Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions. This thread has been reissued as a post rather than a page as the “ignore commenter” button does not apply to threads started as pages.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Alan,
You made an accusation of hypocrisy. I challenged you to back it up. You have been squirming ever since to avoid answering my challenge.
If you recognize that your accusation is false, then do the honest thing and retract it. If you actually think that it’s true, then do the honest thing and support it.
Your dishonesty and evasions are pitiful. You might as well hang a sign around your neck reading “Unfit to be a moderator.”
DNA_Jock:
Actually, you haven’t taken the advice to heart. You’ve rushed to judgment again regarding both of the issues you raised in your comment. It really is your Achilles heel, Jock. You ought to have someone take a look at it.
I need to run some errands and have lunch. I’ll explain your mistakes when I get back. Meanwhile, this will give Alan more time to avoid my questions.
If you insist. You berate me for asking Alurker/Patrick his views on sockpuppeting. You confirm that sockpuppetry is reprehensible. You are too impatient to give Patrick an opportunity to explain himself and insist I should back up a claim (which I didn’t make – although it would be obvious to Patrick why I was asking). So I point out that Alurker is using Patrick’s IP to comment here, while Patrick still has a functional account of his own. And he was, as Alurker espousing views exactly in line with those he has expressed as Patrick. That’s classic sockpuppetry. Now you seem to think I’m still the villain here. It’s also amazing how you are trying to deflect from acknowledging Patrick’s dishonesty. Dishonesty while accusing others of dishonesty.
You find that funny? I don’t.
Enjoy your lunch and take a little time to reflect. Try and see yourself as others see you.
Alan writes:
Oh, the irony. Alan’s worst nightmare is to see himself as others do.
keiths,
Run along and enjoy some real life. I’m done here for this evening.
Let’s see, what is my IP address? 40.133.236.194 In Seattle, WA. In the hotel I am at for a conference. That I’ve never stayed at before.
Or you could be talking about the Tor exit node IP address. I use Tor because I don’t trust the administrators of most sites I visit.
Apparently, I should be more careful of this one as well. Alan has no compunction about using his access to search through login records to match people up. Badly.
I seem to remember something in the rules about this kind of thing. Here it is:
ETA6 includes this:
So not only is Alan wrong, he’s demonstrated breaking a rule that results in people being banned from TSZ.
Will you be doing the honors, Neil?
And this is the sort of magnificent theater we have waiting for us on every thread if we just stop guano-ing altogether. I vote for no more gauno-ing!
Oh, man. This is hilarious.
I’m glad I brought my phone to lunch with me.
William,
You have it exactly backwards. Guanoing, at the incompetent hands of Alan and Neil, is exactly why this train wreck took place.
This blog is slowing down or dying because of 2 problems:
1. I don’t have the full rights to publish without censorship
2. People like keiths are a destructive force
Solution: I’m starting my own blog where everyone can post anything that is not offensive to 12 year old kids. If they do, they are gone after 2 violations.
This blog has become a haven for retarded and retired people who think they know everything and they have all the time in the world to try to prove it…
Mung has already given up…
Why?
J-Mac:
I’m sure it will be a resounding success, and that everyone except the “retarded and retired people” will follow you there, leaving TSZ forlorn and desolate.
Does this mean you’ll be doing another “say goodbye to J-Mac” thread? Yay!
ALurker,
I am confused. You are accusing Alan of “doxxing” you, because he revealed that you are posting from the same IP address as Patrick, which, as you note, could just be a consequence of using the same Tor node. How is this doxxing, unless you are Patrick? How is this doxxing, even if you are Patrick?
Also, what are your views on sock-puppetry? You didn’t say. You didn’t deny being Patrick, either.
Confusions should not be the dominating factor on this blog provided the great majority of the participants could recall what the confusion was all about in the first place….
DNA_Jock, to ALurker:
Sure sounded like it to me.
ALurker wrote this…
…and this:
Okay, Jock. On to your latest “rush to judgment” errors, as promised. Here’s an explanation of the first one:
I wrote:
You responded:
That was false. You continued:
It was neither, and you could have easily figured that out if you’d exercised a bit of discipline. Look at all the comments that were right in front of you:
keiths:
And:
And:
And:
And:
Could you really not figure out from those comments that I was talking about Alan’s dishonesty? Did the repeated use of the words ‘lie’ and ‘lying’ not register with you?
Dude, slow down and exercise some discipline. Gather the evidence first and then make your judgments.
Sal:
As I noted the other day:
ALurker,
Just to clarify some points.
I take a keen interest in new registrations as we have been inundated by spam registrations in the past (peaking at over 60,000) so I’m always interested to make sure real registrations are activated as soon as possible.
Recently Alurker registered and requested an OP be published, which I did. There was something a little familiar about his posting style and, over the course of a few days during which Alurker has posted 120 or so comments, I began to notice an eerie similarity with that of our former admin, Patrick.
