Short summary on the discord-related incident

We (mainly User:kyodaisuu, User:Hexirp, User:koteitan, and so on) provided explanations and logic on the discord-related incident based on explicit sources so many times. On the other hand, a few members in discord including an administrator just repeat to insist fakes without showing sources, request us to spend time to explain the same thing so many time even though they ignore the explanation based on sources (cf. #Repetition of past arguments), and continue to enjoy and promote harassment and racism. Therefore, the repetition of explanations in details is just a waste of time, and I simply collect facts which we have explained so many times.

1. User:Cloudy176 and User:Username5243 were admins in this wiki. They were actually respected by users including me. However, they started to abuse their admin right to force us to follow their personal illegal philosophy "copyright should not exist". They repeated to break articles explaining the rule that we should not violate copyright, and reverted the removal of a material based on copyright issue.
2. This awful incident continued even after another admin persuaded them. We explained how human right was important, and cited FANDOM's terms of use which explicitly forbid copyright violation. However, they did not change their mind. Following FANDOM's guideline, we explained that admin right could not be abused to ignore the community decision, and voted for clarifying the community decision that we would not violate copyright.
3. However, they ignored the result of the voting, and User:Username5243 insisted that they did not understand why they needed to follow FANDOM's guideline that admin right could not be abused to ignore the community decision, i.e. that every user has equivalent user right in the community decision. Later, User:Username5243 tried to set the server discord as an official place of the community decision so that they could reject the participation of sound users in this community to the decision, but this also violated FANDOM's guideline that every user has the equivalent user right in the community decision.
4. User:Username5243 requested us to make FANDOM stuff to be involved if we continued to insist the invalidity of their abuse of admin right, and we simply followed the suggestion. Namely, we voted for making them normal users following the policy for the voting, and explained the result to FANDOM stuff following FANDOM's guideline. Then they became normal users. This is one of the beginning of the discord-related incident.
5. In the discord server, although many of members are mature and sound, a few immature members such as User:Ytosk and User:Eryx Jayakari are enjoying harassment and racism. The two members have personal hates toward me (and Japanese community), due to the fact that their mathematically wrong arguments have been corrected by me. A mature member would simply accept the corrections, but they just started enjoying and promoting harassment and racism. User:Cloudy176 and User:Username5243 supported the two by the personal hate, and then the discord server was once filled with harassment and racism by a few members. Since it was supported by the administrator User:Eryx Jayakari of the discord server, the polution was awful. Therefore we decided to stop regarding the discord server, which was clearly inconsistent with FANDOM's terms of use, as an official server of this wiki.
6. Several mature members tried to stop the bad atmosphere in the discord server, but as you all know, people who enjoy harassment and racism rarely listen to others. User:Spelpotatis, who is now an administrator of the discord server, promised to solve the discord-related issue, but the situation does not become better. The biggest cause of this incident is that the few immature members repeat to insist wrong claims without showing sources, and bother to check sources which prove counteropinions.

In addition, it is good to know how they attack this wiki:

1. User:Cloudy176 created a personal attacking article in the main space in this wiki.
2. They repeat to claim something like "p進大好き is playing SANCTION GAME in this wiki. Therefore the user should be blocked.", but FANDOM forbids such a blocking based on a rule which is not justified by the policy or Terms of use. On the other hand, they are persistently continuing to blaim me for SANCTION GAME without showing any justification by the policy of Terms of use, even when we explained the invalidity of the logic. This shows that the ones who are actually playing SANCTION GAME are they.
3. They repeated tone-policing, which is one of typical tools in harassment and racism, like "p進大好きbot's sentences are bad. Therefore people should not listen to the user, and the user should be blocked", even after I clarified that my English might be incorrect and I would follow suggestions of rephrasing specific words if they corrected ones. I explained that tone-policing does not solve the situation unless they specify what to correct, but they simply ignore it.
   1. Many users in this wiki, including a native speaker, explained that my English was appropriate. So, hiding specific sentences makes the situation bad, because what to correct is quite non-trivial. Moreover, many of their claims are based on unsourced descriptions heard from other members or wrong logic which we have already been disproved.
   2. FANDOM's guideline clarifies that the blocking should not be used when an issue on the target user can be solved in other ways such as dialogue. Since I explained that I would follow suggestions to of rephrasing specific words and I would apologise for other issues if they showed explicit sources. However, they just ignore the suggestions so that I could follow nothing specific. (There are several exceptions. Say, User:C7X politely explained several times how to rephrase specific wordings instead of them, and I honestly followed the suggestions.)
   3. Especially User:Username5243 and User:Eryx Jayakari promote harassment and racism by blaming that a victim should keep silent in order to make old members have unbalanced right and to enjoy "harmony" of two communities according to their logic. However, it is non-sense to expect the unbalance of human right and to insist the attacker's logic to force the harmony based on victims.
4. They require to spend time so many times by insisting what we have already denied. Namely, they tend to repeat to raise a topic without showing sources (and hence without spending much time), and force us to waste time to repeatedly explain the past discussion. Since the targets of this attack are two or three users, the repetition of the requirement to waste time from many members in discord (possible with distinct user names of identical users) is effective for them. If the discord server had the self-maintaining ability to inform the few immature members of the basic principle of non bis in idem, then this issue would be immediately solved.
5. They rarely show explicit sources. They just repeat fakes based on what others said rather than sources. Even when we show explicit sources which disprove their fakes, they just ignore evidences. Say, I have requested User:Username5243 to show sources of his or her labeling aimed at me several times, but he or she never followed it. On the other hand, I explained that FANDOM clarified that violation of copyright was not allowed and that normal users and admins had equivalent right in the community decision by citing FANDOM's rules, but he or she simply ignored them.

