h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

Here is another example of Mina(Ideno) demonstrating moderator powers (there seems to be some overlap with Editor powers): F124?thread=279775&post=3506970#p3506970

It is also interesting for the last line showing a complete misreading of the situation in falsely accusing someone in her mind and defaming them by implication. Note that a name does not need to be given when one (or even more) people may be considered to be obviously intended. Several participants in the thread are agreed about what she meant and know that she was wrong.

Ideno/Mina
Re: post 1334

"actually i wasnt talking about AWOL"

Awol, SEF, me...anyone who stands up to this site and 'some' of the aces/staff? any name would of done right?

This post has been removed.

SEF
Re: post 1334

just read that link, editor? lol what editor?! when questions are asked, they must answer HONESTLY, (anyone got a dictionary? oh wait up allow me )....

Honestly -
not stealing or cheating or TELLING LIES; truthful [from old French; related to honour]


lies come back to haunt you....
no kidding, talk your way out of that 1 please, or perhaps another ace/staff member would like to back you up on that?

Which proves my point SEF. I don't work on DNA on a day to day basis. I joined a couple of conversations yesterday - the first for a number of days, if not weeks I think. In fact, I can't see one on the fisrt couple of MP pages dated less than '2 weeks ago'. Hardly daily, is it? I think that means that you are wrong.

As far as reporting a bug goes, apart from the fact that reporting a bug is not a moderation decision, from memory I made that when on h2g2. so once again you are wrong. I'm assuming you mean bug 572, not 152 as you said in your post. Oh dear, you are wrong again.

This post has been removed.

~~Insomniac.Vampire~~, I'm not telling lies. I'm sorry that I implied that you were being follish. You are entitled to believe who you like.

Believe SEF, if you like. Disbelieve me, if you like. I know neither of you, and as neither of you have the courtesy to call me by the name that I've chosen to use on this site, then neither of you are worth bothering with. I'm sorry that I forgot that some people aren't worth bothering with when I came online today.

Once again I was helping out another Researcher, and I was jumped on. Kind of shows you the sort of person we're dealing with. Obviously there are people here who think that they are the only people who are supposed to be helpful here.

U94986, you don't have to post to be online as U290. Also you were trying to give the impression that you weren't using the account by saying you were not on daily. I never said you were posting daily or even online daily. But you do still use the account and were online as both when various posts were yikesed. I saw you.

I never said that reporting a bug was a moderation decision. Where could you possibly get that idea but I will return to the point since it was one I was going to make anyway.

You are wrong in assuming bug 572 (on A1064990). The bugfinders found and reported that. You merely edited the page perhaps. I meant what I said about bug 152. People were complaining about large embedded pictures going wrong in articles. The significant bit is the addition of how it affects "moderation tools" - ie tools used by people with moderator powers to do moderation things. NB Someone else gave me the link to the actual post reporting it once and it is not easy to refind these things with search.

Back to that phrase "moderation decision" - as in the whole process of moderation using moderator powers only allocated to a few people on the dna sites. This is not about the external contract job of "Moderator" but all the powers and actions of moderation. The conversation link I gave shows that in action. The hiding and unhiding or editing of posts is a moderation decision. The email correspondance is about moderation decisions - and moderation decisions are things which are allegedly not discussed on site by staff - not by *external* Moderators.

could this be the culprit? A2071333

"someone who has a well-known vendetta against the staff of this site"

Since U94986/U290 has chosen not to retract her defamatory remarks about me in all this time but is more than happy to have them propagated by all the local sycophants, it is probably time to set that record straight - at least for the duration of this post being allowed to remain unyikesed.

What I am more or less well-known for is having a dislike of dishonesty and nastiness.

Now, bearing that in mind, consider which staff I speak out against and when and why. Note that it is not all and certainly not all the time as would be required for a vendetta. I do not follow them around the site or post spam on their spaces or email them at home or any of the things done by others to harrass and bully various people, including me. Note also which other non-staff researchers I speak out against and when.

So the probable restrictive definition of site to mean h2g2 rather than dna (since I have been on more than one of this set as have the staff over time!) is an attempt to deceive. The emphasis on staff in this defamation of me, as opposed to the true picture of speaking out against all dishonest and nasty people, is another attempt to deceive. It is not so convincing as a vendetta when you see who has actually been doing what.

