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)

  1. phoodoo: And I think one of the examples you mentioned occurred on a Thursday. A Thursday Mung!

    And they all came from a single thread, so that’s a sample size of one, and can’t therefore be trusted.

  2. Neil Rickert: Beyond that, I do not expect to release posts by keiths, unless there is an agreement among administrators to do so.

    I can read his mind, so I will speak for him.

  3. Asking again, 3rd time: Do posters of thread *NOT* have edit privileges on (only) their own OPs? It’s a strange lock-in right now; posts can be edited for 60 minutes, but OPs, once posted, are uneditable?

    A bit of clarity here appreciated. Vincent, could this be your first effort at Moderation on behalf of Skeptics?

  4. Mung: And they all came from a single thread, so that’s a sample size of one, and can’t therefore be trusted.

    Look Mung, if you can’t be bothered to read through 23,000 posts and find a few thousand examples for DNA to handwave away, then you really are making his point.

    He only has like 2-3000 excuses prepared and ready to go, so if you aren’t even going to make him work at it, well, he might as well just get back to his pipe.

    “Bring me my magic dragon…look a PINK squirrel!”

  5. Gregory: Asking again, 3rd time: Do posters of thread *NOT* have edit privileges on (only) their own OPs?

    Alan set that up.

    They have full edit privileges while their post is in draft status. But, once it has been posted, that’s it.

  6. Gregory,

    There are three categories of member here. The entry status is Contributor. Contributors can write OPs but need an admin to publish their OPs. People wishing to publish OPs themselves can request New Author status. New Author status does not include the ability to post-edit OPs. The reason for this is that editing permission extends to comments in those threads and editing of comments by anyone other than the commenter, or in exceptional circumstances, by admins is strictly forbidden.. Author status is available to regular writers of OPs who undertake not to use the post-edit facility on comments.

  7. Thanks for the correction, Mung:

    To put it in your terms, Adapa was indirectly quoting me indirectly quoting him.

    Isn’t it great to have the full context?
    Still true that you were the first to use the phrase in reference to Axe, and that this all happened in 2015.

    And the thing with Meyer is, he really is one. The “enzyme peptidyl transferase”, anyone?
    Even phoodoo agrees.
    😉

  8. Apologies for the cross post:

    I just got a message from KeithS:

    “…Could you do me a favor and mention in the Squawk Box and Moderation Issues threads that my account has been silently disabled, and that I can no longer log in?”

    Please tell me this is some mistake?

    “No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

  9. Richardthughes,

    His account status has not changed (that I can tell) since ~11hrs ago.

    However, his login credentials may have been corrupted.

    He should try again now…

  10. walto:
    Richardthughes,

    Poor poor keiths. Tell him that Napolean has been around. That should cheer him up!

    Keiths been addicted to this blog for at least 7 years…Can you believe it?

  11. Richardthughes: I just got a message from KeithS:

    “…Could you do me a favor and mention in the Squawk Box and Moderation Issues threads that my account has been silently disabled, and that I can no longer log in?”

    Please tell me this is some mistake?

    I hope you are not reading too much into that.

    I am seeing it as a way of suspending keiths that actually works. And I’m guessing that it is reversible.

  12. DNA_Jock,

    While I knew that my precise assessment of J-Mac’s mental state would be guanoed, I think that her self-unawarely condescending and insulting comments should be guanoed as well.

    That’s all I’m going to say about that. No further discussion. Juts something for you to think about.

  13. Mung:

    I am having trouble with DNA Jock essentially accusing keiths of breaking UK law and putting the whole TSZ site at risk, and then him trying to be amusing calling Meyer a liar.

    If Alan or Neil don’t ban DNA Jock immediately for this, then they are showing to everyone quite clearly that their actions against keiths were simply their attempt at spiteful revenge.

    I mean, regardless of what you think of Jock, with the UK libel laws and all, Lizzie is pretty much going to be forced to step in if Alan doesn’t, right?

    I think it must be a call to resign from Jock. How could anyone break the law so casually and expect to remain here? Jock is saying he wants out, and is forcing the sites hand.

  14. Entropy:
    DNA_Jock,

    While I knew that my precise assessment of J-Mac’s cluelessness and imbecility would be guanoed, I think that her self-unawarely condescending and insulting comments should be guanoed as well.