As a conclusion, the discord-related incident is just based on personal hates, negligence of human right, and childish attitude enjoying harassment and racism by the few immature members in discord.

Couteropinion from members in discord

1. Ubersketch: "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think even if Cloudy176 disapproved of copyright on philosophical grounds, I think they were never for ignoring FANDOM's policy on copyright."
   1. p進大好きbot: "Could you tell me the reason? Reverting the removal of a material which was removed due to the copyright issue, destruction of articles explaining the rule for copyright without the community's agreement (and even with disagreement by voting), and insiting that we could freely upload licensed mathematical papers in a way violating licensing are obviously violating FANDOM's terms of use. We have discussed it so many times, and hence if you have a new aspect which ensures that the discussion was bad, please specify the reason."
      1. Ubersketch: "No I mean, Cloudy was in support of not allowing copyrighted material on to the wiki since it could get the wiki blocked or something along those lines."
         1. p進大好きbot: "It conflicts the fact, which has already been discussed with sources, that Cloudy and Username tried to abuse admin right to force us to violate copyright. Please specify a source of your claim including that our conclusion is wrong in your next reply."
            1. Ubersketch: "Sorry for responding so late, I have not been able to locate the copyright thread. If someone could link it for me, that would be appreciated."
               1. kyodaisuu: "Written here at the top https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Googology_Wiki:Users_casepage I guess that as p-bot writes this way, Cloudy hates p-bot. But do you know why this started? Because Cloudy tried to ban p-bot. Proof is in the pinned messages in #wiki-talk. He failed it last June and planned this month again. If it fails, he may do it next year. Every time, this discussion repeats. How long does it continue?"
                  1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has not specified a source of his or her claim, and has not answered a question.
2. Ubersketch: "Also, accusations of racism seem strange given that I've only seen any substantial amount of dislike towards you and not other Japanese googologists even if they support you (!)"
   1. p進大好きbot: "It is perhaps because he or she has already left the server due to harassment and racism... Before requesting people in this wiki to spend time to show sources again, please ask mature members in the server, because they can immediately collect sources. One strange thing is that you reverted the decision in this wiki on he treatment of the server, even before searcing what they have done."
      1. Unsolved: Ubersketch expresses neither agreement nor disagreement to the fact that his or her reverting the decision in this wiki on he treatment of the server, the decision in this wiki on the treatment of the server was inappropriate.
3. Ubersketch: "I find the comment about tone policing interesting for a few reasons. Tone policing is defined as a ad hominem argument along the lines of “You’re speaking in bad tone so you’re wrong,” but it seems more like “You’re speaking in bad tone so I don’t want to talk to you in the first place regardless of whether you’re right or wrong.” in this particular case. I think this extends into your mainspace edits since people find them antagonistic but never say they’re incorrect and sometimes they even acknowledge that they are correct."
   1. p進大好きbot: "It sounds strange. Please check their edits on TREE. And your thoughts are based on your personal experience, aren't you...? We are always taking about what we have sources. So, even if you do not know any examples, it is strange to believe that they never judged that my edits were incorrect."
      1. C7X: "Getting this back on track to the parent comment, I agree with Ubersketch that "tone policing" isn't the right label for the past criticism of PBot's edits. According to a quote given on Wikipedia, "Tone policing has been described by one writer as 'when someone (usually a privileged person) in a conversation or situation about oppression shifts the focus of the conversation from the oppression being discussed to the way it is being discussed.' " Including if we broaden the focus of the conversation in question from shutting down discussions just about oppression but to shutting down any sort of debate, this characterization of tone policing still doesn't cover criticizing an edit someone made on a wiki. I suppose instead, criticism of such an edit is more accurately described as about "encyclopedic tone" if the edit is perceived as being too harsh/critical for the mainspace (e.g. an edit condemning another user for "manipulation" on a mainspace article may not be considered appropriate for the wiki), although if we follow the separation of this wiki's policy from Wikipedia's, this label may not be considered 100% accurate since this wiki doesn't have its own tone guide."
         1. p進大好きbot: "I disagree. At any rate, this wiki has a problem that several users posts unsourced/wrong descriptions. So, reverting the correction of those fakes without any discussion cannot be justified by the incorrectness of the tone. This is actually negligence of the actual issue due to the focus on tone. In addition, the server allowed Cloudy to (ask you to) create a page directly suggestiong to block me due to the tone, without trying to solve the issue. This is another evidence of the fact that it is actually tone policing. One strange thing is that we have already discussed it, but you repeated this topic again."
      2. Unsolved: Ubersketch expresses neither agreement nor disagreement to the fact that even if he or she does not know an example of people's bad labelings toward my edits, it is unreasonable to believe that there were no such examples.
4. Ubersketch: "Whether this judgement is warranted I can’t say, but I have seen little to no intellectual objections to any of your arguments."
   1. p進大好きbot: "Even if you just judged me that our arguments are bad, it is unreasonable to ignore counteropinions to your opinion. Say, you have simply ignored our explanations on why the server was not official for us anymore in the talk page, and you reverted the deletion tag."
