Censored? November 18, 2002 11:42 AM   Subscribe

"Once again, for the fourth time, I have been banned from, and censored by, metafilter.com for politically incorrect speech."
posted by waxpancake to Bugs at 11:42 AM (58 comments total)

Metafilter user turned Usenet kook. Then again, I guess there's always been a bit of a personality overlap between the two...
posted by waxpancake at 11:43 AM on November 18, 2002


is this Miguel in disguise?
posted by djacobs at 11:44 AM on November 18, 2002


Well this is where he claims to have been 'censored' first. Certainly he had more than a few bites on his line...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:57 AM on November 18, 2002


The kook calling for censorship has issues. One of the times he was banned was when he was calling the US media jackals that deserved to be killed, and emailed me screeds of solicalist/anarchist garbage when I blocked his account. The last time he was calling people from third world countries germ infested and lacking in mental abilities.

He doesn't believe anything he says, it's all just attempts to bait everyone and create noise, as he's done on usenet as well.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:00 PM on November 18, 2002


djacobs, Miguel has said elsewhere (too lazy to find it at the moment) that he and Carlos are good friends, which probably explains the similarity in posting styles and interests.
posted by yhbc at 12:02 PM on November 18, 2002


Oh, who cares. Anyone intelligent will read the crap that he's being "censored" for, and come to exactly the same conclusion Matt did a long time ago.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:17 PM on November 18, 2002


Well yea, we will have to censor waxpancake as one more comment will be a censored # for some, 666 comments ;P

PS, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells while in those threads involving politics, even when I'm in agreement. Politics suck as we basically have the same conclusion, government has room for better improvement, another opinion though.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:57 PM on November 18, 2002


That would be Mr/Ms bannedthrice who posted this gem about immigration recently. Obvious troll. Initials G.G. Hmm...*scratches chin* Do I know any other G.G.'s?
posted by xiffix at 1:09 PM on November 18, 2002


Good time to be on Mefi: trolls are being banned and signups are off so they can't immediately sneak back in.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:16 PM on November 18, 2002


btw, this is also the same person.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:48 PM on November 18, 2002


Wow. He was banned on Metafilter and Metsfilter both on the same day.
posted by crunchland at 2:24 PM on November 18, 2002


It might be interesting to do a group by query on IP# and see what pops up. Duplicate accounts cheat the rest of us, IMO, by way of simple deception.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:25 PM on November 18, 2002


It might be interesting, but it doesn't necessarily solve any problems. My wife and I both have accounts and access from the same IP.
posted by jnthnjng at 2:29 PM on November 18, 2002


It might be interesting, but it doesn't necessarily solve any problems. My wife and I both have accounts and access from the same IP.

Definitely a good reason not to use this for "automatic banning" but it could pop up some warning flags. Maybe better would be to run IPs of banned acounts vs. IPs of current accounts.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:39 PM on November 18, 2002


jnthnjng, if anything it creates a sample from which to start investigating. Out of 17000 accounts you need to narrow it down somewhere.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:46 PM on November 18, 2002


Matt, can I have an account named soft_and_peaceful_love_mush just so I can argue with myself? Or how 'bout Ares_God_of_War_on_Iraq? I agree with Prince Valium; duplicate accounts are a form of cheating, and even worse, a form of trolling by proxy.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on November 18, 2002


"Trolling by Proxy" sounds like a great shitty TRL band.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:32 PM on November 18, 2002


I'm glad he was banned from Metafilter, and I only wish it were possible to ban him from Usenet. Perhaps someday it will be, once I've perfected the various ray guns I'm working on.

Fools!
posted by Hildago at 4:58 PM on November 18, 2002


No! We mustn't ban the kooks and trolls from Usenet. It's the best place for them. Kill files, score files, moderated groups -- these are all valuable tools that render the wackos impotent and amusing.

Usenet as human zoo!
posted by cortex at 5:33 PM on November 18, 2002


After looking at the website on his user profile, I am getting concerned that folks like him are giving pseudoscientific and quack medical technologies a bad name.
posted by TedW at 5:49 PM on November 18, 2002


I have a "duplicate account." My first username, against all odds, turned out to be remarkably similar to someone else's username. I Emailed Matt, waited a couple weeks w/o response, decided he was a busy fellow... and I shelled out another $5, figuring it went to a good cause anyway. I haven't posted or commented under the old account since I got the new one.

I agree, however, that tracking an ISP # is good. But, the way you do it is: Post-er #1 makes an ass of himself and gets banned. Post-er #2 suddenly pops up, sounding incredibly similar to banned Post-er #1. You investigate, find out 1 and 2 have same ISP, and use this info to hasten your decision to ban #2.

