Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − == [[Axiom of Choice]] == − Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC). − − Brief summary: − *AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning. − *Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM. − *BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct. − *[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk". − *BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue. − *I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts. − *Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow. − *When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer."). − The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST) − :Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST) − ::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST) − :::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST) − ::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens. − ::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.'' − ::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness. − ::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble'' − ::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim. − ::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.'' − ::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push. − ::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance'' − ::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST) − − A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST) − − I think this is just ''bad style'': − # 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk) − − *looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline − *granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong − *for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked... − − Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles? − --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST) − ::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST) − − :::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 17:19, December 4, 2008
, 17:19, December 4, 2008→Axiom of Choice: 2nd of all, this is not an important article.
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]
==Range Blocks==
==Range Blocks==