、用語が不適切だと言われた場合にどういう用語を使うべきか尋ねるのは(Plain'N'Simpleさんによるトーンポリシングを避けるために)必要だと思ったので意見を求めただけです。これはふぃっしゅさんへの怒りの表明ではありませんし、むしろふぃっしゅさんには感謝しています。Plain'N'Simpleさんは僕へ不当なラベリング(例えば"The next time somebody annoys him, he'll nuke them too. And you know why? Because he knows that it will work. He knows that the minute he decides to target a person, the admins here will just gobble up every piece of slander and bogus accusation he throws at this person."が不適切な決め付けであること明らかです)をしていますし、上で指摘しているようにPlain'N'Simpleさんは何度も明らかな嘘を繰り返しています。こういった「本題でない」中傷を織り交ぜることを放置してしまうと、僕の名誉が毀損され続けてしまいます。また、このような不適切な言動を繰り返さないよう、Plain'N'Simpleさんに指導していただけませんか?
                          • Google translation: I think there's one misunderstanding, but I think it's necessary (to avoid tone policing by Plain'N'Simple) asking what term to use if the term is said to be inappropriate. So I just asked for an opinion. This is not an expression of anger at Mr. Fisshu, but rather thank him. Plain'N'Simple unfairly labels me (for example,"The next time somebody annoys him, he'll nuke them too. And you know why? Because he knows that it will work. He knows that the minute he decides to target a person, the admins here will just gobble up every piece of slander and bogus accusation he throws at this person." As pointed out in, Plain'N'Simple repeats obvious lies over and over again. If I neglect to interweave these "non-subject" slander, my honor will continue to be damaged. Also, could you instruct Plain'N'Simple not to repeat such inappropriate words and actions?
                          • p-adic 09:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
                    • > You may have noticed that I'm no longer responding to P-bots statements. I'm not doing so, because it is clear to me that he isn't interested in an actual mutually-respectful conversation with me right now, and I'm not interested in having another mud-fight.
                    • (EDIT: The indent of this quote is changed by Plain'N'Simple, but I revert it.)
                    • Japanese: あなたがいかに真実を曲げ反論を無視しようとも、嘘はいけません。従って、あなたが無視を続けようと、あなたの嘘に騙される人がいないようにこちらに反論は書かせていただきます。
                    • Google translation: No matter how you bend the truth and ignore the objections, don't lie. Therefore, I will write a counter-argument here so that no one will be fooled by your lies, even if you continue to ignore it.
                    • @kyodaisuu
                    • Japanese: Plain'N'Simpleさんは正確にどこであるかを教える気がないようですので、僕がお答えします。ARsygoさんと僕がPlain'N'Simpleさんにハラスメントへの謝罪を要求した際に、Plain'N'Simpleさんは"Yes, I used to be rude and over-judgemental towards people who made obvious mistakes."と述べて、これを謝罪としました。しかしこれは「明らかなミスを犯した者に対し無礼だった」ということを謝罪していますが、今回の文脈にそのよう出来事は一切ありません。当然これはハラスメントへの謝罪と全く無関係で、例えば人を殴った時に「今日は寝坊してごめんなさい」と不誠実な謝罪をするようなものです。更に"I've already apologized for forgetting about your Large Garden Number when I made that comment."とも述べていますが、実際にPlain'N'Simpleさんが書いた文章は謝罪ですらなく"The Large Number Garden honestly slipped my mind when I made that comment. I meant no insult."という自己正当化だけです。これらを以て「自分は謝罪をした!」と嘯いているため、虚偽の謝罪主張とみなしています。これを除く謝罪は1件だけあり、"And yes, I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained. I also admit to making some actual errors due to overconfidence, which I've since then corrected. Is that sufficient?"というものですがハラスメントへの謝罪は一切ありません。にもかかわらず「自分は謝罪をした」という主張だけ繰り返しています。どこで謝罪をしたのかを答えるつもりもないようです。ふぃっしゅさんが今回改めて聞いても、場所を言うだけで実質自分で探すように求めていますね。その場所を探してもハラスメントへの謝罪なんてないのですが。
                    • Google translation: Plain'N'Simple doesn't seem to want to tell you exactly where, so I'll answer. When ARsygo and I asked Plain'N'Simple to apologize for harassment, Plain'N'Simple said "Yes, I used to be rude and over-judgemental towards people who made obvious mistakes." And apologized for this. However, although this apologizes for being "rude to those who made obvious mistakes," there is no such event in this context. Of course, this has nothing to do with apologizing for harassment, like making a dishonest apology when you hit someone, saying, "I'm sorry I overslept today." In addition, "I've already apologized for forgetting about your Large Garden Number when I made that comment Although it says "", the text actually written by Plain'N'Simple is not even an apology. "" "" The Large Number Garden honestly slipped my mind when I made that comment. I meant no It's just a self-justification of insult. ". Since they are mocking "I apologized!", They are regarded as false apology claims. There is only one apology other than this,"And yes, I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained. I also admit to making some actual errors due to overconfidence, which I've since then corrected. Is that sufficient? ", But there is no apology for harassment. Nevertheless, he only repeats the claim that he apologized. I don't seem to answer where I apologized. Even if Mr. Fisshu asks again this time, he asks you to actually search for yourself just by saying the location. I didn't apologize for harassment when I searched for that place.
                    • p-adic 13:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Japanese: あなたは間違っています。どんな攻撃的で侮辱的な個人攻撃でも「討論」で与えられている限り許可する必要がありますか? とんでもない。 あなたの論理は犠牲者を無視する論理です。
        • Google translation: You are wrong Do any offensive and insulting personal attacks need to be allowed as long as they are given in the "discussion"? No way. Your logic is the logic of ignoring the victim.
        • > 2. Admins should not judge disputes in which they are personally involved, due to conflict of interest.
        • Japanese:あなたは間違っています。adminは被害者を含む誰からの証拠も受け取ることができます。あなたの論理は明確な証拠をもみ消すことに役立つだけで、問題解決には何ら役に立ちません。
        • Google translation: You are wrong The admin can also receive evidence from anyone, including the victim. Your logic only helps to wipe out clear evidence, it doesn't help solve the problem at all.
        • > So a situation where (a) P-bot hands out warnings regarding a dispute he is a party of and (b) an admin just cursorily scans these warnings because he trusts P-bot - that's not a proper way to make a decision. Least of all, a serious decision such as blocking another respected member for 3 months.
        • Japanese: 嘘をつくのはやめてください。僕が警告を出したのは、adminであるARsygoさんの指示です。そしてadminたちはきちんと証拠を確認してくれました。あなたの決め付けによる言動はadminたちに失礼です。
        • Google translation: Please stop telling lies. I issued a warning according to the instructions of admin ARsygo. And the admins confirmed the evidence properly. Your branded words and deeds are rude to the admins.
        • > 3. My point is: Even if p-bot's claims of harassment were true (which they are not - see #1), this does not justify blocking me without any kind of warning.
        • Japanese: あなたは間違っています。あなたは自身で釈明の機会を放棄し、ブロックを受け入れました。「何ら警告なく」だと思っているのですか? 既に警告を豊富に受け取っているではないですか。しかも警告を受け取る前に、さんざんあなたは謝罪を促されています。それらをあなたが全て拒否した上での警告で、さらにそれをあなたが無視した上でのブロックです。
        • Google translation: You are wrong You abandoned the opportunity to explain yourself and accepted the block. Do you think "without any warning"? Haven't you already received a lot of warnings? And before you get the warning, you are being urged to apologize. It's a warning when you reject them all, and a block when you ignore them.
        • > I will also add that this entire fiasco started when I reported P-bot. I didn't want him banned or anything. I just wanted an admin to tell him to stop chasing me around and cool down his rhetoric a bit. I am still at a loss to explain, how such a routine request turned into this, and how - suddenly - I need to defend myself against completely outrageous accusations.
        • Japanese: 「dolus eventualis」という言葉をご存知でないですか? あなたは僕が誤ってブロックされたことの直接原因でありながら、僕へのブロックに対し一切の反論を行いませんでした。それどころかブロックが当然であるとの言動を繰り返し、嘘の情報をばらまきました。あなたの不適切な行動が、事態をここまで深刻化させた原因の1つです。
        • Google translation: Don't you know the word "dolus eventualis"? You did not argue against the block to me, even though it was the direct cause of my accidental block. On the contrary, he repeatedly said and acted that the block was natural, and scattered false information. Your improper behavior is one of the reasons that made things so serious.
        • p-adic 23:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
      • On the removal of warnings, the current policy only allows us to remove warnings which are invalidated (due to fake sourcing). So, the rule is not applied to valid warnings. However, I think that Hexirp is trying to maintain the rule so that we can move valid warnings to another suitable location such as a subpage of Googology Wiki:Policy. So, we can move them after we decide to update the current policy in that way.
      • p-adic 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

