Moderation Issues (5)

Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.

1,668 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. I’d forgotten how sensitive you are to posters’ delicate feelings, keiths. I know you’d never say anything about anyone that might not be true!

    Anyhow, you can call it an accusation if you like: I just point out that being identical to Patrick isn’t (exactly) a crime. And neither is lying.

  2. walto,

    I’d forgotten how sensitive you are to posters’ delicate feelings, keiths.

    I haven’t mentioned their feelings. I’m pointing out that you are making an accusation that you haven’t backed up.

    Anyhow, you can call it an accusation if you like:

    Yes, and I have called it an accusation. You are accusing ALurker of lying. Why not own up to that?

  3. walto,

    I take it my last two posts can be guanoed. C’est la vie.

    No, because this is the Moderation Issues thread.

  4. Anyhow, you can call it an accusation if you like:

    keiths:

    Yes, and I have called it an accusation. You are accusing ALurker of lying. Why not own up to that?

    walto:

    I did.

    No, you didn’t.

    He’s lying. Or I think so at any rate.

    Now you’ve finally owned up to it.

    You’ve accused ALurker of lying. Can you back up your accusation?

  5. ac·cu·sa·tion
    ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
    noun
    a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

    walto: The evidence is entirely circumstantial, but there’s a ton of it, and it grows with every word Alurker types. But, as I said before, while it’s amusing and pathetic (even more so than j-mac’s activities, it’s no crime and not even against the rules here, afaik,. So calling it an accusation is a bit of hyperbole, I think. It’s simply belief I can’t seem to put down.

    If you have some reason to believe they really aren’t identical–other than the denial–in spite of all the circumstantial evidence that’s growing by the day, I’m willing to be convinced.

  6. ALurker: So the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread is no longer an extension of Noyau?

    The rules have been relaxed for that thread.

    You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s rule violating comments?

    It’s unrealistic to expect that. Old comments are old news. Comments in threads where normal rules apply that I consider rule-breaking* will be moved by me bearing in mind the DNA_Jock guidelines. There will always be discretion on the side of not moving comments.

    Are you available to discuss those questions?

    As time permits.

    ETA* I can’t guarantee to read every word here. So it’s likely I will miss rule-breaking comments. Neil and I both have lives apart from TSZ. The surest way to draw attention to a comment needing attention is to PM me or Neil with a link, as we will see a flag to the PM on logging in. Alternatively leave a comment and link here.

  7. ALurker:

    So the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread is no longer an extension of Noyau?

    Alan:

    The rules have been relaxed for that thread.

    You abused your moderator privileges by designating ALurker’s thread an extension of Noyau, against his or her wishes. You did the same thing with my FMM/Bus thread. What is wrong with you, Alan?

    ALurker:

    You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s rule violating comments?

    Alan:

    It’s unrealistic to expect that. Old comments are old news.

    ALurker is referring to future rule-violating comments by fifth. I think you know that, but would prefer not to answer the question.

    Let me rephrase it on ALurker’s behalf:

    You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s future rule violating comments?

    Stop dodging, Alan.

  8. keiths:
    ALurker:

    Alan:

    You abused your moderator privileges by designating ALurker’s thread an extension of Noyau, against his or her wishes.You did the same thing with my FMM/Bus thread.What is wrong with you, Alan?

    Didn’t you say that it is within the moderators discretion not to guano comments now, isn’t that what a de facto Noyau is?

    Is there a rule that such action can only occur with the permission of the author?

  9. keiths:
    walto,

    No, because this is the Moderation Issues thread.

    Not sure but don”t think you can call someone a liar on this thread either.

  10. newton:

    Not sure but don”t think you can call someone a liar on this thread either.

    You can, because if a moderator lies, that’s a moderation issue.

  11. newton,

    Didn’t you say that it is within the moderators discretion not to guano comments now, isn’t that what a de facto Noyau is?

    Moderators can, after viewing a rule-violating comment, decide not to guano it. That’s a far cry from Noyau-izing an entire thread and all future comments in it.

    Here are some questions for you:

    1. Do you think that Alan Noyau-ized ALurker’s thread for TSZ’s benefit, or for his own? What evidence do you base your assessment on, and what is your reasoning?

    2. Ditto for my FMM/Bus thread.

    3. Do you think Alan closed comments in the Moderation Issues (4) thread for TSZ’s benefit, or for his own? What evidence do you base your assessment on, and what is your reasoning?