This happens on Delphi Forums all the time, where banned trolls often hop right back on in a new profile/account (after setting up a new free Hotmail or Yahoo Email account), and usually compulsively jump into the same conversation that got them banned in the first place, now arguing under the shallow pretense of being someone new who objects to the troll having been banned (I know--Yeesh...)

I don't doubt there are Delphi members who have been banned dozens of times. I can think of one in particular who is infamous.
posted by Shane at 6:48 PM on November 18, 2002


Metafilter user turned Usenet kook.
more likely vice versa. egg before chicken and all that, wot wot.
posted by quonsar at 7:19 PM on November 18, 2002


<tag line>
MetaFilter: Lancing the Pustulent Boils on the Rump of Society
</tag line>
posted by quonsar at 7:26 PM on November 18, 2002


Oh, who cares. Anyone intelligent will read the crap that he's being "censored" for, and come to exactly the same conclusion Matt did a long time ago.

Indeed. View Thread (1 article). Doesn't look like the massed hoards of rabid anti-net-censorship advocates are planning a dawn ambush on MeFi anytime soon.
posted by normy at 8:21 PM on November 18, 2002


Doesn't look like the massed hoards of rabid anti-net-censorship advocates are planning a dawn ambush on MeFi anytime soon.

Even though I know Matt's political positions probably aren't anywhere similar to mine (and it might even disturb him to hear this :) ... he governs MeFi with a touch so light as to be almost ... er ... libertarian.

I have never seen him "censor" because he personally disagreed with content. The posts that are removed all seem to be obviously candidates for removal, and the vast majority of the time, appear to accomplish a legitimate intent: MeFi as a community is better off without them. In fact, one almost needs to try to get censored here. You've got to go way over lines that are clearly visible if you spend even a week reading MeFi prior to your first post.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:20 PM on November 18, 2002


You about gave me a heart attack Matt. Your link looks as though it goes directly to me. Me! I know I'm a blowhard, but I am *not* that same person. At least as near as I can tell, what with chronically posting drunk.
posted by crasspastor at 9:29 PM on November 18, 2002


crasspastor, it's probably just a function of your screensize that the link doesn't scroll to the proper post. The one by "username" is what I linked to.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:40 PM on November 18, 2002


I guess I should have put in there that I was *initially* freaked. Yeah, Ifigured after a moment or so it was "username".
posted by crasspastor at 10:30 PM on November 18, 2002


baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
posted by carfilhiot at 1:32 AM on November 19, 2002


solicalist/anarchist garbage
wtf? so if you have socialist or anarchist viewpoints you're not welcome on metafilter? wow i'll keep that in mind next time i post so i dont loose my account.

He doesn't believe anything he says
and now you're a mind reader too. i must say noone can argue with that piece of brilliant logic.
posted by carfilhiot at 1:39 AM on November 19, 2002


As long as you make your point well and have some support, carfilhiot, you'll be fine.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:05 AM on November 19, 2002


As long as you make your point well and have some support
if you seriously believe what you wrote there then i pity you (for which, i hasten to add, you needn't tell me how grateful you are).

Metafilter - Conform and you'll be fine
posted by carfilhiot at 2:52 AM on November 19, 2002


Funny, I just had a rather strained conversation with the fellow in a different forum. I had no idea I knew him from here too. Would have saved me some trouble if I'd put two and two together.

And Carfihiot, while there is obviously a group slant here, I have to agree with Yelling At Nothing. Argue well and civilly and you may not be agreed with, but you certainly won't be banned.

posted by Nothing at 3:22 AM on November 19, 2002


Carfilhiot: whether you like it or not, you conform, OK? Honestly, some of these anarchists! In their eagerness not to conform they entirely vindicate the liberal - and even libertarian - ethos. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:32 AM on November 19, 2002


Nothing: Dont know what your 1st paragraph refers to. I think my whole point is that none of the reasons for banning this poster have been very well argued at all. If bigots are not welcome here then maybe no reasons are required, but to say "he doesnt really believe what he's posting" is rather bizarre. Please enlighten me, both well and civily!

MiguelCardoso: try to string a coherent sentence together sometime, OK? You presume far too much in your efforts to get in what would appear to be some sort of party-line that any budding mefiite is sure to be proud of. In actual fact I can assure you that I am not eager for anything.
posted by carfilhiot at 4:13 AM on November 19, 2002


except maybe a good gibbeting every now and then.
posted by carfilhiot at 4:16 AM on November 19, 2002


carfilhiot: nobody owes you any explanation. if matt wants to ban the guy because he has a wart on his knee, then he's gone. if you want to provide for all the poor wart-kneed souls out there that matt excludes, i await your debut of kneefi.
posted by quonsar at 4:20 AM on November 19, 2002


What quonsar said. carfilhiot, the user in question has been historically trollish -- under various names, this is not just an isolated incident, yes? -- and Matt decided to can him. Just because Matt isn't kill-happy enough to ban everyone who acts like an ass doesn't mean he ought not to ban any of the asses.

