As the original Moderation page has developed a bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, I thought I’d put up a page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
26th June 2015: the bug has now affected this page so there is now a new Moderation Issues page here.
“It’s complicated” = “If we kept it simple, I wouldn’t be able to screw you over and (1) get your consent to do so, and (2) still feel good about myself.
I don’t know, William. There was no announcement or any other indication from Barry Arrington or anyone else. All I know is I could no longer post there. From memory, I think my home IP was blocked first, and later my login wouldn’t work. Your guess is as good as mine whether it was intentional or a mistake. Why don’t you ask Mr. Arrington?
All Mr Arrington had to say was “Don’t post here any more” and that would have done it.
At least on an earlier occasion prior to the later amnesty, when you requested my banning for my correctly accusing Barry of quote-mining Niles Eldredge, the fact and the reason for that ban was made clear.
Aw, but it’s so simple: I own it, ya want ta use it, ya gotta pay me for it. Or else, ya see the business end of my gun.
See, simples.
BTW, I’m surprised, considering ID critics come and go from the comment columns at Uncommon Descent with predictable regularity, why you need to ask.
Alan Fox,
Well, I guess it’s safe to assume that you didn’t tell Mr. Arrington at UD that Aurelio Smith was Alan Fox, since you had a big “I’m Aurelio” coming out thread here, like it was a big secret. You could have logged back into UD as Alan Fox 2, or something like that, and asked if you had been banned. But, that’s not the way you went about it, did you?
You realized you were apparently banned a 2nd time back in November. You still wanted to participate, and so generated a purposefully clandestine account name to get by the apparent ban.
What’s your take on why Mr. Arrington uniquely deleted all of your AS posts? I mean, out of everyone who has ever posted there, and all the arguments, what was so special about your comments? After all, there were many, many times that other anti-ID advocates have claimed that they handed Mr. Arrington his hat, but none of them got their comments deleted.
William, to Alan:
Barry’s lack of impulse control. He often gets angry and does stupid things in the heat of the moment. Deleting Aurelio’s comments is one example. Deleting an entire thread because it made him look stupid is another.
Despite being repeatedly asked, he has refused to explain either of those bizarre moves. If he had good reasons, he wouldn’t hesitate to explain himself.
To me, that seems like a perfect example of illegitimate use.
It’s a fine quote to use to criticize Lewontin’s materialism. But that is not how it is used. Instead, people are accused of being materialist, often without bothering to ask them, and then the Lewontin quote is used as a character attack.
Is that a requirement for posting comments at Uncommon Descent? You don’t think a comment should be judged on its content rather than who posted it. Is the content affected by the identity of the writer?
Funnily enough, I was a little concerned when Jon Bartlett asked me to contribute a guest post and mentioned my real name to him. He told me it didn’t matter.
No. I didn’t think I was a special case.
Oh, get off the high horse, William. Barry is the sleazy guy, here. Trying to manage the opposition by offing it at a whim while maintaining a pretence of open-ness is pretty despicable as a modus operandi. Our disrespect is thoroughly mutual.
You know, I think it might have been an impulse that he might even begin to regret. It was the crossing of a line into even more dishonourable behaviour than some thought him capable of. And of course it sets a precedent and raise the possibility of it happening again. No wonder there are so few critics commenting at Uncommon Descent now.
Well, you’re the mind reader, William. Or you could ask
BarryMr Arrington. Did you find Aurelio’s comments particularly upsetting?PS @ William
I didn’t change my personality when commenting as Aurelio Smith. I stand by everything I wrote under that pseudonym. More than one person guessed my RL from my posting style. As you can tell if you check some of those comments. Oh, wait…
ETA like some have noticed the similarity in style between the recently absent JoeG and a new poster, Virgil Cain. 😉
Which annoys the hell out of me, because I love that song and don’t want to be reminded of JoeG whenever I hear it.
Joe will always be able to spot. Limited go-to talking points, even smaller vocabulary, formulaic post structure.
And now a “happy” thought – this thread is getting as long as the famous UD banninations thread at AtBC. We’re as concerned with openness as they are with suppression 😉
Joe can’t spell.
Alan Fox,
Okay … so neither you or keiths can provide a good reason for Mr. Arrington to pick this particular time, and your particular posts, to delete, when all prior posts by all prior anti-ID commenters have all remained intact
So, you had been banned, snuck back on to the site where you had been banned from under a pseudonym, got a guest post headlined, and then got banned again and all your pseudonymous posts deleted
We don’t know that Mr. Arrington deleted your posts; if so, we don’t know if was it purposeful; if so, we don’t know why; what we do know is that you deceitfully lied your way into a guest post after you got banned. Whether or not Johnnyb knew your real name or not is inconsequential to these facts; he wasn’t Mr. Arrington, the person you were trying to sneak around.
The stand up, honest thing to do would be to either assume you were banned and respect that; if you didn’t know, then log in as Alan Fox 2 and ask. The one thing we know for certain here is that you behaved deceitfully, and everyone here seems to be content to overlook that and call for a boycott on UD even after your deceptive part was revealed.
