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.
newton,
Thanks! Well, DNA_Jock did say some things publicly, which sounded wrong & bully-ish at the time. Mung verified this both then, and in what he wrote recently here. It seems, you side with DNA_Jock & don’t want Mung as Moderator. Lizzie did & likely still does. I side with Lizzie, keiths, Erik & probably most others here on this. Mung should be “switched” back to Moderator status, even if he doesn’t wish to exercise himself as a Moderator. Any more complaining about that from you?
newton,
I suggest that Alan, Neil and Jock do the right thing by reinstating Mung, no strings attached.
A moderator is someone who referees discussions, with regard to the internet, someone who monitors comments and deletes* comments deemed unacceptable. Admin is a level of permissions on a website that allows them to administer all aspects of the site.
I’ve taken breaks from the moderating aspect of administration (not monitoring or moving comments) but this has been voluntary, not enforced.
Hope that helps!
*TSZ does not delete other than porn, defamatory comments and spam.
Alan Fox,
Ok, apology accepted. Thanks for admitting this. No, nothing can be done about it now, nor is anything further needed.
I’m a simple person who believes leadership must be held to account when it acts in a deviant way.
DNA_Jock’s pressure & acted-upon paranoia regarding his beliefs that Mung would stage a coup if he had Moderator privileges is an example of such deviance that should be held to account also.
In general, I’m fine with what Alan Fox has done here most of the time & pay him little to no attention (as it should be). A confused (pink dress averse) apatheist, Alan is likely the best thing for TSZ’s existence, and the only person who really keeps it going. If he pulls the plug, TSZ is finished.
Gregory,
We know from experience that that’s not true. For example, Alan was absent from April through August last year. Despite that long absence, TSZ did just fine.
Alan Fox,
Yes, it helps. So, then Mung should quite obviously have his Admin “level of permissions” at TSZ reinstated, just as Lizzie granted them, so that if he chooses again, now that he is back posting here, he may act as a Moderator. End of story.
Why? Mung’s “level of permissions” should not have been “switched” off in the first place. Lizzie gave Mung Admin permissions. No coup by you, DNA_Jock & Neil Rickert should have been able to change that. You were in the wrong here, Alan. Do you now admit this?
Tell the obnoxious anti-religious “not an atheist” DNA_Jock to take a hike if he doesn’t like it. He can volunteer his own departure if he likes, living in his fantasy paranoia if he wishes. Lizzie’s decision is the only one that matters here, not DNA_Jock’s.
keiths,
Sure, if Lizzie pulls monthly funding, TSZ is finished, unless someone or a group of people take it over. Simple. Other than that, Alan Fox has kept TSZ going over the years, even if you don’t personally approve of what he’s done.
Would you actually want to take credit for TSZ, keiths, as if it’s a noble or important site on the internet? My thoughts about this have been said more than once, most recently here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-41/#comment-271164
Gregory,
If that were true, then TSZ would fall apart during Alan’s long absences. Yet it doesn’t.
A blog like TSZ needs very little upkeep, and I’d be surprised if any of the mods are unable to perform the tasks needed.
keiths,
Well, grind that bitter axe then if you prefer. As for me, forgiveness is a preferable route.
Not entirely correct. I didn’t comment or moderate comments. I kept an eye on updates and spam registrations as usual.
Which I’m sure Jock and Neil are capable of doing, with a little instruction.
I disagree. I had grave concerns that required discussion. Had that discussion allayed those concerns and those of fellow admins, it might have been resolved. That discussion did not come to a conclusion as Mung decided to withdraw.
Lizzie did not respond to requests for input. She still has not responded to further communications from me. I think I acted reasonably. Mung may see things differently. He’s welcome to chip in with his thoughts.
Gregory,
It’s not about bitterness or forgiveness. It’s simply a question of whether Alan is indispensable to TSZ. I say no, and in fact I’d say that none of the mods is indispensable. There’s nothing that Alan does that couldn’t be taken over by Neil or Jock with a little instruction.