About Defenses

  • Now, your rebuttal to the five warnings that I have accepted as valid is needed. All other warnings have been disabled. You may be confused because the policy has only recently become more important...
  • Hexirp (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

new section

I am very confused about what just happened in here. However, I can say that, how on earth is "Nobody can create a number larger than Rayo" a harassment, when Psi clearly pointed out that he forgot about LNGN, and that there hasn't been any successful attempts at a number larger than Rayo for a decade, that he remembers? Similarly, many other statements are not harassments but P-bot overreacting.

But also, Psi, how come you get into big fights so much? You already left the wiki once before. At any rate, we really do need the definition of Q. My blog post only defines planar arrays, which are only sufficient to get us to Q2-2, and it will run out at approximately the same time as when your block ends. So can you please come back, at least to post the complete definition of Q?

Zongshu Wu 05:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the situation. I wrote a detailed reply here.
p-adic 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@12AbBa The situation is quite complex, so it would be hard to understand. I just point out that "Nobody can create a number larger than Rayo" was not judged as a valid warning for harrassment. Plain'N'Simple requested me to check if the warning 4 was valid. He said "I refuse to continue talking to a person who is this toxic and judgemental. And I definitely don't see any reason I should justify myself in front of such a person. And I apologize to everyone, for my attempts at getting something constructive out of this fiasco. Clearly I was too optimistic." Calling someone as "toxic and judgemental" is offensive and insulting. Plain'N'Simple could have said just sorry for insulting p進大好きbot, but refused to do so. I add that there was a long discussion between them before Plain'N'Simple called p進大好きbot as "toxic and judgemental", and Plain'N'Simple insists that as p進大好きbot was actually "toxic and judgemental" towards him, it is justified for such claim. But I don't see any reasonable reason for calling someone as "toxic and judgemental" just because there was a long mathematical discussion. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 07:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement