Harvey the abusive mod

[Specop 007]

Whats up with this??

The stats have been proven many times in both IM's with people who asked and in posts on Anandtech.

Since when can mods randomly delete stuff they THINK isnt valid? Is that how it works now, when the mods feel like they dont like the information they can just delete it??

This is completely unbelievable and a new low for the Moderation of Anandtech.

Per the PM I recieved.......

AnandTech Moderator
Every:
* 16 seconds an illegal alien crosses the border
* 4 minutes an illegal alien commits a sex-crime
* 6 hours someone is killed by an illegal alien

Unless you can prove that, it is pure bigotry. I deleted it from your sig. You may replace it if you can support it with credible links. If you cannot do so, please do not post any such crap again.

Thank you.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

We are debating this issue Spec and will consult directly with Derek to get it resolved.
I'm now locking this thread as it has served it's purpose.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[Specop 007]

I added it back..

If you want proof Harvey why dont you do what ever other poster has done and ask for it rather then juist silencing things you dont think are correct?Or read one of the many posts where I linked to the facts...... Or am I asking too much to expect a mod to act fairly and reasonably?

Thank you,
Specop_007



EDIT

And another thing Harvey, if its all the same I'd rather deal with a different mod on the issue at this point. I dont trust you to be fair and impartial in this regard as you've already shown your more then willing to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to me.. If I have any say in it I'd rather discuss the issue with another mod and provide them them the facts if they feel its needed.

---

You're stuck with me. I deleted it again. Prove the statements, or leave it out.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[Chunky Monster]

If you have factual proof to back up the statements in your SIG, why not just link to it there?

Just asking?

 

[Specop 007]

I'm stuck with you for now, but I dont think I'll rpove it to you.

As i said in the IM, its clearly apparent you dont give a damn about the validity ofv the facts and are on some personal campaign against me. This is exactly why i wont deal with you on the issue.

In regards to the IM you just sent...

Prove it to me, now, or I'll remove it. If you replace it again without doing so, you will be as gone as the sig.

So first you call me a liar and a bigot, then you modify my profile and NOW you're threatening me?

 

[KeithTalent]

Take it up with Derek.

KT

 

[Harvey]

Before I took any action, I personally searched the web for anything that would support the statistics in your sig. The only thing I found was your own post on another forum under another name.

I deleted that from your sig again. If those stats are accurate, prove it, right here, right now, and I will let it go. If you cannot, I will not stand by while you drag our forums into the gutter by spewing your bigotry all over our forums.

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[Specop 007]

Harvey,

All I'm saying is look at it from the end user perspective. First I see I have an IM so I check it and what do I see?
I'm called a liar, I'm called a bigot and my profile has been altered. Do you think this even remotely reflects any professionalism in the conduct of a mod? Does that even seem like a rational course of action for someone who is a mod?

This wasnt so registered user saying I'm a liar and a bigot, this is a Moderator who then goes on to tamper with my profile.

So you Googled, thats great. Its nice to know you put a bit of time into it.

Why not just ask me? Why not use an approach like this...

"Hey Spec, those are some crazy numbers! Where did you find those?"

Or, if you dont feel like being the friendly helpful mod maybe something like this....

"Spec, please provide proof of your signature or modify it or I will modify it for you if those numbers are false"

But no. Your actions are so unprofessional and overbearing as to be, in my eyes, proof that perhaps you do not deserve to be a mod. And when you consider I've had that sig for probably almost 2 years, why does it bother you now?
It was nothing but a personal case against me by you. THATS IT. Completely unprofessional and personal.

As for the facts...

*** Every 16 seconds, another illegal alien crosses our border. (Source)
Time magazine (Sept. 12, 2004) reported that about 3 million illegal immigrants enter the US annually just from Mexico.
That's over 8,000 illegal aliens entering every day or about one every 16 seconds.

*** Every 4 minutes, a sex-crime is committed in the US by an illegal alien. (Source)
"This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study."
That's over 360 sex crimes every day by illegal aliens or about one every 4 minutes.

*** Every 6 hours, someone in the US is killed by an illegal alien. (Source)
"...estimated that illegal aliens kill 1,480 people in America every year..."
That's about 4 deaths every day by illegal aliens or about one every 6 hours.


I assume I can count on you to again modify my Profile and put the sig back?

 

[Specop 007]

Dont worry about it, I'll get it (My sig)

 

[KeithTalent]

Silly question maybe, and I haven't verified the veracity of the statistic by going through the links, but assuming they are accurate, why wouldn't you just put the links in your sig as well?

KT

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Silly question maybe, and I haven't verified the veracity of the statistic by going through the links, but assuming they are accurate, why wouldn't you just put the links in your sig as well?

KT

Happily.
Up my character limit.

 

[Specop 007]

More to the point, anyone who wanted the links I would give them to. Anytime it was questioned in a thread I linked it where appropriate (In times it wouldnt take the thread off topic)

And the biggest thing is I've had that sig for probably close to 2 years. Why was it suddenly a problem for Harvey? You cant honestly tell me he never saw it before now.

No, I feel it was in regards to something else I had posted and he used my sig as leverage. Completely unprofessional. Completely uncalled for. Totally unacceptable behavior for a Moderator for one of the largest tech boards on the net. My opinion. Ultimately I'll leave it up to the guy whos opinion really counts, Derek.

 

[Harvey]

365 days x 24 hrs. x 60 min. x 60 sec. = 31,536,000 seconds in a year.

31,536,000 / 16 = 1,971,000 16 second intervals in a year.

3,000,000 / 1,971,000 = 1.52207 aliens every 16 seconds.

Did you bury 14.47793 aliens somewhere in the desert?

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

The conclusion in the second paragraph does not follow from the statistics in the first one. The first paragraph describes an estimate of the number illegal immigrant sex offenders in the U.S., but it has no relationship with the number of such immigrant sex offenders crossing the borders in any given time period.

Your source for your third spec, discoverthenetworks.org, is a dogmatic right wing site which I do not consider to be credible.

I assume I can count on you to again modify my Profile and put the sig back?

No. I don't consider your "proof" to be credible, and the statements, by themselves, in the abstract, with no credible links to support them, are still bigotry and an embarrassment to our forums.

And an apology would be real fuckin nice too.

:lips:

 

[Specop 007]

You're a real piece of work Harvey. Using your own personal political views and opinions to dictate terms on Anandtech.

I truly hope Derek removes you as a mod. This is downright disgusting and only proves me point that after having the sig for years without problems you choose now only for personal reasons.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I added it back..

If you want proof Harvey why dont you do what ever other poster has done and ask for it rather then juist silencing things you dont think are correct?Or read one of the many posts where I linked to the facts...... Or am I asking too much to expect a mod to act fairly and reasonably?

Thank you,
Specop_007



EDIT

And another thing Harvey, if its all the same I'd rather deal with a different mod on the issue at this point. I dont trust you to be fair and impartial in this regard as you've already shown your more then willing to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to me.. If I have any say in it I'd rather discuss the issue with another mod and provide them them the facts if they feel its needed.

I tell you what Spec, show me proof for your original sig and I will personally put it back.

Your current sig is now a Mod Call Out and will result in sanction if you don't change it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I tell you what Spec, show me proof for your original sig and I will personally put it back.

I telll you what, Spec -- Show me some credible proof, and I'll help him. Your previous links are not credible for the reasons I posted, and your math sucks by greater than a factor of ten.

 

[Specop 007]

ok Red Dawn. you got'm. I gave you my first and second sig line.

Can the third be a gimme? I mean hell, I cant help it that Harvey's blind partisanship plays an issue in how he moderates.

 

[DerekWilson]

This issue has been quite a difficult one for AnandTech to deal with for many reasons, and I would like to share with the resolution with the rest of the community in an effort to better communicate what we expect both from our members and from our moderators.

I'd like to begin by saying, once again, that we realize that our current policy is less than optimal. We require some back end tools that we currently do not have in order to allow us to open up and make submitting complaints about moderation an easy and fair process for all involved. We are working on getting those tools together, but I do not yet have an ETA on when we'll be able to change the way things are handled. I hope you will undrestand that this is as difficult for us as it is for you and that we want things to change as soon as possible as well.

With that out of the way, we'll dive into this issues.

There are two different aspects to this case: the actions of Specop 007 as a member and the actions of Harvey as a moderator.

First we'll deal with the moderation of this issue.

We have, from our TOS and our first member guideline: "Do not use our Forums to post any material, or links to any material, which is knowingly false ..." Key to this issue is where the burden of proof is for members posting material that other members believe to be false. We cannot be in the business of vetting all the information in people's sigs and that they post on the boards. Further, it is not against our guidelines to simply be wrong or mistaken, but to knowingly post false information.