  12. walto,

    You’ve accused ALurker of lying. Can you back up that accusation?

    You say that ALurker is Patrick. ALurker has denied this.

    Judging from your previous reply, I’d guess that you can’t back up your claim. Don’t you find that rather embarrassing?

  13. Alan Fox:

    So the “Do Atheists Exist?” thread is no longer an extension of Noyau?

    The rules have been relaxed for that thread.

    You and Neil will enforce the rules against fifthmonarchyman’s rule violating comments?

    It’s unrealistic to expect that.Old comments are old news. Comments in threads where normal rules apply that I consider rule-breaking* will be moved by me bearing in mind the DNA_Jock guidelines.

    You could have just said “Fuck you.” It would have been more honest.

    In Moderation Issues (4) you wrote:

    But Neil and I are the stewards of Gondor. Whilst we could, in principle, make policy changes we cannot (should we even wish to, a separate point) make such changes without agreement from Lizzie.

    By making my thread an extension of Noyau, you have shown that to be a lie. You have made up a new policy without agreement from Lizzie. You are also refusing to enforce the rules when fifthmonarchyman violates them.

    I will be honest. Fuck you. Fuck Neil, too. Your gutless refusal to do your job and your abuse of your moderator privileges is responsible for the decreasing quality of this site.

    I’m going to add my closing comments to a couple of threads and then I’m done with your petty little fiefdom. I hope you enjoy it rotting around you.

  14. keiths:
    walto,

    Your perennial hard-on for Patrick has a lot more to do with that than the evidence does.

    Ah, unrequited love can make a man strange. Or there are just too many paranoid biddies scratching around here squawking “IMPOSTER! IMPOSTER! SOCK PUPPET!” If Alan had suggested I was your sock puppet or Glen’s or phoodoo’s (nah, I couldn’t imitate that mouth breather if I tried) then the same people would be finding “evidence” for that.

    I don’t think it’s that hard to believe that there are other people out there who consider fifthmonarchyman a dishonest little bitch and unfair moderation something to complain about.

    See you around, keiths. Keep crusty.

  15. keiths:
    walto,

    You’ve accused ALurker of lying. Can you back up that accusation?

    You say that ALurker is Patrick.ALurker has denied this.

    Judging from your previous reply, I’d guess that you can’t back up your claim.Don’t you find that rather embarrassing?

    All you’ve got to do is read and remember.

    There must be about a hundred posts available by now that are indicative. Note the style as well as the content. Also the enjoyment of bullying. I’d find it embarrassing to be incapable of reading with discernment, myself. But that’s me; your mileage obviously varies.

    Anyhow what’s your evidence that they’re separate other than the denial, oh, incapable-of-knowing-your-own-name-know-it-all? I’ve certainly got a lot got more evidence than you have, even if what I have is merely circumstantial. Could I be wrong? Sure. So? It’s an opinion, based on a bunch of posts as well as what your buddy, Alan dredged up.

    Who appointed you judge and jury here, anyways? I mean, I know you’re extremely sensitive that someone’s feelings might be hurt, because you’re such a sweetheart that way, but I’d think you really should learn your own name before opining about anybody else’s.

  16. keiths [to walto]: You say that ALurker is Patrick. ALurker has denied this.

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it. He went on to claim that Alan has been wrong about a lot of things, leaving plenty of wriggle room.
    Not that I think he is, I suspect that he’s just trolling Alan…

  17. Moderators,

    Father Tim Moyle has responded on the “Would you call it murder?” thread, but as a new registrant his comment is stuck in the Pending Comments queue.

  18. DNA_Jock:

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    Yes, he or she has. ALurker wrote:

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

    Note the word “badly”. ALurker is saying that that Alan’s attempt at matching failed. Otherwise, the word “badly” wouldn’t make any sense there.

    ALurker also wrote:

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

    That is a direct denial of Alan’s accusation.

    And:

    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.

    Another denial. ALurker is explicitly affirming that this is his or her first time staying at the hotel, meaning that any previous occurrence of that IP address in TSZ’s records was due to someone else.

    Then there’s this, from ALurker to Alan:

    I’m not sending email to someone who has shown he shouldn’t be trusted not to abuse his access to data. I’ve told you who I’m not. Unless you think fifthmonarchyman and phoodoo are those people’s given names, you don’t need to know mine.

    [emphasis added]

    Another explicit denial.

    You even took it as a denial, Jock:

    Hi ALurker, glad to see you back.
    I’m going to take your comment as an explicit statement that you have not commented here under another handle. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    So when you write…

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    …you’re wrong.

    That “rush to judgment” tendency has bitten you again, Jock. You wanted to believe it, so you believed it. Without bothering to look at the evidence.

    Try to pull yourself together, man.

  19. keiths:
    Moderators,

    Father Tim Moyle has responded on the “Would you call it murder?” thread, but as a new registrant his comment is stuck in the Pending Comments queue.

    Released from queue.

  20. keiths: That “rush to judgment” tendency has bitten you again, Jock. You wanted to believe it, so you believed it. Without bothering to look at the evidence.

    Try to pull yourself together, man.

    Please help me understand. What, exactly, is the judgement that I have rushed to, and why do I want to believe it?

  21. Slow down, Jock.

    Acknowledge and correct your mistake first, and then we can talk about what led to it. Do you acknowledge that your statement…

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    …is wrong, and that ALurker has denied being Patrick?

  22. Huh? You want me to acknowledge my ‘mistake’, and only then will you deign to tell me what it is? How is that even possible?
    I’ll give it a go.
    [Slows down. Tries to pull himself together]
    I have made a mistake.

    Now, you appear to be arguing that my ‘mistake’ was the statement

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    Is that the ‘judgement’ that I ‘rushed’ to?

  23. I’m still waiting to hear what keiths’ evidence is for thinking they are not the same person, other than this (admittedly weird) denial. It’s a great imitation anyhow. Maybe Alurker is just a Patrick worshipper?

    Again, I’d settle it on attitude toward Hillary, number of guns owned, and cartoon representations of atheism-theism. We’ve got pretty much everything else. The IP thing was just sweet sauce.

  24. keiths:
    ALurker:

    Take care, ALurker.Keep your password — things may change here.

    You realize that your and lurker’s position on moderation is diametrically opposed ? He favors more ,you favor none. You are united only in the belief that the present moderation is the cause of something very,very bad.

  25. newton,

    You realize that your and lurker’s position on moderation is diametrically opposed ?

    That isn’t true, but even if it were, how would it be relevant to the approriateness of my comment?

    And it isn’t true. There’s significant overlap. Here’s ALurker:

    I hope the moderators will either enforce the rules evenhandedly or take keiths’ suggestion and stop moving comments to Guano altogether.

    newton:

    You are united only in the belief that the present moderation is the cause of something very,very bad.

    We share that belief. Hence my comment:

    Take care, ALurker. Keep your password — things may change here.

    If things change in the right way — for example, if Alan and Neil are no longer in power — then ALurker might wish to return. It’s not hard to grasp, newton.

  26. walto,

    In response to your argument, I wrote:

    You are supposedly a trained philosopher. Take a look at the argument you just presented.

    The next day, I asked:

    Having slept on it, do you stand by the argument you made above?

    You never answered.

    If you do stand by it, then I’d be happy to explain where it goes wrong.

    If you no longer stand by it, then I’ll congratulate you on realizing, after the fact (but better late than never!), that it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

    It’s your argument, and thus your responsibility to state whether you stand by it.

    Let me know.

  27. Jock,

    Huh? You want me to acknowledge my ‘mistake’, and only then will you deign to tell me what it is? How is that even possible?

    Don’t play dumb. I’ve shown you, in detail, why this statement of yours is false:

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    Do you stand by that statement, or do you acknowledge that you got it wrong?

    Don’t pull a walto. Take responsibility for your statement and tell us whether you still stand by it.

  28. Keiths,
    Of course I “stand by my statement”. It is correct.

    We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it.

    Explicit:
    “I have never commented here under another handle.”
    “I am not Patrick.”
    Implicit:
    “So not only is Alan wrong,…”.
    “I’ve told you who I’m not.” Etc.
    Can you see the difference?

    keiths: That “rush to judgment” tendency has bitten you again, Jock. You wanted to believe it, so you believed it. Without bothering to look at the evidence.

    Meter-destroying irony aside, this makes no sense. Somehow, keiths reckons that I want to believe that ALurker issued no explicit denial. Strange, then, that I repeatedly tried to gently coax him into making an explicit denial. An explicit denial would make me happy. If and when ALurker does explicitly deny being Patrick, we can get past the question “Is ALurker = Patrick” to the far more interesting question “Why is Alan so despicable?”. But ALurker continues with the circumlocutions, and that issue, annoyingly, just won’t die.
    The closest thing to an explicit denial was “I’ve told you who I’m not.”
    Here’s how I responded :

    Hi ALurker, glad to see you back.
    I’m going to take your comment as an explicit statement that you have not commented here under another handle. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    My apologies for reading into your circumlocution something that wasn’t there.

    Now, keiths, you might be able to figure out that “I’m going to take…” was an olive branch. In particular, the statement “I’ve told you who I’m not.” CANNOT be an explicit statement that [you] have not commented here under another handle.
    keiths did spot the bit about the circumlocution, he just did not understand it.
    And when ALurker did respond to that post, he entirely omitted the text I quote above, thereby preserving the ambiguity.
    So, what made keiths conclude that I had not “bother[ed] to look at the evidence” he cites?
    Well, given that his first two items were the comment of his that I linked to , we can cross those off the list. His 4th and 5th items were ALurker’s “I’ve told you who I’m not.” and my response to that comment. So we can cross those of the list.
    So we are left with this:

    “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.”

    If keiths were paying attention, and not, y’know, rushing, he would have noticed that a) this isn’t an explicit denial either, and b) I had responded to it, asking ALurker how Alan’s behavior constituted doxxing. Keiths even called me out on my statement that

    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?

    So, if he had paused to think, keiths would have realized that I HAD reviewed the evidence – responded to it even.
    Let’s be honest, here (I know keiths admires honesty): keiths concluded that I rushed to judgement, without reviewing the evidence, solely because I disagreed with the Almighty Keiths. This happens a lot, and not just with me.
    Keiths is raving.

  29. Jock,

    That is just pitiful.

    This is an explicit denial:

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

    ALurker is responding directly to Alan’s accusation and saying that Alan is wrong.

    And when ALurker says to Alan…

    I’ve told you who I’m not.

    …who do you think he or she is referring to? Queen Elizabeth? When has ALurker denied, to Alan, being someone other than Patrick?

    Dude, take a look at what you wrote earlier:

    FFS, keiths, are you so desperate to award yourself a “win” at any cost?

    A classic case of projection.

  30. keiths:
    newton,

    That isn’t true, but even if it were, how would it be relevant to the approriateness of my comment?

    My point was your positions toward moderation were different, not that your comment was inappropriate. It seems the answer is no.

    And it isn’t true.There’s significant overlap.Here’s ALurker:

    Hence my comment:

    If things change in the right way — for example, if Alan and Neil are no longer in power — then ALurker might wish to return.It’s not hard to grasp, newton.

    I grasp you might have many reasons for wishing ALurker to return, and you share a common enemy, the present moderators.

    You want to eliminate guano in principle even if ideal moderation was possible, ALurker would have ideal moderators move comments adding a subjective rule of high quality. Opposition to this view could and might be considered a low quality comment worthy of guano.

    No moderation , lots more moderation seem opposite positions.

  31. Hi keiths,
    Glad to see you concede (albeit implicitly, rather than explicitly) that you were wrong when you accused me of a “rush to judgement”. I appreciate it.

    Here’s a tip: when you keep repeating the same argument that your interlocutor has addressed, with nary a nod to the counter-argument, typically quoting yourself, you come across as either unable to muster a counterpoint, or incapable of reading for comprehension. It doesn’t help your case at all.

    Here’s an example:
    You keep repeating ALurker’s line

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

    As if it were an explicit denial.
    It isn’t.
    Your own characterization of ALurker’s denial even concedes this point

    ALurker is responding directly to Alan’s accusation and saying that Alan is wrong.

    Can you see the difference between “I am not Patrick” and “Alan is wrong”?

    And in my original comment on this thread, the one that got your goat, I pointed to WHY.

    DNA_Jock: We agree that ALurker has implied that he isn’t Patrick, but he has not explicitly denied it. He went on to claim that Alan has been wrong about a lot of things, leaving plenty of wriggle room.

    Similarly, to answer your question

    …who do you think he or she is referring to? Queen Elizabeth?

    I don’t know. It sure looks like he’s denying being Patrick, but it is not explicit.

    As to “projection”, my “FFS, keiths” comment was my expression of exasperation that you doxxed Patrick [surname redacted] in your efforts to record a win. Once again, I encourage you to read the reasoning behind the no-doxxing rule.