The unusual thing about me is that I'm willing to stick up for other victims than just my own interests and am also willing to speak out against those in power. I still don't know if I.V. has a valid complaint but I do know that it does not deserve to be dismissed as unfounded in the way it has. This is because I already know it fits an established pattern of behaviour on this site.

i see U94986 as a personal photo on their front page

Ideno/Mina
Re: post 1348

you are now sorry you implied i was foolish, yet when i respond to that you yikes my post..SEF proved what you was saying was not strictly true and you have yikesed 1 of hers when all she did was explain the difference between spamming and flooding when a researcher or staff do it and how do you respond..you say your not telling lies yet you felt the need to have my post yikesed when i said you clearly are lying, as its in black and white infront of us, or have you yikesed SEF's post so nobody else will see that 1 aswell? (havent checked myself yet)..you say your not telling lies but your actions lead me to believe otherwise..as you say im entitled to believe whatever i like, just not post them thoughts right?

"and as neither of you had the courtesy to call me by the name that ive chosen to use on this site, then neither of you are worth bothering about. im sorry that i forgot that some people arent worth bothering about when i came online today"

might i draw your attention to the top of this post?! i dont know you well enough to know any other names you might use on this site but i have addressed you by name and as for not being worth bothering about, is that the professional attitude you take when people pick you up on things that you happily deny or just your personal opinion?

"once again, i was helping out another researcher, and i was jumped on. kind of shows you the sort of person we're dealing with. obviously there are people here who think they are the only people who are supposed to be helpful here".

helping out 'another' researcher? oh well hey why dont you apply for a sainthood or guardian angel badge or something jumped on? hmmm that doesnt sound nice does it but seeing as the aces/staff all stick together i can appreciate how that feels, i daresay dozens of other researchers can aswell

as the link to the guide SEF posted said you as a member of staff and a mod or whatever title/name you are using today, it is your responsibility in that role to act honestly and answer peoples questions and when you are proven wrong i dont remember it saying accuse us of being wrong and of having vendettas with the staff/aces, say we are not worth bothering about or ganging up on you..no doubt the rest of your pals can come in here and quote you are only human and sometimes we make mistakes but if you want respect you have to earn it, all this excercise today has earnt you im afraid is mistrust

"a well-known vendetta against the staff"

Note that post 1335 defaming me is left by our phantom yikeser while my refutation is hidden. Spot the real vendetta by those who want the lies to be propagated.

What I am more or less well-known for is being opposed to dishonesty and nastiness. The story about this being a vendetta has been fabricated by some of those people who are being dishonest and nasty.

I have a natural dislike of despicable behaviour. I oppose it whenever and wherever I see it. Note that this need not be against the whole staff of this site (meaning all dna, including the original h2g2 part and over a range of time - not just who happens to be affiliating themselves with one part right now). Nor is my opposition to dishonesty and nastiness restricted to the staff of the site as implied. You will find me opposing non-staff, eg volunteers or researchers, who behave in that way (similarly in real life). Bearing in mind my true statement of my own intent and those false parts of the defamation against me, take a look at whom I have issue with and when and why.

Just for clarification, who thinks a moderator is:

1. Someone with the sole title of Moderator (note the capital distinction) who probably works for an externally contracted company and makes provisional decisions which internal staff can then overrule in either direction and have been seen to do so.

2. Any member of staff with access to the selectively-allocated software tools and power to use these to affect/overrule provisional moderation decisions on site and reply to moderation emails.

SEF
Re: post 1356

"a well known vendetta against the staff"

im not a 100% of all of your issues with some of the people on this site only what you have said in this thread but its certainly clear who Ideno/Mina was referring to with that comment

"note that post 1335 defaming me is left by our phantom yikeser while my refutation is hidden. spot the real vendetta by those who want the lies to be propogated"

oh yeah its noted alright cos i got the tag team on my back doing exactly the same thing to me, whenever i respond to an important point it gets yikesed so the truth remains uncovered as per and yet other comments contrary/defamatory are left on screen, we dont need Magnus Magnusson with the answers here folks!

ahhh just come back to find (asz sual) all relevant truthful posts have been yikesed

who exactly is ideno/mina?
im guessing from ur posts shes a top bbc h2g2 person?
if so her attitude is disgusting n is no way proffessional and right!

if im wrong all apolologies....

I can't even be bothered to read all this rubbish. You can point fingers where you like it it gets you off. It's childish, and I refuse to be part of it. I've got better things to do.