      1. Ubersketch: "Of course, I believed there was a conflict of interest since you have expressed grievances against the Discord before. Now I am not so sure whether to leave the link on at the current moment."
         1. p進大好きbot: "Could you explain the relation to my reply? I said that you should not ignore actual discussions, and decide to revert the deletion tag based on the decision of the discussion. I cannot find any justifiction of your negligence of our discussions using "conflict of interest"."
            1. Ubersketch: "In the linked thread I posted the following comment: "I reverted the edit because I don't think Plain' N' Simple and p-adic represent the community here as a whole. Given how many prolific users of this wiki use the Googology Discord as a forum of discussion, I think it should still be linked. I can get behind a disclaimer saying that it isn't official or something like that though. For now, I will be keeping the deletion template, but preserved the contents of the page. I do think there is a conflict of interest here given the history between the Discord community and p-adic and Plain' N' Simple, so believe this issue needs further consideration with more users of the wiki weighing in.""
            2. p進大好きbot: "This only explains why you wanted to do so, and does not answer my question. Please explain why you think that you can ignore the decision of this community given through a discussion, without permission? It is actually a problem, as you ignored it without permission."
               1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has not explained the justification of the negligence of actual discussions.
5. Ubersketch: "I think I think in general the Googology admin team has always had a problem with drama, like with the poor handling of Edwin Shade's vandalism and disruption. it would be better to find common ground instead of immediately heading to blocking."
   1. p進大好きbot: "The current active admins in this wiki do not choose a way to immediately block inappropriate users. We are always trying to have dialogue or give chances to give apology. Also, the claim that we are immediately blocking users who are inappropriate is fakes spead by Username, B0123S6a, and Plain'N'Simple without any sources whose logics have not already disproved. So why you are continuing to insist it? Could you show the source of your claim?"
      1. Ubersketch: "No, I mean I was referring to the fact that Cloudy was planning to block you."
         1. p進大好きbot: "It sounds strange. Then why do you mentioned "in general the Googology admin team has always had a problem with drama"? If the claim is irrelevant to our admins, you should not include them. Please clarify in your next reply why you included our admins."
            1. Ubersketch: "Please do not create claims of racism and harassment on my part without evidence as it decreases productivity of discussion."
               1. p進大好きbot: "Where have I created the claims? Please clarify the sentence."
                  1. Ubersketch (citing p進大好きbot's comment "Have the majority of discord members tried to educate immature "main" members to stop harassment or racism? If yes, don't you have something to tell Ubersketch not to do? If no, why do you ignore the fact and only pick up what they have dealt with?"): "Please do not create claims of racism and harassment on my part without evidence as it decreases productivity of discussion. Of course, this may be a misinterpretation on my part. If so, I apologize."
                     1. p進大好きbot: "But you are citing my questions to C7X's comment. I do not understand why this can be counted as "creating claims of racism and harassment on your part without evidence"."
                        1. 'Unsolved: Ubersketch has not answered the intention.
      2. Ubersketch: "I just think the administrators are no doing enough to prevent mean spirited discussion like from User:ReflectingOrdinal in a recent blog post. Furthermore, Cloudy is part of the mod team and has been for a long time, including during the Edwin Shade situation, so I will include him. You may have been misinterpreting my comment."
         1. p進大好きbot: "Right. Honestly I did not understand whether "mod" or "administrators" in your sense mean admins in this wiki or admins in the server. You mean the latter one, right?"
            1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has not answered the meaning.
      3. Ubersketch: "Do not assume that all users are against you."
         1. p進大好きbot: "Here, you gave a fake not based on sources. Where have I clarified the assumption? I clarified that there are mature members in the server, and the problem is mainly caused by the few members. So, please specify a source of your statement in your next reply, if you think that you are honestly discussing on the topic."
            1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has not show a source.
         2. p進大好きbot: "Of course, although the cause is the few members, the actual issue is that the discord community has not seriously persuaded Cloudy's preparation. We are focussing on the atmosphere in the server, which allows harassment and fakes/labelings aimed at users in this wiki. People, especially administrators, in the server should be responsible for allowing the few members' repeatitive inapproprate attitude."
            1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has expressed neither agreement or disagreement against the fact that People, especially administrators, in the server should be responsible for allowing the few members' repeatitive inapproprate attitude.
            2. C7X: I've counted 12 messages sent in the past 7 days that have either an attached screenshot or a link to a GWiki comment as evidence, so I don't believe the claim that the server allows fake info.
               1. p進大好きbot: "Your logic is "Since there exists and example that people are seeing sources, they do not allow any fakes". You can see how wrong this logic is. Indeed, you know that Cloudy prepared his or her documment including fakes which have already been disproved, but nobody seriously persuaded to correct them and stop him or her so that this incident came true. In addition, you see that Ubersketch is insisting an unsourced claim which conflicts what we have already discussed. This is an actual example of a fake not based on sources."