This prompted me to look at our comment records – a list of all 200,000 or so comments made since this blog started – each comment recorded together with the IP address from which the comment was received. It is a simple matter to add a search item to the filter and when I did that using one of the IP addresses for Alurkers comments I got 130 results: 44 comments by Alurker and 86 by Patrick.
I find Alurker’s response to my query unsatisfactory. So I’ve suspended both Alurker’s and Patrick’s accounts and will be asking our blog owner Dr. Liddle, for her input. As Alurker and Patrick will not be able to post comments to the blog or use the message system until we resolve the issue, here is my email address: alanfox@free.fr if they wish to enter into discussion.
Alan:
What specifically do you find “unsatisfactory” about ALurker’s response?
What rule are you invoking to justify the suspension of the accounts?
Also, did you do an IP lookup on the address?
If so, what were the results?
keiths,
I don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss details of individual accounts. So far all I have done is asked Alurker for an explanation as to why 44 of his comments are recorded as coming from the same IP address as 86 from Patrick. Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation. But I’m not prepared to discuss this further in public. I’ve contacted Lizzie and Patrick and I’m waiting for their input.
As Alurker has posted an IP address, I guess you are free to search the details yourself. I would ask you not to post any personal information in this venue without the permission of the person concerned.
Alan,
I haven’t asked you to.
You’ve also suspended ALurker’s account along with Patrick’s.
Why not?
Is that IP address the same as the one you referred to above, which matches 44 of his comments and 86 of Patrick’s?
I wouldn’t think of doing that.
Now, please answer my questions:
What specifically do you find “unsatisfactory” about ALurker’s response?
What rule are you invoking to justify the suspension of the accounts?
Also, did you do an IP lookup on the address?
If so, what were the results? (I am not asking for details that would reveal identities.)
keiths,
How much more clearly do I need to say this? The subject is closed until Lizzie responds.
Alan,
On what basis?
Lizzie created the Moderation Issues thread precisely for the discussion of moderation issues. This is a moderation issue if there ever was one.
You have taken the unusual step of suspending two accounts. You have not explained why. The commenters of TSZ — including ALurker — have a right to know why you have taken this rather severe action.
ALurker also has a right to respond here. If you cannot justify the suspension, then ALurker’s access should be restored immediately. Patrick’s too, of course.
You are a moderator. Please answer my questions, all of which are perfectly appropriate for the Moderation Issues thread. I have added two new ones at the end:
What specifically do you find “unsatisfactory” about ALurker’s response?
What rule are you invoking to justify the suspension of the accounts?
Also, did you do an IP lookup on the address?
If so, what were the results? (I am not asking for details that would reveal identities.)
Will you restore ALurker’s and Patrick’s accounts immediately?
If not, then tell us why.
Also, you haven’t answered this question:
Obviously more clearly. The subject is closed until Lizzie responds.
keiths,
And no matter how many times you ask, the subject is closed until Lizzie responds.
And so Alan has once again demonstrated why he is unfit to be a moderator.
Alan,
It’s clear that you have a personal interest in silencing ALurker, whose comments have been critical of you. In the past you’ve exposed yourself as a dishonest moderator who will use moderation privileges for his personal benefit.
Given your history of abuse, I would like to see some evidence that you are not abusing your powers in this instance and that you have a legitimate rule-based justification for the unusual actions you have taken.
Reading through the rules, I see none that justify the action you’ve taken. Your refusal to provide a justification suggests that you have none. If so, you are obligated to restore ALurker’s and Patrick’s accounts immediately.
Lizzie created the Moderation Issues thread precisely so that moderators would be accountable to the commenters for their actions. I am a commenter, and I am asking you to account for your severe moderation action.
Please respond to my questions immediately, and please restore ALurker’s and Patrick’s accounts immediately if you cannot or will not justify your actions.
I was the first to point out that Alurker was a spy, but I don’t think anyone wanted to believe it.
Now even more intrigue as we find out there was bad blood between Patrick and Alan all along.
I guess its just the fact that atheists don’t really have any moral underpinnings to fall back on, so they are bound to have all kinds of nefarious and dastardly schemes of trying to knife each other in the back constantly.
Its kind of ugly when you have to watch the animalistic nature of man, who has no guidance.
I am sure Mung would find it particularly distasteful.
ALurker wrote:
I confirmed that the IP address is indeed in Seattle and that it belongs to Moody National, a company that manages hotels there.
I asked Alan specifically if that IP address was the same one that matched the comments from both ALurker and Patrick. He didn’t answer my question, but another statement of his seems to indicate that it was the same IP address:
Alan reports that 44 of ALurker’s comments came from that IP address. That fits quite plausibly with what ALurker said about staying at the hotel for the first time. 86 of Patrick’s comments came from that address, which also fits with the idea of a hotel stay or stays.
So ALurker’s story checks out, and it is quite possible that both ALurker and Patrick ended up with matching IP addresses during separate hotel stays.
That’s hilarious. Yes phoodoo, that must be it. Theists never try to backstab each other like that. Nope, never happens. You nailed it. 🙂
Ouch, Rumraket, I read that as an allusion to Calvary.