    That’s all I’m going to say about that. No further discussion. Juts something for you to think about.
    I

    The day not long from now, you provide one piece of experimental evidence to support you unfounded beliefs, I will retire.. Until then, I’m going to be in your face more than ever… So, unless you know what the lab looks like, don’t talk to me you little piece of s…

  15. Aw, phoodoo,

    You might want to educate yourself about the “fair comment” defense and “malice” in U.K. law.
    I am NOT going to comment on the status of keiths’s statements beyond noting, as I already have, that they were ‘potentially libelous’.

    Have a lawyer explain to you why.
    😉

  16. J-Mac:
    The day not long from now, you provide one piece of experimental evidence to support you unfounded beliefs, I will retire.. Until then, I’m going to be in your face more than ever… So, unless you know what the lab looks like, don’t talk to me you little piece of s…

    See what I say? You’re clueless. You don’t know what my beliefs are, your mental capabilities are insufficient to judge if they’re unfounded, and I’ve worked at, and managed, research labs for quite a few years. Thanks for confirming my diagnosis. You didn’t have to. It’s evident for anybody with at least half a brain, but I’m still grateful. Now go check yourself into a mental institution.

  17. Just to reiterate, at the time of posting this comment, Keiths’s account is suspended. Lizzie, as sole owner of this site, has the sole and absolute right to endorse or reverse my action and I hope she will let her thoughts known soon.

    I apologise for the inept way in which I handled the technicalities of the suspension, causing several of Keiths’s comments to end up in the moderation queue rather than preventing him from commenting. So I’ve released them.

    [copying this here from Sqawk Box thread]

  18. Alan Fox,

    Has Jock already been suspended, or are you just going to first contact the legal authorities to make sure and tell them he can no longer ever be involved on this site?

    Also, I think his impersonating a lawyer is going to cause even more legal trouble for Lizzie. This could get ugly. Maybe you can try hiring Rudy Guliani.

  19. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    Has Jock already been suspended…

    Nope. Is this an attempt at humour.?

    ..or are you just going to first contact the legal authorities to make sure and tell them he can no longer ever be involved on this site?

    I’m not in favour of lifetime bans. There is a serious issue here with UK libel law which are the most perverse I know of. But Lizzie is a UK resident, the hosting is in UK. so TSZ has to be careful about compliance with the law as it is, not as we might wish it.

    Also, I think his impersonating a lawyer is going to cause even more legal trouble for Lizzie.This could get ugly.Maybe you can try hiring Rudy Guliani.

    Isn’t it Rudy Giuliani impersonating a lawyer which might be causing trouble for Donald Trump.

  20. Alan Fox: I’m not in favour of lifetime bans. There is a serious issue here with UK libel law which are the most perverse I know of. But Lizzie is a UK resident, the hosting is in UK. so TSZ has to be careful about compliance with the law as it is, not as we might wish it.

    Exactly!

    So when Jock is going around calling Meyer a liar, and reminding people that Lizzie also says he is…Geez, this is getting serious!

    I know you are not in favor of lifetime bans, but I guess sometimes you just have no choice. I know you consider Jock a friend so its going to pain you to do it, but really, he has forced your hand.

  21. phoodoo: Exactly!

    So when Jock is going around calling Meyer a liar, and reminding people that Lizzie also says he is…Geez, this is getting serious!

    I know you are not in favor of lifetime bans, but I guess sometimes you just have no choice.I know you consider Jock a friend so its going to pain you to do it, but really, he has forced your hand.

    I’ll make a lawyerly point here. The house rule is against accusations of dishonesty against other site members. Dr Swamidass is a member at TSZ.; Dr Meyer is not.

    Personally, I think accusations of dishonesty are hard to prove and it’s simpler to argue that a statement is false rather than a lie. But when Meyer repeats false claims when the facts are presented to him, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion of dishonesty.

  22. Alan Fox:
    Gregory,
    There are three categories of member here. The entry status is Contributor. Contributors can write OPs but need an admin to publish their OPs. People wishing to publish OPs themselves can request New Author status. New Author status does not include the ability to post-edit OPs. The reason for this is that editing permission extends to comments in those threads and editing of comments by anyone other than the commenter, or in exceptional circumstances, by admins is strictly forbidden.. Author status is available to regular writers of OPs who undertake not to use the post-edit facility on comments.

    Got it. So, do I not qualify for Author status? I have never post-edited comments or removed them. And I’m not ‘new’, though I only ‘came back’ here recently.

    I’d like to edit my OPs. Is this possible at the ‘new’ TSZ?

  23. Alan Fox: I’ll make a lawyerly point here. The house rule is against accusations of dishonesty against other site members. Dr Swamidass is a member at TSZ.; Dr Meyer is not.

