As the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another 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.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Mung,
Is that a yes? Do you need a comment restoring? I note that Petrushka deleted a comment of yours which was a rule violation. I’m not clear which, if any, comment of yours needs restoring.
This one?
Posted at 2015/10/25 at 1:15 am in Justifications for believing a historical narrative
or this one?
Posted at 2015/10/21 at 2:12 am in What Is A Code
I did not delete any posts. I don’t even know how to delete a post. I don’t even know how to move a comment to guano.
I marked this post for moderation. It seems like nothing but an insult. I have no idea whether Mung is justified in disliking Adapa, but insults do not belong on content treads. We have Noyau for that.
petrushka,
Correction, you said “put into moderation”. Doing so was effectively deletion as the comment is no longer visible. Also the only moderated comments that normally happen are when commenters choose to delete their own comments within the edit time window. Thus Neil presumed Mung had deleted his own comment and moved it to trash.
Just to be clear, my understanding is that moderating a comment is against the rules. Admins will move rule-breaking comments to guano but comments should not be deleted (other than porn, spam etc) or put in moderation. I’m sure Lizzie will put me right if I’m wrong on this.
petrushka,
Well, I agree that it is pretty content-free but I can’t quite see it as particularly insulting.
ETA I wonder whether you missed this earlier comment of mine?
My misunderstanding. I thought I was flagging the comment so a moderator could take a look.
Insulting? What other label can you give to a post that says — in effect — I see poster X has dirtied the thread, so I will stay away.
It’s a little more subtle that Gregory’s rants, but it addresses people rather than ideas.
Yes, that’s right
Okay, a mistake.
No big deal.
I missed that inference. A bit too subtle for me. Maybe Mung will chime in. 😉
ETA anyways I can’t leave the comment in the moderation queue. I should either restore it or guano it.
ETA2 I’ve restored it.
I can’t edit my OP.
Not really a moderation issue. But since there are no “moderators” here, only “admins,” where else can I turn?
I had the same problem.
I think Alan “fixed” it so that authors cannot edit afterwards, as that prevents them deleting posts to the thread.
If you can indicate what you want changed, I’ll try to make that change. If it take a long request, use the messaging system (click “Messages” on the front page) to contact me.
Authors are not allowed to edit their own posts lest they delete something else.
Perhaps AF can fill in more details of what the role editor plugin does.
RB has also commented on ‘two Mungs’.
The problem is that WordPress inextricably links the ability to post edit OPs with the ability to delete and edit subsequent comments in that thread. So the choice is to allow authors the two abilities together or neither. My thinking is that authors do not, by default, have either ability. Any author who needs post editing ability can request it and (after clarifying they understand that the ability to delete and edit other people’s comments must never be used) any admin can enable it by changing a member’s rôle from “new author” to “author” in the member profile. It means we can offer the author rôle widely and to new members without worrying about loss of content, inadvertent or deliberate. There is a preview facility for OPs, and the post remains editable up to the point of pressing the “publish” button.
So anyone needing the post-edit function, just PM an admin or request it here.
Which of them is the one with a long history of anti-gay bigotry at Uncommon Descent? And where’s the evidence?
Alan Fox’s atheist view of justice:
Not allowed: “moron”
Allowed: “shit-minded stalker”, “marshmallow-filled head” and “con-artist”.
Gregory,
Gregory, you are really not in a position to complain. FMM is, however. But not only does he not insult people right and left like you, he also doesn’t whine constantly.
Keep a list and find out how biased atheist admins actually are at TAMSZ. 😉
The admins can’t watch everyone Gregory, but they can watch you!
😀
Mung,
Yeah, there’s some invisible atheist cloaks TAMSZ admins seem to like to grant in their ‘scientific’ worldview. 😉
I don’t recall that . Something about (at least) one being an Internet dipshit?
Just to be clear – my observation vis Mung never concerned anti-gay bigotry.
Just picking the low hanging fruit
Agreed.
Like the posts of OMagain, I have been, until recently, ignoring the posts of Adapa. I wasn’t reading their posts and choosing not to respond, I was simply passing over anything they posted and passing over the post of anyone I saw quoting them.
Amazing how much time that saved!
In the recent threads on the genetic code, I suspended that policy because I wanted to be sure I did not pass over anything of relevance. I don’t regret that decision. I learned a little from the posts of OMagain and Adapa in those threads.
The admins, God bless them, simply cannot smell Guano when it is under their very noses. Evolution in action. Immunity is a wonderful thing!
But now it’s time [past time, really] to go back to ignoring Adapa. Farewell Adapa!
If you ever want to retract your claim that I have a long history of anti-gay bigotry, contact Elizabeth and have her contact me.
Flush.
Mung,
I moved your post here as it seemed to contain some complaint about moderating decisions or lack of them. I’ll point out again there is no 24 hour moderating service. Stuff will get missed. Anyone with a complaint can make it here and an admin will look into it.