I’ll get me coat.
keiths,
Thank you kindly for following through on your promise to show me the error of my ways, for once.
When you asked me “It’s getting a bit harder to maintain your “I haven’t seen any evidence of Alan’s dishonesty” stance, isn’t it”, you had yet to make the accusation that “Not implying, just asking” was a lie. So I assumed, based on that chronology, that it was the subterfuge of asking for ALurker’s views on sockpuppetry that you were referring to as “dishonesty”.
I am glad to hear that it is the alleged dishonesty of “Not implying, just asking” that you are hanging your hat on here. That makes my role much easier.
Now, keiths, when I explain this, I implore you to step back a little, and try not to let your emotions cloud your judgement.
Here’s the explanation that I wrote before your latest comment to me:
Keiths:
Alan:
Keiths:
Keiths, do you see what you did there? You projected onto Alan’s simple statement a whole pile of extra stuff that he didn’t write. Then, because you have convinced yourself that he actually claimed his question was “apropos of nothing”, that he was lying when he responded to you.
That’s all on you, mate. You do this all the time. It’s pathological.
Try this for size:
The question “Where were you between 9 and 11 last night, when your girlfriend was killed?” does NOT imply that you killed her. It does reveal a motivation on the part of the questioner to determine whether or not you killed her. Can you see the difference?
So Alan was “Not implying, just asking”.
Now we agree that he was not “just asking, apropos of nothing”, but he never said that. That’s your projection. You do it all the time. Please, for your own sake, try to stop.
Is the sting really that bad, Jock?
Our fear of not receiving garbled, ignorant responses is slightly exaggerated in their minds.
Glen Davidson
Thank God for the moral character demonstrated by 81% of evangelicals who gave us our current moral exemplar as president.
Its kind of ugly when you have to watch the animalistic nature of man, who has no guidance.
Poor delicate mung
Nooo. I don’t want TSZ to die. I get all this free-of-charge editorial review of my ideas. I’ve actually sold some of my cleaned up ideas to ID patrons for $. TSZ must continue.
Well, you’d better continue to torment us with the many fruitful conversation with Hirschman on the common descent thingy…lol
Cleaned but still wrong
The actual rule is:
Speculating on the identities of commenters is not allowed.
Actually, Alan is wrong in a lot of ways. He refuses to enforce the rules as written (see fifthmonarchyman’s comments). He makes up new rules (making the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread an extension of Noyau). He breaks the rules himself (attempted outing). I imagine Barry Arrington is taking notes.
Somehow that’s not so funny now.
It’s the weekend. You’ve had your time to ignore the rules, add new rules, and break the rules, all without any input from Lizzie. It’s pretty obvious that you don’t really think you need her approval for anything.
So just tell us how it’s going to be. Are you going to let fifthmonarchyman keep breaking the rules? Are you going to continue to treat “Do Atheists Exist?” as another version of Noyau, despite the thread author asking you not to? Are you going to speculate some more on my real life identity (check my IP — perhaps I’m Frankie now)? The rules as written are obviously not the rules the site is operating under. The least you could do is tell us what the real rules are.
Evading these question makes you look like you’re trying to distract and avoid doing your job as moderator. TSZ deserves better.
I’m out of here for the rest of the weekend. This is exactly why I usually just lurk. It’s not worth the time and frustration of getting involved, even on a site I really liked.
Welcome back, ALurker!
I appreciate the reply, ALurker, but you didn’t answer my question(s).
When you wrote:
you were explicitly referring to ETA6, the doxxing rule, and not to the “no speculation” rule, since that rule does not carry the banning penalty, just deletion.
Yes, but you are acting as something of an agent provocateur in this regard. If you care, I can explain why I believe your reaction to fmm is a mistake…
Conceptually, I have no problem with moderators making new provisional rules, subject to Lizzie’s sovereignty. OTOH, and since you have objected, I disagree with making “Do Atheists Exist?” a gloves-off thread.
As I note above, I don’t see his behavior as the attempted outing of an IRL persona.
Would you satisfy my curiosity: have you ever posted here under a different handle?
Someone with moderation privileges has restored ALurker’s ability to post. Would that person care to explain to readers exactly what is going on here, and why?
DNA_Jock:
Are you seriously, and with a straight face, telling us that you don’t see Alan’s actions as an attempt to out ALurker as Patrick?
Jock,
These are Alan’s words, addressed directly to you:
How did you manage to read those words and not comprehend them? Or did you read them, find them inconvenient to your position, and discard them?
What has happened to you, man?
No, I am not.
You are smart enough to spot the difference, I hope…
Jock:
I can see the straws you’re grasping at, but I’m not dumb enough to grasp them myself.
Patrick has identified himself here as the real-life person Patrick May. Alan knows this, of course. So the attempted outing of ALurker as Patrick was also the attempted outing of ALurker as Patrick May.
A little thinking can save you a lot of embarrassment, Jock.
Oh God, keiths, can you not help yourself?
Someone please redact keiths`s comment; it’s rule-breaking.
Maybe then he can spend the time to read the reasoning behind the no-doxxing rule.