The burden of proof for violation in a case such as this is on other complaining members or moderators. The proper course of action would be to verify that the member's information is verifiably incorrect beyond doubt. If after this point the member posts the information we will consider it a violation for posting something knowingly false.

I do not want our moderators in the business of verifying information or sources. In this case, Specop 007 provided support for his position which was then disputed. I don't want to go down this path at all. The reasons are numerous and should be obvious, but in short I don't want to define a system for verifying information sources. I don't want our members seeking out sources that they know are false to back their opinions, but I certainly am not going to be the one that starts drawing the lines in the sand on what we consider fact and what we do not. I want to encourage open debate about as many things as possible and this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Removing Specop 007's sig was unwarranted under our guidelines.

Further, we absolutely expect that when moderating, our moderators will treat members with the utmost respect and care. We defend any mod's right to post as they please in any thread as a member (which does mean the occasionaly battle of words will happen), but when acting in the capacity of a moderator our mods will be expected to properly and appropriately respresent AnandTech.

AnandTech has decided that Specop 007 will be allowed to restore his sig. Additionally, Harvey was required to send an apology to Specop 007 for this situation (which has since been recieved and accepted by Specop).

While I hate that this has to be made clear in this way, we must also address the fact that Specop 007 did violate our guidelines when posting this thread.

The title of the thread and the content of many of the posts personally attack Harvey. We do not allow our members to call out mods publically on our forums. The proper channel for complaints in through PM to AnandTech Moderator, though I will also allow members to PM or email me directly if they have issues (though they should understand that I may be much slower to respond than the AnandTech Moderator account which is managed by mulitple moderators).

If you contact the AnandTech Moderator account and ask to appeal a moderator decision, our moderators will discuss it and if no resolution can be found I will be called in to deal with it anyway. PMing AnandTech Moderator is the best route to handle complaints at this time, as if our team of Senior mods can resolve the issue on their own this will give a much faster response time than involving me when it is unnecessary. In fact, this issue would very likely have been handled much faster and in the same manner with less complication if it had been addressed privately -- and we wouldn't have to take the following difficult but necessary step:

In spite of the fact that in this situation Specop 007's complaint against Harvey's action was valid, we must still apply our guidelines which were not followed in issuing this complaint. Therefore, as a result of this thread, Specop 007 has recieved a 1 week vacation.

As much as I do not want to do this (Harvey and other Senior Mods also strongly urged me not to as well), I can't allow such public personal call outs of our moderators to stand. If we let things slide when the complaint was valid but punished people when it wasn't, we'd cause many more problems when people who felt very strongly that they had a valid complaint were vacationed for not having a valid complaint.

Under our current system, public compalaints against our moderators need to be fully allowed (which we are not able to do at this time), or we need to handle complaints in private. When we acquire the tools we need to allow members a place to voice their opinions in a semi-priate way by posting to a forum specially designed for feedback about moderators we will be very happy to adjust to better accommodate the needs of both members and moderators. As has been mentioned previously, we are in the long and arduous process of setting up vBulletin which will help us immensely improve the quality of our moderation and forum experience in general in many ways.

I will say though, that in the mean time we will be much more lenient on people who try and remain non-confontational in attempt to appeal a moderation decision without calling out a moderator. For people who haven't paid as much attention to the guidelines as they should who feel strongly enough to post a complaint about some action taken, if they do so courteously and carefully we will absolutely address the matter, but we will warn the member that such issues should be handled through PM with AnandTech Moderator or, if they don't mind an uncertain schedule, they can PM me.

In cases where members call our mods abusive, biased, and unfair, we have to respond with action. All of our moderators are motivated by the desire to improve and benefit the forums. No moderator I have worked with has ever actively done anything that they did not believe was the right thing to do. That doesn't mean they always get it right, but they will always make amends when something goes wrong. AnandTech will make sure that they are on the same page that we are when it comes to understanding and appropriately enforcing our guidelines.

We need you guys to understand this. As much as we need our mods to treat members appropriately, we also need our members to treat our moderators when moderating with respect. We will do our best to make sure this balance is maintained. Please give our mods the benefit of the doubt and if something looks like it was the wrong decision, treat it as a mistake or a misunderstanding rather than something else. We will absolutely give complaints the attention they deserve.

I hope the fact that we have addressed this complaint as fully and fairly as we have will show that we are not in the business of ignoring problems. I also hope that our members will be careful to be respectful and polite when complaining about sensitive issues. I will do my best to make sure our moderators also act with sensitivity and care when moderating. I hope this strikes a workable balance.

Thanks.