I explained my reasoning at the time.
See a couple of pages of Moderation Issues, starting here.
Gregory feels that I “sounded wrong and bully-ish”; perhaps the result of too much time spent in a “dank and soulless” environment.
Of course I’m dispensable. What TSZ would benefit from is Lizzie deciding to return. I’m disappointed she hasn’t wanted to say something on the covid-19 pandemic. .
Alan Fox,
Do you have authority to reverse the permissions that Lizzie granted? It does not appear so. If you say it does, on what basis do you assume that authority?
Why should she? She invited Mung & gave Mung Admin level permissions.
You now appear power-hungry, against the wishes of the site owner.
So what? She gave Mung permission. You have no legitimate authority to take that permission away.
Please now give it back as Lizzie wished. This should be very simple to do. Thanks.
keiths,
Agreed. I make no claim he is “indispensable.” This only verifies what I’ve been saying all along about this place.
I’m done here. Mung can clean up if he cares to. Not a difficult decision to make if Alan had a speck of integrity. He doesn’t seem to have that though, which is sadly the case with most agnostic/atheists I’ve met who have stopped seeking in their hearts. If there were a few seekers here, it would at least not be deplorable.
Gregory:
Alan:
So? Then you should have discussed those “grave concerns” instead of throwing a tantrum and stripping Mung’s privileges.
Gregory:
Alan:
All the more reason for you to reinstate Mung. Lizzie explicitly appointed him, she did not remove him, and you had no legitimate reason to do so yourself.
I’d forgotten how much clarification had already taken place. Follow DNA_Jock’s link. The relevant back-channel communications have been published. Yes, we as admins collectively have plenipotentiary power, in Lizzie’s absence she has said we should act as we think fit and, if there is disagreement, a majority view will apply.
As I’ve said, it depends on whether Mung wants to take up discussions with admins again.
keiths,
See my reply to Gregory
Alan,
No discussions needed. You were wrong to oust him, and so the responsibility is yours to reinstate him.
Look, this is all garbage; was then, still is now.
What we’re talking about: permissions & trust.
TSZ site permissions:
1) Admin – full site access
2) Author – can post without moderation
3) Contributor – requires moderation to post
Please clarify if this is incorrect. The entire argument hinges on this.
What was behind this saga was Mung giving Author permissions to “J-mac” & “keiths”. Then DNA_Jock getting paranoid b/c he thought Mung might launch a coup – fat chance!
Simple question: how many “Authors” are there at TSZ & who decides their permissions?
If that’s all, then I fully agree that “J-mac” should NOT have Author status. Why not? Proven troll. If giving J-mac Author permission is the hill Mung wants to die on, then he’s a fool. He seemed to realize that already & didn’t insist on giving Author status.
So, who does & who should have Author permission at TSZ? Please make a list of the privileged few & tell us why. I will likely be ok with it & said I didn’t care if I was on the list myself.
There’s a simple fix to this idiotic “crisis”. keiths even offered a simple solution: “demote everybody (other than admins) to contributor status”.
This is really not difficult folks.
Suggestion noted, filed appropriately.
Maybe you could stop posting as if there were a coup. There wasn’t.
Neil Rickert,
Yes, 3 against 1, going against the permission to Mung given by Lizzie, qualifies as a kind of “coup”.
Give Mung back Admin/Moderator status as Lizzie granted & obviously wanted (she noted needing a theist Mod when she was here), & this “crisis” is over.
It isn’t a matter of rights. It is a matter of responsibilities.
Neil,
Just out of curiosity, how would you describe it if not as a coup?
Neil:
You, Jock and Alan screwed up, so it’s your responsibility to reinstate Mung.
WordPress currently offers five default levels of permissions.
1. Admin: have full permissions and TSZ is unusual in having several admins rather than just the site owner.
2. Editor: not used here
3. Author: allows publishing and post editing of OPs and appended comments 8 existing authors, no longer used here
4. New author: allows publishing of OPs but not post editing. There are currently 96 new authors
5: Contributor: allows composing of OPs but publishing needs admin intervention. the default for new members.
