Source
r/metanarchism•
sync0pate

[proposal] remove/reinstate /u/grapesandmilk as a moderator.

So I received a private message from somebody pointing out to me that u/grapesandmilk has been moderating pretty inappropriately and removing a large amount of comments critical of primitivism. I replied to the person that messaged me to ask if they could sort it out, but I assume they're too busy as it's been a couple of days. Anyway, I finally got to a computer myself so here we go.

Here's the evidence they sent me of some of the removed comments:

Here's some examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/3dmpxz/anarchocapitalism_and_anarchoindustrialism_two/ct6ugvu

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/3djn0g/future_generations_will_look_back_on_us_with/ct6py59

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/3mw63q/rsrsdiscussion_on_anticiv_anarchism/cvinoex

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/3dj3rm/the_anarchists_movement_has_a_severe_problem_with/ct625v0

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/3llwb5/were_not_all_leftists/cv7c8w0

I don't think we should be treating comment removals like a memory hole for ideas we disagree with.

So yeah, to me this seems like a pretty massive and consistent abuse of moderator functions that isn't in line with what r/anarchism decided it wants moderators to do, at all.

So I'm going to remove u/grapesandmilk for now, to stop this happening immediately. Pending whatever you lot decide we can reinstate them or not.

Cheers,

sync.

PS. if the person who brought this to my attention wants to make themselves public then that's cool, I didn't think they'd mind but I didn't want to mention who it was just in case..

Posted Oct 6, 2015, 11:21 AM UTC

1183
Rad_q-a-v_Just Rhizoming•

Support. I've noticed instances of it too, but in threads not linked. I didn't think it was that big of a deal individually, but this obviously isn't an isolated problem.

7
grapesandmilk•

Aren't you anti-civ as well?

2
Aserwarth•

Support the removal and should not be restated.

However I am biased against grapes for some arguments we have had in the past about primativism. This is clear cut however.

6
insurgentclass•

Support removal.

I hadn't noticed my comments had been deleted. This is a flagrant abuse of power to censor ideas that the moderator doesn't personally agree with. Thank you for taking action on this u/sync0pate

5
sync0pateOP•

I didn't spot it either until someone pointed it out to me, but there's a lot of it. I thought it was pretty clear cut too, but better to ask everyone, eh?

4
grapesandmilk•

To remove harassing posts.

-5
punkswcleankitchensIf you can't handle the heat•

Support removal, thanks for getting on this. I was mostly just waiting for a little more evidence but in retrospect I think what I gathered is sufficient to show their moderation pattern.

For the record, I messaged grapesandmilk before I messaged sync0pate, hoping we could resolve this but they were very rude to me. I don't think they're willing to change their behavior or participate in good faith.

4
sync0pateOP•

Yeah.. I think a few other people are saying they've seen stuff too. I'd seen one or two but I guess nobody else connected it into a pattern.

2
grapesandmilk•

For reference they didn't like that I called them out for doing the same thing.

-3
sync0pateOP•

Nothing to stop you pointing that out. If they are then they can go through the same process.

If you see someone damaging our sub, your response should be to try and stop it - not to take that as an opportunity to damage it further yourself.

3
Occupier_9000•

You deleted this post?

What for?

2
grapesandmilk•

First of all I don't see the big deal, considering the poster hasn't appeared since and it was months ago. I deleted it for posting in bad faith towards anti-civ anarchism.

-6
Occupier_9000•

Support Removal.

4
Celetis•

Support removal

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
TotesMessenger•

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Capn_Blackbeard•

Support removal

1†
grapesandmilk•

Mind getting punched in the face?

1
grapesandmilk•

I'm not surprised you're anti-primitivist too.

-3†
Capn_Blackbeard•

No, I'm just anti-you. I was when you were up for mod and I warned everyone that you would abuse your position. And then you did.

5
grapesandmilk•

Is this not anti-primitivist?

2
grapesandmilk•

I removed comments that were harassing.

0
Capn_Blackbeard•

This was harassment? Really?

And this too?

Maybe someone should hold a seminar for you and Min to discuss what harassment actually is so you two can knock it off with this bullshit.

1
Astagirl•

Support removal.

1
Potss•

Support removal.

1
anarchoponder•

support

1
AJM1613•

Have you tried talking to him beforehand to let him know he wasn't moderating correctly?

1
eeplox•

Support removal. Idk how so-called anarchists can be so oppressive.

0†
grapesandmilk•

Me too.

1
eeplox•

Huh? What r u doing?

0
grapesandmilk•

You're a racist troll

0
sync0pateOP•

That's a new one on me. Go fuck yourself.

2
grapesandmilk•

THAT'S A NEW WONAMBI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1
grapesandmilk•

It's true! You're all enforcing white supremacy.

0
Min_thamee•

Support removal. This is clearly abuse of power. However I think Sync0pate should have made this thread before removing them.

I think that all moderators need to understand that anarchism is not a political party and there are a huge amount of differing opinions amongst anarchists, some that even conflict.

-1†
sync0pateOP•

However I think Sync0pate should have made this thread before removing them.

I do it this way around because when you tell a moderator they might be removed there is a good chance they could start "Fucking Shit Up", interfering with the vote, or messing with the CSS or whatever. Not that I think they will, it just removes the possibility.

Plus it's like 10 seconds to remove or reinstate someone, so it's not a big deal. I've done it as a safety precaution, not as a decision made before you all get a say.

2
eeplox•

Yea, this is the only logical way to go about it, even if they don't fuck with the CSS, they could continue to delete all kinds of stuff while the vote is being taken.

1
grapesandmilk•

I just assumed it was business as usual to remove comments made in bad faith, such as pro-capitalist ones, even if they think they're anarchists.