    Personally, I think accusations of dishonesty are hard to prove and it’s simpler to argue that a statement is false rather than a lie. But when Meyerrepeats false claims when the facts are presented to him, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion of dishonesty.

    What?? UK libel laws say that if one does not post on TSZ you are allowed to say whatever you want about them?? The British Parliament discusses The Skeptical Zone?

    Alan, I am not so sure you should be giving legal advice. I know Jock likes to hit the peace-pipe, but I had no idea you chase the dragon as well.

  24. Gregory: So, do I not qualify for Author status? I have never post-edited comments or removed them. And I’m not ‘new’, though I only ‘came back’ here recently.

    The “New Author” category was created in response to some OP authors mistakenly using their permissions to delete or edit comments (or in one case a complete thread). I’m aware their is a perception of fairness and I have suggested a simpler level playing field where everyone is a Contributor. That would cause it’s own problems.

    I’d like to edit my OPs. Is this possible at the ‘new’ TSZ.

    Whilst editing for typos and correcting factual errors (with acknowledgement) is fine, no major changes should happen once an OP is published. A correcting OP is a better option.

    The various roles for members and who has what role is currently under discussion.

  25. phoodoo: What?? UK libel laws say that if one does not post on TSZ you are allowed to say whatever you want about them?? The British Parliament discusses The Skeptical Zone?

    UK libel law is, in my view, very much biased toward the rich and powerful and against fair comment. Regarding UK Parliament, I’d love to discuss its shortcomings, especially that of the honourable member for Christchurch.and maybe the honourable member for Vauxhall.

  26. Alan Fox,

    Wait, wait, what is going on here Alan? Are you suddenly saying you are not so concerned about UK libel laws enough that warrants protecting this website and Lizzie getting thrown in the slammer?

    I mean, I could hardly even sleep last night with all of the scary talk by Jock and you and Neil and all about the immense danger the site was under (and who knows possible all contributors on this site being complicit by not renouncing it sooner) by the criminal actions of KeithS. I didn’t know what I was going to do, I was seriously scared. My head was spinning.

    But now I don’t know what to think. Alan, the Great Protector, Lizzie’s Prancing Pitbull, MI5 Fox-riding on his Bright White Stallion, with E.L. monogrammed riding chaps is suddenly running for the hills. Who will save us??

    Thank God we still have Neil. He won’t let those London Bobbies drag Lizzie down Trafalgar Square, kicking and screaming in perfect 4/4 time without a fight.

    You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be….

    We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!!

  27. Entropy: I think that her self-unawarely condescending and insulting comments should be guanoed as well.

    Insulting comments, yes. I agree. When it started getting bad I put it on Ignore.

  28. Alan Fox: The “New Author” category was created in response to some OP authors mistakenly using their permissions to delete or edit comments (or in one case a complete thread).

    Under #PatrickRules they would be banned. 🙂

  29. Alan Fox:
    Gregory,
    There are three categories of member here. The entry status is Contributor. Contributors can write OPs but need an admin to publish their OPs. People wishing to publish OPs themselves can request New Author status. New Author status does not include the ability to post-edit OPs. The reason for this is that editing permission extends to comments in those threads and editing of comments by anyone other than the commenter, or in exceptional circumstances, by admins is strictly forbidden.. Author status is available to regular writers of OPs who undertake not to use the post-edit facility on comments.

    I asked a simple question: “do I not qualify for Author status?” I’m not a ‘New Author’. I do not recall ever having edited someone else’s Comments on this site. & I’m not backchannel dealing here, like S. Joshua Swamidass does at Peaceful Science. The fact is, Alan, since you’re the only one that can toggle the switch, right now I can’t edit even typos in my ops, as was previously allowed. Can you toggle this back to ‘permissioned’, please?

    Alan Fox:
    Whilst editing for typos and correcting factual errors (with acknowledgement) is fine, no major changes should happen once an OP is published. A correcting OP isa better option.

    Yeah, ok, so I just checked & you haven’t updated ACCESS to my own words.

    Talk is cheap, Alan. I wasn’t asking for your philosophy; just toggle it or say No & explain why you won’t. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.

  30. No Gregory, we are not going to give you the ability to freely edit your old posts. You should complete any copy-editing before the post is published.
    As I noted the first time you made this request, if you have specific edits that you would like made, you can ask.

  31. DNA_Jock.

    First, it is gigantically clear that you cannot ‘in good faith’ say ‘we’ as a Moderator at TSZ right now. There is no ‘Teamwork’ among TSZ so-called ‘moderators’. So, if you want to come across as sane, please desist that approach. Did you get any feedback from Neil Rickert or Vincent J. Torley, the non-moderator ‘Moderator’?

    Second, I’m asking not to edit my ‘old posts,’ but one from a couple of days ago. I realise all systems are limited. Nevertheless, Alan Fox seemingly *CAN* toggle it to allow me write & edit ACCESS to MY OWN WORDS, that DNA_Jock, whoever the entitled one thinks he is, are currently administratively BLOCKING me from doing.

    DNA_Jock is obviously a dictator now, disallowing an established ‘old Author’ with no record of history altering other peoples’ Comments, because he thinks he’s somehow in charge of this show in Lizzie’s absence. This position of DNA_Jock’s reveals the hypocrisy in his atheist fixation against theists at this site.

    If you trio of idiots (Alan is left out for the moment, apparently happily! :P) representing TSZ means actively disallowing people to copy edit their own posts, then that’s on Lizzie. They’re just stupid penguins, after all.

  32. Gregory: First, it is gigantically clear that you cannot ‘in good faith’ say ‘we’ as a Moderator at TSZ right now. There is no ‘Teamwork’ among TSZ so-called ‘moderators’. So, if you want to come across as sane, please desist that approach. Did you get any feedback from Neil Rickert or Vincent J. Torley, the non-moderator ‘Moderator’?

    Yes, I did. The “no-one gets to edit old OPs” idea, proposed by Alan, has received support from Vincent and Lizzie.

    Second, I’m asking not to edit my ‘old posts,’ but one from a couple of days ago. I realise all systems are limited. Nevertheless, Alan Fox seemingly *CAN* toggle it to allow me write & edit ACCESS to MY OWN WORDS, that DNA_Jock, whoever the entitled one thinks he is, are currently administratively BLOCKING me from doing.

    “Old” in this context means 30 minutes, or OP’s that other people have already commented on.
    As for the rest of your post, you appear to have confused me with someone else. I’m not an atheist.

  33. DNA_Jock,

    Oh, right, you’re religiously agnostic? There’s no reminder given.

    As I understood, this site has never had a Moderator who is an Abrahamic monotheist. Johnny Bartlett was invited, though did nothing. Vincent J. Torley, who apologises in volumes to atheists & agnostics here VOLUNTEERED to be the first actual Moderator at TSZ, but it does not appear he’s done anything that is publicly visible, perhaps ashamed to associate his name with this place.

    “support from Vincent and Lizzie.”

    Oh, so Vincent actually *HAS* done *something* as a ‘Moderator’ at TSZ? Where is he lately, by the way? Vincent is now engaging new bed partners in Swamidass. I’m doubtful he’ll actually Moderate something publicly ever.

    So if it’s Vincent J. Torley voting against (change the moronic language) allowing OP Authors to ACCESS their OWN WORDS authored as OP, then I can simply say his Australian-Japanese judgment reveals itself as lacking once again. I’m ready for Vincent’s friendly apologist recovering IDist tickles when they finally come around.

  34. Neil Rickert: Yes, this has been discussed by all moderators.

    Got it, including Vincent J. Torley, TSZ Moderator. Collaboration at it’s finest! ; P

  35. Gregory: Got it, including Vincent J. Torley, TSZ Moderator. Collaboration at it’s finest! ; P

    Yup, you got it.
    Although when you described yourself as “an established ‘old Author’ with no record of history [sic] altering other peoples’ Comments”, you were incorrect.
    As a matter of fact, you do have a history of deleting comments that you deemed “off-topic”.

    p.s. reminder, posts not staying on topic will not remain visible

  36. DNA_Jock: Yup, you got it.
    Although when you described yourself as “an established ‘old Author’ with no record of history [sic] altering other peoples’ Comments”, you were incorrect.
    As a matter of fact, you do have a history of deleting comments that you deemed “off-topic”.

    I’m not sure whether this niggling post shows less enlightenment or less of the real faith required to be a decent person (and not a member of the “trio of idiots”.)

    BTW, I’ve mentioned on the squawk thread that the whole history of Noyau was based on a confusion. I’ll say here that the idea that it’s ok to have obnoxious personal attacks on the moderation thread is also kind of ridiculous. The rules should be the same for every forum here–except guano, of course. Why should it be OK to say somebody is an idiot or needs a mental exam on this thread? It’s patently absurd.

    PM is available if you want to call somebody a liar or a fuckwad.

Comments are closed.