Yelling At Nothing is right on: I've never, ever seen someone get canned for making an unpopular argument well. It's the wild excursions into combative, malicious argument that tend to be the problem. You are being pretty unpleasant, too, and railing against the idea of civil disagreement without bothering to make a case, cite a counterexample. Implying we're all a bunch of sheep while falling in, groundlessly, with cryo/thrice/etc seems hypocritical, to me.
posted by cortex at 5:29 AM on November 19, 2002


My first paragraph refers to the person whose usenet post is the subject of this thread. Sorry about that, it wasn't clear at all.
posted by Nothing at 6:21 AM on November 19, 2002


MiguelCardoso: try to string a coherent sentence together sometime, OK?

Uh oh! Are we possibly witnessing the fifth incarnation?

(Alright, I won't be a McCyrofanite- 'Are you now, or have you ever been a troll?')

It's not the opinions, carfilhiot, its the degree of civility with which they are expressed.


posted by dgaicun at 7:12 AM on November 19, 2002


It was perfectly clear to me, Nothing, and I should imagine most other people. Maybe if you were in a defensive frame of mind and looking for insults you may have misunderstood.
posted by Summer at 7:43 AM on November 19, 2002


Are we possibly witnessing the fifth incarnation?

I have to admit I was wondering that too. And if you check out his userpage, it looks as if he's at least spoiling for a fight. (Not that that sets him apart in this crowd...)
posted by languagehat at 8:34 AM on November 19, 2002


"In their eagerness not to conform ..."

You're right Miguel. And I find almost nothing as entertaining as a gang that actually conforms to non-conformity - without even understanding how riotously funny it is to watch.

What, exactly, is "conformity"? Where does one draw the line? [Those damn MeFites ... always using written words to communicate ... always conforming to the use of language ... completely excluding and censoring people that want to contribute big stinky farts instead of ideas.]
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:52 AM on November 19, 2002


carfilhiot:

wtf? so if you have socialist or anarchist viewpoints you're not welcome on metafilter? wow i'll keep that in mind next time i post so i dont loose my account.

carf, you referenced matt's words "socialist/anarchist garbage" in your quote. but the entire sentence in that statement was:

One of the times he was banned was when he was calling the US media jackals that deserved to be killed, and emailed me screeds of solicalist/anarchist garbage when I blocked his account.

why would you be afraid of losing your account for expressing socialist or anarchist viewpoints? certainly, you must have read that those screeds were sent "when [matt] blocked his account" -- that is to say, after the fact. the final, contributing reason his account was blocked were the comments he made with respect to the US media.

carf also wrote:

Metafilter - Conform and you'll be fine

yes. conform to the guidelines of the place, though exceptions are ok when justified, and you'll be fine. this is true of most any structure within society. if you dislike it, you may create your own structure with your own set of rules.
posted by moz at 9:00 AM on November 19, 2002


And if you check out his userpage, it looks as if he's at least spoiling for a fight.

That's why I didn't respond to him. And, judging from his absence now, it seems possible he was just fired up over something or other and blowing off steam here. Bad day and a coupla brews too many?
posted by Shane at 9:59 AM on November 19, 2002


except maybe a good gibbeting every now and then.



*gladly gives carfilhiot a good gibetting*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:01 AM on November 19, 2002


No, no, Miguel--gibbets are those funky turkey gizzard things that people eat at Thanksgiving : )

Great picture! Wow, I did a Google image search for gibbet, too, and look at all the results that pop right up! Humans have a real thing for torture and death, I tell you. Scary.
posted by Shane at 11:01 AM on November 19, 2002


socialist/anarchist garbage

so if you have socialist or anarchist viewpoints you're not welcome on metafilter?

The key word in that phrase is "garbage," not "anarchist" or "socialist."
posted by kindall at 11:51 AM on November 19, 2002


I'll take a good gibleting too please, mmm mmm good! I'll take mine with extra stuffing too please!

Anybody think that any of this sounds like a witch hunt? "I accuse Goody Shane, I saw her with the devil!" Maybe that's what Captain Giblet and our Chryo-pal is trying to bait us into? Isn't the best way to deal with ranting to ignore it? Although, I'll admit that I do love to hear a good street rant from time to time!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 PM on November 19, 2002


What do you mean "her"? : )

Giblets are defined as the heart, liver, and gizzard of a poultry carcass. Although often packaged with them, the neck of the bird is not a giblet.

Humans eat disgusting things, too. Scary.

