SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,316:
Line 1,316: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 05:48, September 17, 2015
, 05:48, September 17, 2015→Malicious and destructive edits and blocks: new section
::::I admit that "relativity denial" is a loaded phrase. But I'm not using it or anything else as a substitute for intellectual debate. I'm quite enjoying our intellectual debates on relativity and E=mc^2. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
::::I admit that "relativity denial" is a loaded phrase. But I'm not using it or anything else as a substitute for intellectual debate. I'm quite enjoying our intellectual debates on relativity and E=mc^2. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
:::::Einstein spent many years working on a "Grand Unified Theory" to replace relativity -- he was the greatest "relativity denier" of them all. Now there are quantum computers that operate on the basis of "ghostly action at a distance." This is a phenomenon that is not possible under relativity, and it is also something Einstein himself argued was a fallacy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
:::::Einstein spent many years working on a "Grand Unified Theory" to replace relativity -- he was the greatest "relativity denier" of them all. Now there are quantum computers that operate on the basis of "ghostly action at a distance." This is a phenomenon that is not possible under relativity, and it is also something Einstein himself argued was a fallacy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (EDT)
== Malicious and destructive edits and blocks ==
:::''If this is deleted, it will be sent to Andy by email. So he will see it no matter what.''
Andy recently wrote on my talk page, in response to my going on "sabbatical" for the length of EJamesW's block,
:Sam, this is devastating news about your Sabbatical! Will you be able to make an exception if more evidence is published contrary to the Theory of Relativity? I hope so.
:More seriously, many of your edits are appreciated. And thanks for you patience, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
Since then there have been a number of incidents of malicious and destructive behavior by a "sysop", that is, what is described in the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] as an "assistant".
To quote from the Guidelines:
::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''
This incidents have been:
*A block of me (rescinded shortly thereafter) for 44 days, for "trolling". I assume the choice of the number 44 was in honor of Presidant Obama.
*The block of SaulJ, for 5 months, for "trolling". His actual crime seems to have been making edits to the main talk page that sysops found annoying. Remember, ''If you replied to something, it can't have been "last-wordism" or "talk-talk-talk" in violation of 90/10.''
*The block of MarkLilly, for 2 years, for "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages".
After blocking MarkLilly, this person reverted many or all of his edits. ''This was absolutely destructive. If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.'' MarkLilly had made a number of improvements to articles on science. Reverting them was destructive to the content of Conservapedia. It was vandalism plain and simple.
Considering only the scientific edits (the field with which I am most familiar):
*[[Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing.
*[[Boson]]—Added the discovery of the Higgs at the LHC in 2012, and noted that the "Z" weak boson is often written with a superscript zero. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". It really is written that way, and the Higgs really was dicovered.
*[[Gluon]]—Added information about spin and color charge. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". These particles really do have spin and color charge.
*[[Pauli exclusion principle]]—Added information about fermion wave function asymmetry. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". Their wave functions really are antisymmetric.
*[[Hormone]]—Added information about Thymulin. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll".
*[[Large Hadron Collider]]—Added information about Higgs discovery. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". The Higgs really was discovered, at the LHC.
*[[Automated Teller Machine]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing. Marked for deletion with comment "stub originated by troll".
*[[Schizophrenia]]—Added information about treatment. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll".
*[[Muon]]—Added information about discoverer. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". Muons really were discovered by Carl Anderson.
*[[Navier-Stokes equations]]—Added information about incompressible flow. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll"
I know a fair amount about some of the above topics, and the edits were correct.
This person has been "stalking" me for quite some time now. Details on request, but I'm sure you know all about it. Lately his stalking has spilled over onto Ritionalwaki, where he created an account and made further accusations against me. He's been blocked, of course.
If Andy cares about scientific topics, and about my contributions to same, he needs to stop "assistants" from making ridiculous judgments about "trolling" and issuing ridiculous blocks. I can't contribute to scientific articles (relativity or otherwise) in the presence of this kind of behavior.
Let me repeat from the Guidelines:
::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''
Note that these "assistants" are being "evaluated for promotion", that is, the status is probationary. I submit that the evaluation period should be considered ended for this person, and he should be considered to have failed.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:48, 17 September 2015 (EDT)