-5
SpaceHeeder•

I've never seen my posts get removed in @, even at times when I was explicitly dealing in anarcho-capitalist ideas. The way it was explained to me by other mods here is that it takes a certain something else for a comment to rise to the level of being "oppressive" under the terms of the AOP.

2
lilit_•

Sync0pate talking about inappropriate moderation lol

Those posts were stupid af. They aren't mere "disagreement," but absurd accusations of espousing genocide and ecofascism.

-2†
sync0pateOP•

Sync0pate talking about inappropriate moderation lol

That's literally all sync0pate does here. That's why he sticks around. Even though he fucking hates it.

Those posts were stupid af. They aren't mere "disagreement," but absurd accusations of espousing genocide and ecofascism.

So, you support reinstating grapesandmilk?

5
lilit_•

And, yknow, banning people like cosmic for annoying you.

-4
sync0pateOP•

If I banned people for annoying me, you would've been gone long before cosmic.

6
comradeoneff•

ooooh, burn!

3†
grapesandmilk•

This.

-7
comradeoneff•

Oppose.

sync, you've gone ahead and acted as the judge, jury and executioner. It's like throwing someone in jail and then seeing if the person is culpable. I think that's a breach of your powers. The participants ought to decide if grapesnandmilks should step down, not you alone. Furthermore, going ahead with the demodding makes remodding all the more difficult. You've de facto made it difficult to change the status quo when the decision should be left open.

For grapesandmilk, these removals could be totally legit. Mods remove reactionary comments. Grapesandmilk could construe these comments as reactionary.

-4†
lokkenmor•

sync, you've gone ahead and acted as the judge, jury and executioner.

Actually, what sync has done is temporarily removed grapesandmilk's mod power and then given the community the deciding vote on whether that removal is to be permanent or not. That makes the community the jury.

Otherwise, grapesandmilk has the power to interfere with the vote (which is so obviously bad it beggars belief that I have to point that out).

The participants ought to decide if grapesnandmilks should step down, not you alone.

Which is ultimately what is happening. There's a proposal thread, we're voting, a decision will be made and that decision will be upheld.

You've de facto made it difficult to change the status quo when the decision should be left open.

Spurious bullshit. It's the press of a button in either direction. There's not impediment to it whatsoever.

For grapesandmilk, these removals could be totally legit. Mods remove reactionary comments. Grapesandmilk could construe these comments as reactionary.

The function of a moderator is to uphold the OAP and community standards as agreed by the whole community. Not to uphold their particular set of belief to the exclusion of others. They are servants of and functionaries to the community; not to themselves.

If grapesandmilk is removing particular comments that they personal or philosophical disagreement, as has been alleged, when those comments don't breach the OAP of community standards then they are not an appropriate individual to have moderation powers and should be removed.

6
sync0pateOP•

Otherwise, grapesandmilk has the power to interfere with the vote (which is so obviously bad it beggars belief that I have to point that out).

That's not even my biggest fear. They could keep removing (or suddenly start removing much more) from other threads that would be harder to track down. They could vandalise the CSS. They could mess with the subreddit settings.. etc etc..

Sometimes people react badly when they're called out on stuff.

4
grapesandmilk•

when those comments don't breach the OAP of community standards

Well, they were literally saying that a legitimate anarchist philosophy is anti-anarchist. We delete comments that say feminism is sexist or that Black Lives Matter is racist, so...

1†
sync0pateOP•

sync, you've gone ahead and acted as the judge, jury and executioner.

I am getting bored of explaining this. I've explained it in another comment in this thread.

It's like throwing someone in jail and then seeing if the person is culpable. I think that's a breach of your powers.

Removing someone as a moderator of an internet forum is nothing like throwing someone in jail. I'm not curtailing their freedom, I'm removing (possibly temporarily) their extra abilities, which they've been abusing.

The participants ought to decide if grapesnandmilks should step down, not you alone.

What exactly do you think this thread is for?

You've de facto made it difficult to change the status quo when the decision should be left open.

This is utter bullshit. Difficult? It takes all of 5-10 seconds to re-add someone as a moderator. You're being totally disingenuous.

For grapesandmilk, these removals could be totally legit.

So far, you are literally the only person who sees it like that.

3
comradeoneff•

Difficult? It takes all of 5-10 seconds to re-add someone as a moderator. You're being totally disingenuous.

I'm not being disingenuous. I resent that. You've created a bias already in favor of maintaining the de-mod. It's not about the action of re-modding; it's about the effort it would take on the part of those who oppose.

So far, you are literally the only person who sees it like that.

Is anarchism about joining the mass of opinion? Fuck no.

-5
sync0pateOP•

It's not about the action of re-modding; it's about the effort it would take on the part of those who oppose.

It would be zero effort. If more people say oppose I will do it myself. You lot decide, I make sure what you want gets done. Whether I agree with it or not - if you notice, when I post these threads I generally don't even vote myself.

Is anarchism about joining the mass of opinion? Fuck no.

I mean, kinda, actually. We try to do as much as possible based on consensus around here. I was pointing out that you seem to see things very differently to everyone else, I do apologise for assuming it was disingenuous but I really struggle to see how you thought any of those were legit.

5
comradeoneff•

You don't need to vote. Your vote is implicit in you going ahead removing grapseandmilk. Don't act like you're some benevolent and disinterested dictator.

The issue is about momentum. You've created momentum against the remodding by going ahead and doing it.

We work with consensus but not by calling people out who have different opinions. What the fuck, dude.

-5
lilit_•

It would be zero effort. If more people say oppose I will do it myself. You lot decide, I make sure what you want gets done. Whether I agree with it or not

Hmm, that's interesting. Cause I'm pretty sure you have deleted many proposals from met@ and even refused to accept a vote to step down as top mod.

-5