Is there an issue, Mung? Can you be specific?
Alan, my posts belong in Guano or they ought to be left alone. I have little doubt that I am not alone in thinking that way.
I am aware of the Noyau thread and the Moderation Issues thread and I am perfectly capable of posting in those threads if that is my intent.
Don’t you think the admins have enough on their hands as it is with just trying to decide whether a post ought to reside in Guano without having to make judgment calls about whether a comment ought to moved to Noyau or the moderation thread?
Mung,
I agree with Mung.
Mung,
OK, on reflection I should have asked you first. Though I’m not going to respond to a a comment about moderation issues in another thread except to say raise it in the moderation issues thread. Now I’m in the dilemma of moving your comment back to it’s original thread leaving these responding comments as orphans. Is it OK to leave it here? I promise not to move another comment other than to guano without permission from the commenter.
Fair enough. See my response above.
Well hell. Just when we were starting to not get along!
Is it OK to leave it here?
Fine by me!
Though I’m not going to respond to a a comment about moderation issues in another thread except to say raise it in the moderation issues thread.
Also fine by me!
See how easy I am to get along with, lol.
🙂
I realize the admins can’t read every post. If I truly want to get their attention I will post in the Moderation Issues thread or send a private message.
There is a discussion similar to a recent interaction involving Lizzie where the site rules do not handle a conflict well.
The relevant rules are:
Two recent comments demonstrate the issue. First:
With the second following shortly:
Like several other participants here, I have no belief in a god or gods. I’m not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise without violating one of the rules quoted above. It is also rude and insulting to tell another person what they believe, despite their claims to the contrary.
At the same time, I have little doubt that the person violating the rules believes what he is writing. I no longer interact with that person because I consider his positions intellectually dishonest, but they seem to be firmly held.
So which rules trump which? Is it acceptable to accuse another participant of not posting in good faith or of being demented if one sincerely believes that to be the case? Or does the admonition to “check your priors at the door” have priority?
Or does the admonition to “check your priors at the door” have priority?
I never did like this one, lol. What’s the fun in that? But I think I understand what it’s trying to express.
Mung,
I see your point, but I really like Lizzie’s sentiment. People who are able to identify and question their own assumptions are much more interesting than close minded proselytizers.
I’m going to shut up now or we’ll end up hugging each other. =P
Two notes:
1: I found two posts by a regular contributor in the moderation queue. That’s what happens when a user deletes a post. I moved both to trash after adding a note on why.
I’m a bit troubled with the possibility that at least one of those might have been deleted by the thread author rather than the comment author. Let me know if you want this to be recovered from trash.
2: I found 5 messages in the spam queue. They did not look like spam to me. They looked like attempts to post by a new member. So I marked them as “not spam”. I then trashed 3 of the 5 (there was a lot of repetition, suggesting a post making several attempts to post the same thing but frustrated that they did not appear).
Since Alan Fox is an unhelpful man, how can a non-administrator post an image in a TAMSZ thread? What are the ‘codes’? 😉
Gregory,
What I use is [img src=”image-url”/] with the square brackets replaced by less-than and greater-than signs. After the JoeG incident, I’m not sure if that capability is available by default. If it doesn’t work for you, let me know and I’ll try to enable it.
It isn’t.
Currently, posting images in comments is unavailable to members other than admins. I’m happy to post an image for Gregory and insert it into whichever comment he would like it inserted. I’m not a mind reader so he needs to provide the link.
Neil Rickert,
It may be that part of the problem is I initially took the new member, otangelo, to be a spam bot. I’ve emailed just to let them know the account is fully functional.
ETA, just noticed that otangelo’s comments were originally flagged as spam and put in the moderation queue by the Akismet anti-spam plugin.
Please address the post, not the poster.
Given the amount of abuse I put up with here at TSZ I think I’ve demonstrated a remarkably thick skin.
Perhaps you’re incapable of the requisite objectivity because I took exception to your scurrilous allegation that I have a long and sordid history of anti-gay bigotry at UD.
An allegation which has as it’s sole support your claim that you think you’re right. Pathetic.
If you ask me, your allegation is hardly discernible from posting porn, and perhaps even worse. You should be banned.
Damn Mung, you really are the whiniest butthurt IDiot to come down the pike. The day you stop equivocating and stop running from questions is the day you’ll earn some respect.
Adapa,
You made an unsubstantiated allegation. It would be decent of you to either support it or withdraw it.
The funny thing is that I (initially) agreed with Adapa on that claim. Then I went looking for evidence (a shallow dive at this point). All I could find was Mung palling around with people who hate/fear homosexuals. So it seems Mung is happy to break bread with bigots, share their tales around the campfire and slap them on the back when they get a “hit” on a Darwinbot but has not actually said the words that would make him such a person.
So the best/worst that can be said is that he has their stink on him, but has not yet actually become one of them fully.
You get exactly the right amount of abuse, no more and no less.
Much like ID then.