6. Subscriber not used here.
New author role was created following an instance where an author deleted an OP and all its appended comments.
The change to make all members into contributors to level the playing field was under discussion when the problem with Mung and switching permissions arose. It has slid to the back burner since.
I guess that’s because it does not spread via blog postings.
I’m not completely sure of the history. But I think it was actually Alan who gave Admin permissions to mung. And it was Alan who suggested that mung be given those permissions. Lizzie agreed with the decision, but I think it was Alan who carried it out.
I see my responsibility as one of attempting to keep the site running well.
Neil Rickert,
No but the fake news does! 🙂
Neil,
That means correcting your moderation mistakes, among other things. And ousting Mung was a big mistake.
Interestingly, if I recall correctly, Alan backtracked and wanted to reinstate Mung a few days after the coup, but you and Jock prevented it.
Alan Fox,
Ok, this helps. Here’s what remains after “not used here”:
The other numbers are either no longer or never were issues.
That was STC, if I recall, yes?
So, the issue then no longer remains re: Authors. The people in question all have “New Author” status, right?
The only question remaining is re: 1. Should Mung be reinstated as Admin or not? Since he cannot add Authors, that problem is non-existent. Is the only remaining issue then whether Mung can add New Authors, without permission of the other 3 Admins? Otherwise, why not give Mung back Admin status … today? What is holding Alan, Neil Rickert & DNA_Jock back from doing what Lizzie wanted in the first place?
Gregory,
What Mung did was completely within his rights as a moderator. No rule was broken and no intermoderator agreement was violated. There simply was no basis for removing his moderator privileges.
keiths,
Well, there is now no Author category at TSZ. So the point is irrelevant to the current situation.
Which is why you, Erik, and I are asking for them to be given back to Mung.
Seen from this vantage point, temporarily suspending Mung’s admin permissions seemed to be the responsible thing to do.
It wasn’t needed, it wasn’t justified, it created a huge moderation kerfuffle, and it resulted in the loss of our only active theist moderator. It was hardly the “responsible thing to do”.
Neil, Jock, Alan —
What reason can you offer to explain why you are not immediately restoring Mung’s moderator privileges? Be specific.
And one wasn’t even being planned or considered. You’re welcome. 🙂
Alan claims, in one of his more ridiculous defenses, that there are no moderators here, there are only admins. It is just that sometimes the admins moderate. What they do the other times is unclear.
And why did Alan make such a ridiculous and laughable statement? Because he said he quit as a moderator, haha.
Gregory,
There is another category Alan somehow failed to mention:
6. Contributor who can’t contribute until Alan gives permission for each post. This is a tactic Alan invented, so that he could punish his detractors. He has done it to me, he has done it to Keiths. I can’t remember what excuse he made up to do it to Keiths.
My infraction was quoting other posters posts. Alan decided that was a quiet form of moderation complaint, presumably because he thought others would see the quoted post and believe it should have been guanoed when it wasn’t, so it made him look bad. I don’t know how Alan (Actaully Alan, Jock and Neils all did this) could decide that the quoted post should have been guanoed if it shouldn’t have been guanoed? It was such an egregious offense, making the moderators who aren’t moderators look bad, that it was his way of banning, without banning which was against the rules, not that Alan cares about the rules.
I trust Keiths to be a moderator here much more than I trust any of the current stack. I can sort of give Neils a pass, but Jock doesn’t have an impartial bone in his spineless body. And Alan calls posters trolls. How in the world can he be a moderator (that quit but won’t quit)?
He hasn’t asked.
DNA_Jock,
Who should he have to ask?
He shouldn’t need to.
Jock,
Just to be clear, are you saying you won’t object to Mung’s reinstatement if he simply asks?
keiths,
To be clear, Mung asking Jock’s permission to be moderator would be completely ridiculous.