                  1. Unsolved: C7X has not explained the validity of his or her logic, which has been denied.
            3. C7X: "Members of the server are aware of how users suspected of harassment are treated (e.g. given special roles such as "Pi_0-reflecting", which strips permissions from viewing some channels), and there has recently been action taken against trolls such as "Anonymous Anonymous" who have persisted to harass others. So I don't believe the claim that the server has an atmosphere allowing harassment and evidence-less claims."
               1. p進大好きbot: "The same logic. Restriction to specific trolls does not make sense, because this is also a problem on the main members. Please answer the next questions: Have the majority of discord members tried to educate immature "main" members to stop harassment or racism? If yes, don't you have something to tell Ubersketch not to do? If no, why do you ignore the fact and only pick up what they have dealt with?"
                  1. C7X: "This states "if the majority of Discord members educate immature members to stop harassment or racism, then C7X should tell Ubersketch to stop doing [something]." The "something" that I should tell Ubersketch to stop doing is implied to be harassment or racism from the context."
                     1. p進大好きbot: "If my sentence seriously justifies your implication, then my phrasing was misleading. As I clarified in the body of the blog post, one of the biggest issues is that members in the discord repeat to insist what we have already denied. So, my intention was that if the majority of discord members have already educated immature "main" members, then it is time to recongnise the significance of non bis in idem in order not to waste our time. But the comments by Ubersketch include such a topic. That is why I asked it. Then, could you answer my questions which you cited?"
                  2. Unsolved: C7X has not answered questions.
6. Ubersketch: "This is why I dislike the environment in Googology Wiki nowadays." (This is a reply to my corrections of a discord member's fake statements, including harassment by labeling aimed at p進大好きbot.)
   1. p進大好きbot: "I appreciate if you specify my bad wordings and ways to correct them, instead of ambiguously stating that I am bad. You see that this discord member is thoroughly ignoring the actual mathematical issues even after I logically explained how he or she confounded two distinct notions, and explained that clarifying his or her statement which has no proof as an obvious fact is inappropriate. Then the user indirectly started to insult me as if I were a fale mathematician with no serious publishment in mathematical journals, and suggest another user to ignore me. Do you still one-sidedly think that this discord member is appropriate?"
      1. Ubersketch: "Oh, this was an objection with respect to ReflectingOrdinal's behavior for the most part. I think the accusations of you not being a trained mathematician are unwarranted since you are understandably private on those matters. False evidenceless accusations decrease the quality of discussion."
         1. p進大好きbot: "But this user is not an active user in this wiki, and as you can see, the user is a discord member trying to invite a user in this wiki to discord. So, isn't it strange for you to judge that the environment in this wiki is bad?"
            1. Unsolved: Ubersketch has not justified the estimation.
7. Spelpotatis: "Could you provide a list of problematic members and what they have done? It would make it easier to sort this out if we know which members to talk to and what to talk to them about."
   1. p進大好きbot: "Thank you. Since I replied yesterday to the place (which you know) and you have not checked them, please reply it and first try to solve the issues which have already been pointed out. I clarified that collecting simultaneously all sources at once is not effective anymore, as they just ignore them. Say, I sent you the sources of one of the inappropriate attitude by them and you have already checked it, right? Then please try to solve the issue first, before simultaneously trying to all issues, because this very long incident is not so simple. I can sare you sources in a step-by-step way."
      1. Unsolved: Spelpotatis has not replied to the location which p進大好きbot suggested, answered a question, and solved the issue.
   2. p進大好きbot: "Well, after solving the issue, if you just request me to list problematic members before collecting sources again and again, please consider Cloudy, Username, Eryx, Ytosk, and B0123S6a first. They are not only members who are problematic, but it is not good to simultaneously deal with all issues. I clarify that dealing with the four specific people before solving the issue is not a good solution, because the problem is that the atmosphere in the server allowing harassment and the unreaonable repetition of requests to users in this wiki to spend time for past discussions. For example, you can see that Ubersketch (perhaps unintentionally, because I know that he or she is usually very polite) is actually giving an example of the inappropriate attitudes, i.e. requesting us to spend time by ... He or she can avoid from wasting time of users in this wiki by simply searching past discussions or asking the details to mature members in the server, instead of requesting us to spend time for the same topic again and again. An even worse thing is that he or she reverted the deletion tag for the link to the server without permission after the decision of the deletion, and ignored our explanation of the past discussion. As long as members in the server repeat the requests to users in this wiki to spend time for past discussions and ignore actual counteropinions based on sources, the situation does not become better. In order to guarantee that you will make the server better, could you explain Ubersketch not to repeat it? I am certain that he or she is basically an excellent googologist, and can listen to trusted people like you, unlike me."
      1. Unsolved: Spelpotatis has not replied to the location which p進大好きbot suggested, and solved the issues, and answered the request.