MeFi has no giblets, although Epinions has one.

I really like this photo I found while looking for pictures of goblets giblets. Cool!
posted by Shane at 1:06 PM on November 19, 2002


Wah wah wah, the trolls whinge, when the site owner repeatedly revokes their ability to add nothing but bigotry and vitriolic nonsense to any given conversation.

You have the right to converse. You have the right to debate. You have the right to hold whatever socio-political agenda you choose. I think it's been conclusively proven, however, that you don't have the right to shit on a community (whose members are, for the most part, interested in intelligent and civil discourse.) And you certainly don't have the right to be a nuisance by creating account after account to perpetuate such nonsense.

If it had been my site, he would've been IP-banned after the second go. Unfortunately, MetaFilter draws a large enough audience to make IP bans impractical.

So, hey, play the victim all you want. Very few of us are going to buy it.
posted by Danelope at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2002


"everything
is theater and eternity is nothing at

all: Yesterday, a man whose picture I'd just

seen in the local paper was going into the basement..."

-A.R. Ammons, from Garbage.
posted by clavdivs at 1:09 PM on November 19, 2002


Sorry Shane, nothing personal, just needed a random posted name from above to insert into my quasi-Crucible post (thus the her in italics)
posted by Pollomacho at 1:21 PM on November 19, 2002


I think quonsar has the right idea. People who run websites can ban anyone they like for any reason they like, a priori. I could start VraxoinFi and ban everyone who didn't agree that I was the undisputed master of wushu, but it's probable that this wouldn't be a highly trafficked site. A forum, however, that encourages intelligent dialog while filtering out the garbage and the nonsense consistently and fairly will succeed because people will trust it. Sure every site is a dictatorship, but you're free to pick the Baby Doc of your choice.

On a related note, I got nailed a month or so ago for double-posting. At first I was pissed, but then I realized that it is precisely this self-policing behavior that makes MeFi a consistently interesting place. 17,000 users and only 20 FPPs a day; that's pretty amazing.
posted by vraxoin at 6:50 PM on November 19, 2002


sorry that you all assumed i was hiding - as wierd as it may seem we dont all live in the same timezone - its kinda like viewpoints, for some of us it takes a little getting used to!

cortex/moz/kindall - i am not falling in with anyone - all i'm asking is a few questions - because they appear to defend someone who nobody likes, i'm a troll.. right. i take the point that "soc/ana garbage" perhaps needs to be viewed in context -thanks for pointing that out. but strange how noone can explain the mind reader part.

You say this person has been trolling under various names throughout time - then others accuse me of being the same person (which i know is false). therefore if you are incorrect now maybe you have always been incorrect and in fact you associate any person with an alternative or challening form of argument as the *same* person.

A weak argument that challenges you to think differently can still be a powerful force and should not be automatically excluded based on whimsy.

Danelope - you have no idea what you're talking about. Your entire post is false - you have no evidence for any of your accusations - not intelligent or civil discourse. try thinking instead of yelling "troll" sporadically. you are not the site owner so you have no right to tell me what i may or may not do. For this point i'm assuming that metafilter has no constitution but is dictatorial in nature (up to this point all evidence points to this). i am not sure if dictatorial powers extend to henchmen so i may be wrong about your powers - if so i lick your boots and ask your forgiveness.


MC thanks for the gibetting, a sense of humour is always appropriate!

Shane :
learn to read - before posting crap, that 96 IQ sure does bite.
posted by carfilhiot at 12:48 AM on November 20, 2002


re Shane:
as you can see making ad hominem attacks rarely succeeds and most times just leaves the attacker with pie on their face! my apologies sir.
posted by carfilhiot at 12:53 AM on November 20, 2002


carfilhiot: I certainly didn't think (or imply) that you were the same person. However:

The user in question has in fact, by his/her own admission, been banned four seperate times from MeFi. So, no: regardless of someone's false suggestion that you're another incarnation, this not a case of wildly mistaken identity.

I don't have a problem with you defending unpopular viewpoints -- I had a problem with the way you were making your opinion known. You were being rude and uncivil, using very dismissive and condescending phrases instead of stating a point coolly. Same thing shows up in your second-to-last post -- clearly, you saw it and grokked it, and good on you for apologizing.

Also: the problem with weak, flaming argument is that it will very rarely cause anyone to think differently, because of the form. I'm all for whimsy when presented well, but when a person wraps their whimsy up in angry or inciting language, there goes discourse out the window.


posted by cortex at 6:02 PM on November 20, 2002


*sides sore from quonsars comment* : )

best-tagline-ever!

hey what does ad hominem mean ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:19 AM on November 23, 2002


« Older Metafilter: reported as inaccessible in China.   |   Here's a draft of FAQ. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments