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.

2,097 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)”

  4. Alan,

    You still haven’t told us why you guanoed my comment.

    Neil hasn’t offered any justification either, and he hasn’t reversed your decision.

    Lizzie created this thread as a place where moderators could be called to account for their moderation decisions. The two of you are refusing, once again, to do your jobs.

    Why the contempt for Lizzie’s wishes?

  5. keiths,
    It was a complaint about moderation issues. Such complaints belong in the moderation issues thread. If you have a specific complaint about a particular moderating action, please make it here.

  6. Alan,

    It was a complaint about moderation issues.

    Bullshit. And you know it wasn’t, which is why you’ve been avoiding my question for more than a day.

    The comment was a suggestion for a future rule, and it belonged in the thread where it was posted: TSZ – The Future.

    Here’s the comment:

    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.

  8. And even if it were about a moderation issue, it would still deserve to remain in that thread.

    This is worth a repost:

    Alan,

    It couldn’t be more obvious.

    That thread solicits suggestions for how to improve TSZ. In such a thread, it is entirely appropriate — necessary, in fact — to talk about what went wrong in the past, and how certain policies might prevent those things from happening in the future or reduce their impact.

    You know that, of course.

    Your (and Neil’s) decision to guano those comments of mine has nothing to do with TSZ’s interests and nothing to do with promoting Lizzie’s aims. You’re doing it out of naked self-interest, for the same reason you closed comments on the Moderation Issues (4) thread.

    It makes my point beautifully.

    You are (rightly) ashamed of your past conduct as moderator, particularly in the ALurker affair. You’d like to sweep it under the rug (hence the closure of Mod Issues 4) and prevent it from being mentioned, even in a thread where such mention is entirely appropriate.

    You are interfering with a discussion, abusing your powers for your personal benefit. While pretending to be wholly supportive of Lizzie’s aims, you are in fact undermining them and acting contrary to TSZ’s interests. Neil is doing the same.

  9. Alan:

    I consider your question answered.

    Since we both know that my comment is not rule-violating, move it back.

    Neil, as “chief admin”, why haven’t you responded to this situation? (Rhetorical question.)

  11. What ought to be persuasive is the fact that there’s no rule violation in the comment.

    If there were, you’d be able to point to it. And you wouldn’t have avoided the question for more than a day.

  12. Meanwhile, this issue was raised eight days ago, and neither you nor Neil has responded to it.

    Again, your contempt for Lizzie’s wishes is remarkable.

    Alan, in Moderation Issues (4):

    As I believe all outstanding specific queries have now been addressed I’m closing comments in this thread.

    What is wrong with you, Alan? You already disgraced yourself in your handling of the ALurker affair, in which you abused your moderator privileges multiple times.

    Now you’re doing it again, closing the old Moderation Issues thread for no valid reason. You’re doing it purely out of self-interest. Shameful.

    And:

    Alan:

    Neil is now chief admin and I am acting as caretaker until Lizzie can make alternative arrangements.

    Neil, the “caretaker” has just abused his privileges. Please step in and reverse his move, which was to close the Moderation Issues (4) thread, purely out of self-interest, in the midst of a vigorous, ongoing discussion.

    If this is what being a “caretaker” means, then TSZ can’t afford to have a caretaker.

  13. Alan and Neil,

    Let’s hear your excuses for ignoring that issue for eight days.

    And Alan, given your obvious contempt for Lizzie’s stated wishes, why not man up and tell us — and Lizzie — why you are so contemptuous?

    You’re a lot like Sal, who lavishes praise on Joe Felsenstein here at TSZ and then mocks him elsewhere when he thinks Joe isn’t looking. You’ll kiss Lizzie’s ass with stuff like this:

    She decided to be a benevolent dictator, inviting participation from anyone with an opinion to voice, news to bring for discussion, scientific discoveries to announce and explain, philosophical arguments to popularize, even religion to promote or criticise. Personally, I think this was a brave and worthwhile effort in view of the increasing polarisation that pervades modern politics and that entrains extremism, insult and ad hominem rather than reasoned argument.

    …but behind her back, you’ll ignore her wishes and act in your own self-interest.

  16. Alan,

    You and Neil know perfectly well that Lizzie wants you to respond to moderation issues, and that she created this thread for that very purpose.

    You still haven’t responded to that issue after eight days.

    Why?

  17. I think it’s time for Allan and Neil to place that narcissistic retard keiths on ignore…
    TSZ would be a much better place without him…

  18. I consider I’ve answered your question. If you have other specific complaints, fine. If not, I don’t know what else to suggest other than, as I have already suggested many times, take your issues direct to the blog owner. If you don’t have her contact details, I can supply them.

  20. Alan:

    I consider I’ve answered your question.

    You’ve spent eight days avoiding the question. Neither you nor Neil has addressed it with even a single comment.

    It’s not hard to figure out why. What could you possibly say that would justify closing the Moderation Issues (4) thread?

    There’s no excuse for it. It was an abuse of moderation powers, pure and simple. Both you and Neil know that, which is why you’re desperate to avoid the question.

  21. keiths: What could you possibly say that would justify closing the Moderation Issues (4) thread?

    Don’t ask me about my business. OK just this one time, Kay Keiths…

    I would very much like Lizzie to come back. One reason I fear she is not here is she is fed up with childish wrangles over moderation. In closing (4) I hoped she might look in and not see a sea of comments in the moderation issues thread. Fat chance!

  22. Alan,

    In closing (4) I hoped she might look in and not see a sea of comments in the moderation issues thread.

    Bullshit. You were trying to sweep your disgrace out of view. It was an abuse of moderator privileges for your personal benefit.

    When Lizzie comes back, she has to deal with the mess you’ve created. Hiding your fuckups won’t change that.

  25. keiths: No. I’d like you to stop abusing your moderator privileges.

    What a very strange response.
    Oh well, I don’t suppose one can expect better from someone who accused me of “stooping” to “quote mine” him because I snipped the “Because I can, keiths” context from his deranged assessment, context he has quoted ten times, then — in his next comment (!)– snipped my point “Sloppy English. ALurker explains why Alan’s accusation has an inadequate evidentiary foundation. ”
    You couldn’t make this stuff up.
    edit due to post in error

  26. Jock,

    You cited my comment as a “deranged assessment” of Alan, and then snipped precisely the part that showed it was accurate and not deranged at all.

    It was a dishonest, foolish and downright Mungian move on your part.

    Think twice next time.

  27. Oh, keiths cutie-pie, I am confident that anyone reading my comments is quite aware of the “Because I can, keiths” context: as I noted, you have quoted that exchange ten times. But keiths reckons that my omitting it (while providing ellipsis and a link to the original, bad boy that I am) is “dishonest” and “foolish”. Interesting.
    Yet it’s somehow okaaaay for keiths to take this:

    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.

    [emphasis added]
    and turn it into this:

    ALurker says that Alan is wrong and gives the reasons.

    DNA_Jock:

    He does not deny the veracity of the accusation.

    That’s dishonest, foolish and lacking in self-awareness.
    Mung would never do anything that asinine.

    Gee, and of the ten times that you quoted that “Because I can, keiths” exchange, how many times did you link to the original context?
    Big fat zero.
    Your indignation makes me laugh.

  28. You’re grasping at straws, Jock.

    Remember, this whole thing started because you, in a fit of anger, made a claim that you couldn’t support.

    Learn from your mistake.

  32. walto,

    I notice you’re still avoiding my question:

    Moderation Issues (5)

    You appear to recognize how poor your argument is; otherwise you’d defend it instead of tiptoeing away. If so, why not do the decent thing and retract your accusation against ALurker and Patrick?

  33. Neil and Alan,

    John Sanford and Bill Basener have contacted me about TSZ. Bill has tried to register on this site to respond to Joe Felsenstein and Michael Lynch. Have you seen any new registrants or attempts by Bill to register?

    Thanks in advance.

    Sal

  34. stcordova:
    Neil and Alan,

    John Sanford and Bill Basener have contacted me about TSZ.Bill has tried to register on this site to respond to Joe Felsenstein and Michael Lynch.Have you seen any new registrants or attempts by Bill to register?

    Thanks in advance.

    Sal

    I hope it is going to be an OP that is going to be featured…

  35. stcordova: Have you seen any new registrants or attempts by Bill to register?

    No. But I don’t normally see attempts to register. I have assumed that it is all automated.

    I do see attempts to register at the forum, but not here at the blog. And the most recent attempt to register at the forum as at the “.org” version rather than the “.com” version. I don’t remember the name of the registrant.

  36. Neil,

    Is there a way I can get Bill in contact with you directly to work out technical issues. He also said he would like to write an OP here at TSZ. I could for example send you a PM with his e-mail address.

    Sal

  37. stcordova:Is there a way I can get Bill in contact with you directly to work out technical issues. He also said he would like to write an OP here at TSZ. I could for example send you a PM with his e-mail address.

    Bill Basener has registered an account here. He should be able to log in and post comments, though his first comment will be automatically held in the moderation queue until released by an admin. I’ve altered his status to “New Author” which means he can also author and publish an OP.

    PS just finding a little time to look in.

  38. Alan Fox: Bill Basener has registered an account here. He should be able to log in and post comments, though his first comment will be automatically held in the moderation queue until released by an admin. I’ve altered his status to “New Author” which means he can also author and publish an OP.

    PS just finding a little time to look in.

    Thanks Alan. I just told Bill via e-mail.

    Happy Valentine’s Day. 🙂

  40. Alan once again makes my point for me.

    He shows up, indulges in some pointless guanoing, and an ongoing discussion gets disrupted.

    We were doing just fine without you, Alan. Take it to heart.

  41. keiths,
    I notice the membership has shrunk. Your counterproductive commenting style drives others away. Stop it please. I will continue to guano rule-breaking comments.

  42. Alan,

    Your bias couldn’t be more obvious.

    No mention of walto’s false accusations or lies. No mention of your own lies and the astounding number of moderation abuses you’ve indulged in.

    Are we to suppose that commenters love those, and are flocking to TSZ for that very reason?

    You, personally, are one of the biggest problems that TSZ has. That’s why things run smoothly in your absence, but go to hell when you show up again.

    A lot of smart, competent and honest people have made TSZ what it is: a valuable venue for discussion on the internet. You’ve been trying to reshape it in your own image, and fortunately you’ve failed. And because you’ve failed, TSZ remains vigorous and active.

    Take it to heart. TSZ is better when you’re gone. If you choose to remain, then don’t spoil it for others by indulging your grudges and interfering with discussions.

  43. Dear Neil and Alan,

    Bill Basener has notified me he tried to post. Do you see anything in the queues?

    Thanks in advance.

    Sal

  45. Neil

    Go fuck yourself. You wonder why there are no more creationists who want to post here?

    Quoting other posts is not against any rules. But it just shows what a duplicitous dickhead you are.

  46. phoodoo: Quoting other posts is not against any rules.

    It has always been the custom here to move to guano comments that quote a guano’d comment.

  47. phoodoo,

    I moved one post to guano. That particular post contained only an insult and no actual discussion of the topic.

    In reaction, you started a storm of protests (since moved to guano).

    Now give it a break. Try to get back to actual discussion of the topics.

  48. Alan Fox: It has always been the custom here to move to guano comments that quote a guano’d comment.

    None of the posts he moved were quoting guanoed posts Alan. More bullshit from you guys.

    Neil got embarrassed because I showed the lack of consistency in his moderation, how he moved posts by some (creationists oh so coincidentally) and ignored no less than 5 posts that were much much worse than the response by nonlin.

    You wonder why participation here has dropped. Why almost all opposing voices are gone? Its because of you assholes. Neil is now telling ME to give it a rest, when it is his debacle and breaking the rules to cover for himself?

    Why did you move posts of mine that simply quoted others Neil? You make a mockery of rules and moderation Neil. You are as bad as Patrick, making up rules for your own benefit. You just can’t help yourself from being a hack.

  49. Neil,

    You fucked up by guanoing Nonlin.org’s comment, when it obviously — obviously — would have been better to leave it alone. You created a pointless moderation kerfuffle, and what did TSZ gain in return? Nothing. Your action did nothing to make TSZ a better place.

    Alan did the same thing a few days ago.

    What is wrong with you guys? Why can’t you learn from your mistakes? When you get the urge to guano, don’t. Stop fucking things up for the rest of us.

Comments are closed.