Repetition of past arguments

I collect evidences that members in the discord server require us to spend time by repeating arguments which we have already discussed in this wiki:

1. Ubersketch insisted that Cloudy has never violated FANDOM's terms of use, although we have already discussed it.
   1. Since Ubersketch is a polite person, I strongly believe that he or she unfortunately trusted unsourced claims by other members.
2. Ubersketch insisted that nobody has ever stated that p進大好きbot's edits were incorrect, although there are several specific incidents that the correctness of p進大好きbot's explanations were doubted or reverted without any justification.
   1. A new example is given by a discord member User:ReflectingOrdinal, who has been globally blocked by FANDOM due to excessive harassment/racism.
   2. This example is also a proof that their claim that there is no victim of harassment/racism from members in discord is wrong.
3. Ubersketch and C7X insisted that there was no tone-policing, although we have already discussed why it can be counted as tone-policing.
   1. See the next line for the tone-policing.
4. Cloudy repeatedly insisted that I should be blocked due to SANCTION GAME and "tone" of mathematical corrections, but there are three points explaining the incorrectness of the statement, which we have already explained:
   1. Since FANDOM forbids such a block which is not justified in the policy or Terms of use, the reasoning by SANCTION GAME is wrong.
   2. Blocking is allowed in FANDOM only when a problem cannot be solved in other ways, e.g. dialogue. Since I have already clarified several times that if they tell me what to do in a logical way (i.e. excluding "Never write a correction" or something unreasonable) and Cloudy has never tried to hold dialogue with me, the reasoning based on repetitive tone policing violates FANDOM's guideline.
   3. The attitude by Cloudy repeating the claim that I should be blocked even after I clarified that I would like to hold dialogue is, ironically, SANCTION GAME. So, even if we allowed SANCTION GAME as a valid reasoning, then the one who should be blocked due to SANCTION GAME refusing dialogue is Cloudy.

We are always waiting you for having honest dialogue, Cloudy. There should be no reason why you cannot tell me what to do, if you actually have something logical that I can follow. It is inconstructive to keep silent when we gave counteropinions and to try again to make us to spend additional time for your repetition of the one-sided claim. Or do you even keep ignoring this suggenstion, because my tone is wrong for you? If you purely want to make this wiki better, it is good even for you to solve the issue, i.e. to lose the reason why I should be blocked in your personal judgement, isn't it?