Moderation Issues (4)

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.

714 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (4)

  1. 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.”

  2. DNA_Jock:

    Someone on some blog warned me that I was bedeviled by my “tendency to rush to judgement before gathering the facts”. I’ve taken the advice to heart.

    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.

  3. keiths: What specifically have I done that was hypocritical?

    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.

  4. keiths: I need to run some errands and have lunch.

    Enjoy your lunch and take a little time to reflect. Try and see yourself as others see you.

  5. Alan writes:

    Try and see yourself as others see you.

    Oh, the irony. Alan’s worst nightmare is to see himself as others do.

  6. Alan Fox:
    keiths,
    While waiting for a response from Alurker, maybe you could answer a technical question.

    How is it that Alurker has the same IP address as our former admin, Patrick?

    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:

    Don’t use this site to try to “out” other internet denizens or indulge in ad hominem speculations. Such speculations may, notwithstanding general principles regarding deletion, be deleted. ETA 13th June 2015: please read the guidlines in ETA6 below and note that the rule applies even if the person in question has made the information possible to find out)

    ETA6 includes this:

    People are banned for one reason only: to ensure that we don’t get posts containing the very narrow range of material that is not allowed here, namely porn/malware (or links to); and material that gives the RL identity of people known to us by their internet names, without their permission (also known, I understand, as “doxxing”).

    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?

  7. 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!

  8. William,

    You have it exactly backwards. Guanoing, at the incompetent hands of Alan and Neil, is exactly why this train wreck took place.

  9. 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?

  10. J-Mac:

    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.

    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!

  11. 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.

  12. DNA_Jock:
    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….

  13. DNA_Jock, to ALurker:

    You didn’t deny being Patrick, either.

    Sure sounded like it to me.

    ALurker wrote this…

    Alan has no compunction about using his access to search through login records to match people up. Badly.

    …and this:

    So not only is Alan wrong, he’s demonstrated breaking a rule that results in people being banned from TSZ.

  14. Okay, Jock. On to your latest “rush to judgment” errors, as promised. Here’s an explanation of the first one:

    I wrote:

    Jock,

    It’s getting a bit harder to maintain your “I haven’t seen any evidence of Alan’s dishonesty” stance, isn’t it?

    You responded:

    No, I’m fine, thank you for asking. You have yet to provide me with an example…

    That was false. You continued:

    Although I am curious, are you attempting to reference Alan’s groundless insinuation that ALurker is hiding his true identity (keiths`s take on the situation), or Alan’s attempt to determine whether ALurker is in fact Patrick, given that they post from the same IP address (the reality)?

    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:

    Alan,

    Not implying, just asking.

    Right. You were just wondering, apropos of nothing, about ALurker’s views on sockpuppetry.

    It’s just curiosity, that’s all.

    And:

    So stop lying about “Not implying, just asking.”

    And:

    And now you’re lying about it, pretending that you’re “not implying, just asking”.

    And:

    Again: State your case, and stop lying about how you’re “not implying, just asking.”

    And:

    Your claim…

    Not implying, just asking.

    …was obviously false. Readers watched you lie through your teeth.

    Ethics aside, how does it benefit you to lie to the readership when you are trying to defend yourself against charges of unfitness?

    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.

  15. Sal:

    Btw, I think keiths has put hundreds of comments on my threads that I never read. I appreciate all the time he’s invested in reading my comments and responding with comments I’ll never read.

    As I noted the other day:

    It’s so cute when guys like J-Mac, Sal, and Mung threaten to put people on ignore, as if that would actually be a punishment.

  16. 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.

  17. Alan:

    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.

    What specifically do you find “unsatisfactory” about ALurker’s response?

    What rule are you invoking to justify the suspension of the accounts?

  18. 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.

  19. Alan,

    I don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss details of individual accounts.

    I haven’t asked you to.

    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.

    You’ve also suspended ALurker’s account along with Patrick’s.

    Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation. But I’m not prepared to discuss this further in public.

    Why not?

    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.

    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 would ask you not to post any personal information in this venue without the permission of the person concerned.

    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.)

  20. Alan,

    How much more clearly do I need to say this? The subject is closed until Lizzie responds.

    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.

  21. Also, you haven’t answered this question:

    Is that IP address [the one that ALurker posted] the same as the one you referred to above, which matches 44 of his comments and 86 of Patrick’s?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. ALurker wrote:

    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.

    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:

    As Alurker has posted an IP address, I guess you are free to search the details yourself.

    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.

  25. phoodoo: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.

    That’s hilarious. Yes phoodoo, that must be it. Theists never try to backstab each other like that. Nope, never happens. You nailed it. 🙂

  26. 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:

    WTF?
    You can’t be complaining about pseudonyms, since there are plenty of those here (to the dismay of Tom English).
    So are you actually implying that ALurker is a sockpuppet in the classic sense?
    [rather narrow definition of sockpuppetry]
    If so, I’d love to hear how you got that idea.

    Alan:

    Not implying, just asking.

    Keiths:

    Right. You were just wondering, apropos of nothing, about ALurker’s views on sockpuppetry.
    It’s just curiosity, that’s all.

    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.

  27. phoodoo: 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.

    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.

    I am sure Mung would find it particularly
    distasteful.

    Poor delicate mung

  28. J-Mac:
    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?

    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.

  29. stcordova: 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

  30. stcordova: 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.

    Cleaned but still wrong

  31. DNA_Jock:
    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?

    The actual rule is:

    Don’t use this site to try to “out” other internet denizens or indulge in ad hominem speculations. Such speculations may, notwithstanding general principles regarding deletion, be deleted.

    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.

  32. Alan Fox: I do indeed. I hope my previous comment goes some way to alleviating your concerns for the moment. If not then fuck the fuck off! (Just kidding )

    Somehow that’s not so funny now.

    I’ll try and contact Lizzie again and if I don’t hear from her in the meantime, perhaps at the weekend, I’ll open discussion and solicit ideas from fellow members.

    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.

  33. I appreciate the reply, ALurker, but you didn’t answer my question(s).
    When you wrote:

    So not only is Alan wrong, he’s demonstrated breaking a rule that results in people being banned from TSZ.

    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.

    Actually, Alan is wrong in a lot of ways. He refuses to enforce the rules as written (see fifthmonarchyman’s comments).

    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…

    He makes up new rules (making the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread an extension of Noyau).

    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.

    He breaks the rules himself (attempted outing).

    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?

  34. 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?

  35. DNA_Jock:

    As I note above, I don’t see his behavior as the attempted outing of an IRL persona.

    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?

  36. Jock,

    These are Alan’s words, addressed directly to you:

    DNA_Jock,

    Indeed. Patrick, Keiths and I have all indulged at UD. But Patrick has a current account and left voluntarily. He was pretending to be someone else agreeing with his own views.

    [emphasis added]

    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?

  37. keiths: DNA_Jock:

    As I note above, I don’t see his behavior as the attempted outing of an IRL persona.

    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?

    No, I am not.
    You are smart enough to spot the difference, I hope…

  38. Jock:

    You are smart enough to spot the difference, I hope…

    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.

  39. 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.

Comments are closed.