How do you know this, William?
You don’t. Stick to variable facts rather than making things up that “make you happy”.
Thanks.
Read all 33 pages, William:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=55885e5cd04e81d3;act=ST;f=14;t=5141;st=0
I’m sure we missed some.
Anyway, that’s simply not true. Posts at UD have been deleted, modified, disemvowled.
William J. Murray,
But curiously, you do not provide an actual example of its use in a non-quote-mining manner. An example of legitimate usage would seem relevant in support of a contention that legitimate usages avoid the charge of quote mining. Since this quote does the rounds of Creationist sites, the same incomplete excerpt, I doubt anyone, including you, has ever even bothered to read it in context. Which, incidentally, can be found here.
“The Lewontin Quote” is used to ‘prove’ that scientists have a prior commitment to materialism, because here’s one who says it. Meh. I don’t know why you or anyone else thinks the more simply stated claim “scientists have a prior commitment to materialism” is given any additional weight whatsoever by popping from the mouth or fingers of Dick Lewontin. You certainly don’t listen to him on any other matter.
Ah, I appear to have misssed this bit
Just to clarify the chronology, William, here is my take on the Barrynating I received back in December 2013. No complaints. The egg on Barry’s face was compensation for the inconvenience of no longer being able to post at UD. Later comes the amnesty announcement and, along with quite a few other members of the “banned”, I accept Barry’s invitation to comment at UD.
There is still a question as to who started the new trick of IP blocking at UD which resulted in my being unable to post within a few weeks of the invitation. There has never been any confirmation of a ban and no reason or explanation. I suspect this comment had something to do with it, as the IP blocking started soon after.
William doesn’t care about what is true / real, just what makes him happy*
*Paraphrase.
William,
They haven’t.
As for providing “a good reason”, why are we expected to account for Barry’s erratic behavior? When something sets him off, he acts impulsively. If you want to know why, ask him.
I brought it to this thread precisely so that I could get it out of stc’s thread and let the point about the general case stand without implicating the specific offender. I could have explicitly stated that I was making a point about the general case and explicitly excepted stc but since he is openly YEC and YEC tactics have always been dishonest that would have looked foolish.
My point in the original comment isn’t to say we shouldn’t have a nice forum where decent moderation is the expectation. It is to point out that it is sort of hopeless to expect the liars-for-Jesus to do anything but take advantage of and abuse the graciousness given. And I don’t think Lizzie actually expects them to behave better. Her site has alternate benefits for her. Other site residents have expressed a similar sentiment.
I stand by the policy of accepting that the antiscience types do believe what they claim they believe but I don’t define bad faith the same way Lizzie does. Bad faith happens in the rhetorical technique, not in the belief. stc is showing bad faith by his tactics. That isn’t worth censoring or banning(which would kill this site) but it is worth demanding stc demonstrate honest rhetorical technique and continuing to demand it over and over again.
Mung,
As for you, your dishonest rhetorical devices are harder to spot than stc’s but no less dishonest for it. To borrow someone else’s word from upthread, throwing out other commenter’s comments in order to get them to ‘shadowbox’ each other is something I’ve noted you doing and to me it is a dishonest tactic. I even considered making an OP about it when I finally recognized it as a repetitive behavior but I couldn’t think up a good moniker to tag it with.
Now, I believe I owe Piotr a reply to a comment I walked away from months ago when I went on my extended trip. If I could just remember where it is.
======
eta a clarifying preposition
Nope. Only Barry knows the mind of Barry, unless you can bring your mind powers to bear on the conundrum.
Nope. It’s an assumption. Only Barry knows the mind of Barry. Mindpowers or an email might work. I’ll try emailing him. Do you think he’ll reply?I’ll be civil. 🙂
Correct.
Not correct. Jon Bartlett made enquiries of Arrington and the explanation he passed on to me was that my complete posting history as Aurelio Smith was erased “for being an asshole”. So yes, Barry did it; and yes the reason given was that I was “being an asshole”.
Not correct. I registered under a pseudonym. The majority of commenters at UD seem to post under a pseudonym. No lying was required.
You know I think many were well aware of my RL and I kept mentioning the IP block issue. Still no idea what comment caused the Barry meltdown.
Good grief, William, you have the gall to lecture me about respect! I”d be offended if it wasn’t so damn funny! 🙂
I’ll do that next time. 🙂
If you call registering on a blog using a pseudonym, when there is no declared policy against it, when most posters use pseudonyms and when I have had no indication whether I am persona non grata or not? Well, if you call that deceit, what must you think of Arrington?
Yes and I hope there will be no backsliders. Oh and,,, Attention, Zachriel. I’m looking at you.
Alan Fox said:
So, hearsay is evidence when it agrees with what you want to believe?
You’re dissembling. The deceitful part is not that you registered under a pseudonym on the internet per se, but that you registered under a pseudonym at UD after you thought you had been banned and didn’t announce it to the moderators to get a confirmation that you had been banned as Alan Fox or something else had happened, and you did this for the deliberate intent of being able to post where you thought you hand been banned.
You already admitted your deceitful actions, Alan. Try to be a big boy now and not make excuses for yourself and your bad behavior.
@ William J Murray
I emailed Barry thus:
Handily, as his account is still intact here, I sent the email to the address he registered with. *Rats! Just noticed a couple of typos.
I’ve been banned at various sites on the internet. I don’t pathetically attempt to sneak back in where I’ve been shown the door. And you call Mr. Arrington “sleazy”?
Sorry to hear that. How were you informed? What reasons were given?
Let me see if I can recall where I have been banned. Back in 2006, I think, I was banned from the ISCID forum. That was because the late John Davison requested it. No record remains. I think* I was banned at “Overwhelming Evidence”. Site’s gone. I was banned at “Telic Thoughts” officially for being boring but I think it was really to do with Paul Nelson popping in and me asking him about his “no design theory statement”. Site’s gone now.
*I was asked politely to stop posting as the site was intended for young people so I did. Don’t know whether a ban was imposed as I never went back.
So why sneak back into UD?
No, I think the Lewontin quote is most often used as supportive evidence of the “materialist”, anti-theistic mindset of many in the scientific community, along with other quotes and, you know, that whole “methodological materialism” thingy.
Kinda hard to get out from under the materialist accusation about many in the scientific community after officially redifining the process with the term “materialism”.
Don’t accept “sneak”. But my obsession is not unique.
That’s exactly what Neil said. It”s Lewontin’s personal view. Lewontin speaks for himself – nobody else. You’re assuming Lewontin speaks for the entire scientific community.
being shown the door would entail, “I’m sorry but I find XXXX very rude so I’m going to have to ask you to leave now and please don’t come back.”
I find you being an ill-informed apologist for UD most amusing, William, and it helps inform my opinions of your character.
William,
Do you realize how ridiculous your claim is that “all prior posts by all prior anti-ID commenters have all remained intact”?
Richard is right. Your defense of UD is laughable.
keiths,
It doesn’t have to be true, Keith. I just has to work with William’s feelings.*
*He can of course recant his viewpoint later for some other tard, like he has previously.
walto,
I just reread your comment and don’t see anything that addresses that risk.
walto,
I can only refer you to the wisdom of Terry Pratchett, here in the guise of the witch Granny Weatherwax speaking with the Omnian priest Mightily Oats:
You apparently want to control what other people say and hear. Your whites are grubby.
walto,
Yes, you’ve made it clear before that you are willing to use force against other people to attain your own ends.
Jesus, you [self-censored]. And you are confusing the chronology, even though I outlined it here. In the absence of any other explanation, that’s all I can tell you. I have no reason to think Jon Bartlett would make that up. My impression of him is he’s a straight-up guy. Anyway, Barry will clarify when he replies to my email, I’m sure.
Your chutzpah amazes me. Mote and beam not-a-Christian William, mote and beam.
Lewontin’s expression of personal opinion does not count as “officially redifining.” Even Lewontin’s student Jerry Coyne disagrees with Lewontin on this. See the quote at today’s Sandwalk post.
Neil Rickert,
In case William is reluctant to follow the link, let’s quote Jerry Coyne (as quoted by Larry Moran):
Could have been addressing William personally! See Neil’s comment for the link.
ETA * transcription typo?
What a dogmatic defense of UD.
Richardthughes
Really, Patrick? When have I done that?
Note to Lizzie: You’ve got this guy as moderator?? That post is exactly the kind of crap that should be guanoed.
That’s a strong claim, Patrick. I don’t recall seeing walto having said anything along those lines.
walto,
If misrepresentation were a bannable offense, you’d have been given the boot long ago.
You seem to think that the repetition of false accusations is an acceptable tactic. I don’t. But I don’t think the solution is to prevent you from posting them, because that requires a third party to prejudge their truth or falsehood.
Far better for you to be permitted to post them, for the accused to be permitted to rebut them, and for onlookers to weigh the evidence and arguments and decide for themselves.
Here is a beautiful example of how well that can work. Once the evidence was presented, it became obvious that your accusation was false.
It’s amusing when accusations boomerang on the accuser, with an added charge of hypocrisy on the return flight.
walto,
I’m sure Patrick will back up that claim or withdraw and apologize if he finds he has misunderstood something you have written.
Yes indeedy. So true.
keiths,
Quote mining at its finest, by one of the true masters of the trade, SZ’s very own keiths. I wonder if petrushka ever made a study of your bullshit, keiths. It would be, as you say, most ‘amusing’.
walto,
I see a lot of boomerang bruises on your forehead, but not on mine.
As always, if you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence.
I am posting by phone and cannot research this, but I got the distinct impression that a couple of people were disinclined to value free speech. Since everyone thinks their own speech is valuable, I interpret this to mean some other person’s speech is not. I seem to recall someone advocating a truth test for political advertising.
I personally find it tiresome trying to keep track of who said what. I prefer to forget such details and concentrate on the contents of the current post. I only remember the person if he threatens me or is extraordinarily eccentric.