Wikipedia:Account suspensions/JoshuaSchneider

User:Joshuaschroeder

Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 18:47, 22 November 2005, Ed Poor blocked Joshuaschroeder (expires 18:47, 23 November 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (disruption: redirects and page moves with no discernable reason)
  • I have tried many times to discover why Joshua continues to use the move function and/or redirect keyword to eliminate information relating to the topic of evolution. His explanations do not wash, and his actions are tantamount to censorship.
  • He appears determined to keep out of Wikipedia any information related to POVs which he disagrees with: a kind of POV-pushing in reverse. Uncle Ed 18:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked him as Ed blocking him after being personally involved in disputes with him is improper. You should have asked for assistance from an outside admin.

First you block Dunc yesterday, now JS. Should I be worried too? Because you seem to have lost it and are on a blocking rampage against anyone who's opposed you on creationism-related article. FeloniousMonk 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're over-generalizing - or is it a guilty conscience? ;-)

Believe me, I check with other admins / MedCom members - and have even asked arbcom members about this. I can show you the IRC logs. Uncle Ed 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Do so. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see Joshuaschroeder's contribs any longer; is this normal for a User page deletion? If so I find it insulting to a contributor; resigned or not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He requested a name-change to ScienceApologist so all his contributions now appear under that name. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not surprised that Joshua received a 24-hour ban. His point of view was the same in a number of other contentious articles, such as Talk:Redshift and Talk:Plasma_cosmology where he removed several items of information, despite peer-reviewed references and expert opinion. His editing of another article Electric Universe Book was frankly, a hatchet job. --Iantresman 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nor am I surprised Joshua tried to keep you in check. I find the following from Talk:Redshift a good executive summary: "Both Joshua Schroeder and Ian Tresman are correct." After reading the entire thing, and getting to the bottom and seeing: "However, do you mean the definition of redshift on the main article page?" after an insane amount of back and forth I'm not exactly impressed by you either. Essentially he removed things from articles that were best put in other minority view articles (meaning he wasn't simply removing/deleting things); and maybe he did do a hatchet job on the Electric Universe, but it is clear to me he was a knowledgable contributor. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, he has left Wikipedia, having branded himself an "apologist". I regard this as an admission that he has been promoting a POV - probably that science is right about evolution. When he abandons his desire to "keep all other POVs in check" and embraces this web site's policy of including controversial POVs in relevant articles, perhaps he will return. He's not under a ban; he left of his own accord. Uncle Ed 14:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My immediate response to that would be to contravene most aspects of WP:Civility. Suffice it to say I disagree with your "regard" to his admission. For example I would tweak "keep all other POVs in check" to keep minority views as minority views in primary articles, and relegate them – where appropriate – to their own articles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There's more at user talk:ScienceApologist [1]. Btw, you've mispelled Josh's surname. — Dunc|☺ 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)