    The rest of the time, I find you funny; but that particular behavior annoyed me.

  32. Alan: ALurker is Patrick, and I know this because they’ve both sent comments from the same IP address [which turned out to be a hotel — heh].

    ALurker: You’re wrong, and you did your sleuthing badly.

    Jock: Aha! You didn’t say the words “I am not Patrick”!

    Jock,

    ALurker directly denied Alan’s accusation. Why isn’t that good enough for you?

    You’re acting a bit, um, loopy.

  33. newton,

    My point was your positions toward moderation were different, not that your comment was inappropriate.

    Then why quote my comment at all, immediately before writing the following?

    You realize that your and lurker’s position on moderation is diametrically opposed ?

    And again, our positions are not “diametrically opposed”. There is significant overlap, as my quote of ALurker demonstrated:

    I hope the moderators will either enforce the rules evenhandedly or take keiths’ suggestion and stop moving comments to Guano altogether.

    But suppose, for the sake of argument, that ALurker’s view on moderation were diametrically opposed to mine. What would follow? I still don’t see your point.

  34. Thank you, keiths,
    I’ll take your desperate retreat to paraphrasing comments as an admission that you couldn’t find an explicit denial.

  35. DNA_Jock:

    I’ll take your desperate retreat to paraphrasing comments as an admission that you couldn’t find an explicit denial.

    Christ, Jock. What’s inexplicit about saying…

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

    …in direct response to Alan’s accusation?

  36. ‘Wrong’ meaning ‘untrue’ (but about what is only implied: Alan is wrong about a lot of things, per ALurker), or alternatively ‘wrong’ meaning ‘immoral’.
    And the bit about ‘banning’, since it implies doxxing, only makes any sense if ALurker is Patrick…
    Explicit, it is not.

  37. Good grief, Jock.

    Here’s what 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.

    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?

    Alan accused ALurker of being Patrick, based on the IP address. ALurker says that Alan is wrong and gives the reasons.

    There is no ambiguity. ALurker is explicitly saying that Alan’s accusation is wrong.

    You made a mistake, Jock. Why can’t you just admit that and move on? Your “win at all costs” attitude is really hurting you — even leading you to quote mine me on the other thread.

    Is it really worth it?

  38. keiths: Alan accused ALurker of being Patrick, based on the IP address.

    Correct

    ALurker says that Alan is wrong and gives the reasons.

    Sloppy English. ALurker explains why Alan’s accusation has an inadequate evidentiary foundation. He does not deny the veracity of the accusation.

    There is no ambiguity. ALurker is explicitly saying that Alan’s accusation is wrong.

    No, he is not saying that it is untrue, merely that it is inadequately supported.

    You made a mistake, Jock. Why can’t you just admit that and move on?

    My irony meter is turned off for all interactions with keiths.

    Your “win at all costs” attitude is really hurting you — even leading you to quote mine me on the other thread.

    That’s a rather, err, idiosyncratic use of the term “quote mine”.

    Is it really worth it?

    Yes. Yes, it is.
    Pardon my asking, but how old are you?

  39. Moderators,

    Arlin Stoltzfus has a comment waiting in the Pending queue, for a thread that mentions one of his papers.

  40. Cross-posted from the other thread:

    Christ, Jock.

    You accused me of making a “deranged assessment” of Alan, and then you excised precisely the part of my comment that showed otherwise. (And of course you failed to mention any of the other evidence that Alan was abusing his powers in the service of a personal grudge.)

    You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, like Mung, and you’re clearly willing to resort to sleazy tactics, like Mung.

    Here’s a hint: If you want to be respected, don’t model yourself after Mung.

  41. keiths:

    ALurker says that Alan is wrong and gives the reasons.

    DNA_Jock:

    He does not deny the veracity of the accusation.

    He directly denied the accusation:

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

    Jock:

    No, he is not saying that it is untrue, merely that it is inadequately supported.

    He says that the accusation is wrong:

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

    You made another mistake, Jock. It isn’t the end of the world.

    Let it go.

  42. To no one’s surprise, I’m sure, Alan is abusing his moderator privileges again in the TSZ – The Future thread.

    The five guanoed comments can be found here.

    Let’s hear his explanation. Alan, why was the following comment guanoed?

    Now is a good time to repeat this suggested rule:

    High on the list should be a rule stating that “Moderators may not abuse their moderator privileges for their personal benefit.”

    Three more guanoed comments can be found here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.