Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2022, @09:26PM (46 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2022, @09:26PM (#1283043)

    Merda!

    New Accounts

    It has been claimed that we are not accepting new accounts. This is simply untrue and it is a statement being repeatedly made by an Anonymous Coward. As at the time of writing we have a total of 21836 accounts, but over the last few weeks a 'fake account' bot has been running and has created well over a thousand account entries which simply do not exist. However, there have been 77 new accounts created recently which have been active on the site. These figures do not include the many sock-puppet accounts that have been created; over 600 have been identified and disabled. As far as I can tell, and contrary again to many AC claims,

    77 new accounts, out of hmm, 21836 - 17000 = 4836, or 1.5922%. Not including the (alleged) sockpuppets, so actually 77/5436, or 1.41648% . I am quite sure that many of these are fake accounts, spreading the disinformation that horse de-worming paste is not a miracle cure for Covid-19, grooming good Americans to be blood-sucking pedos like Josh Dugger, and denying that DJT is the one true and eternal Precedent of all time. Bigly.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2022, @09:25AM (45 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2022, @09:25AM (#1283700)

    So like a 15/10,000 chance of getting a new UID, on SoylentNews, in these times of austerity and British economic development?

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday December 30 2022, @12:02PM (44 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 30 2022, @12:02PM (#1284409) Journal

      Not at all - your figures are wrong. You have discounted the several thousand successful accounts that have been create in the last few weeks alone. None of them are banned. They all have valid uids and usernames - they are simply fake accounts that do not activate themselves because they are being created by a bot. If someone wants to create an account they can do so. Only sock puppet accounts are disabled - and none of them are banned. If they want to explain why they need a sock puppet account with a reasonable justification then we can re-enable them.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @06:22AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @06:22AM (#1284498)

        several thousand successful accounts that have been create in the last few weeks alone. None of them are banned. They all have valid uids and usernames - they are simply fake accounts that do not activate themselves

        Activate themselves? What ever do you mean, janny? Provide a valid phone number or credit card account number? What is the difference between being banned, and being inactivated? An account you have, but cannot use, in either case? And all because they might be someone who might say "disruptive" things to our ruling neo-nazi white supremacist British nationalist alt-right incel closeted gay majority on SoylentNews? Nice to know. Goodbye, Herr Hitler Jugend!

        • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @08:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @08:12AM (#1284508)

          Sounds like janrinok is banning all new accounts. The AC rumours are true. No reason to even try to participate here, we are not wanted.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday December 31 2022, @08:32AM (3 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 31 2022, @08:32AM (#1284510) Journal

          Activate themselves? What ever do you mean, janny?

          They never log in. They cannot log in because the emails that they are using are not under their control - or in most cases do not even exist. Therefore they never recieve a password so they simply CANNOT log in. But the accounts have been created and they exist. There are thousands of them, literally.

          Now if you are referring to sock puppets - they are banned and are immediately disabled.

          You simply cannot know how many accounts are successfully created and activated UNLESS you have access to their email addresses. You do not know which accounts are accepted and which are not. You are simply spouting your own propaganda and trying to suggest that your failures are being experienced by everybody.

          Nice to know. Goodbye, Herr Hitler Jugend!

          Leaving again? So soon after you left the last time?

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @11:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2022, @11:33AM (#1284518)

            janrinok spouteth:

            You simply cannot know

            Secrets, so many secrets. What national power is actually behind SN? If it is an operation to support Runaway and horse paste dis-information, I would guess Russian. But could be MI-6, a MauMau type of thing.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @02:40AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @02:40AM (#1284713)

            I have obtained the list of aristarchus' New Year's resolutions:

            1) I will not create sock puppets.
            2) I will not dox people.
            3) I will not post spam.
            4) I will not harass janrinok.
            5) I will not harass Runaway.
            6) I will get a job.
            7) I will admit that I am not a Greek astronomer who died 2,300 years ago.
            8) I will not insist that 'Samos' is the name of my mom's basement.
            9) I will move out of my mom's basement.
            10) I will shower every day.
            11) I will stop being an incel.

            Let's see how long these last.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @05:46AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @05:46AM (#1284734)

              Fake Resolutions. Get a life, conservatoid.

              aristarchus

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @07:50PM (37 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2023, @07:50PM (#1284831)

        New Meta post on the front page? Lies, damned lies, and janrinok's statistics. [soylentnews.org] Claims over 2000 new Soylentil accounts for December, but the vast majority of those are auto-created by a bot, so are not and never were meant to be actual accounts.
        The vast minority, on the other hand, were 28 new accounts that janrinok with his "ari" radar knew for certain and without a doubt, were sock-puppets. (I do suspect that jan's methods are somewhat suspect. A "sockpuppet" is an account that is "owned" by someone who is already a sockpuppet? Or already an account holder. But the only way we can tell if two Soylentils are the same Soylentil, is if both of them downmod Runaway, or say things critical of janrinok. Simple, really. )

        In those accounts we have successfully identified 28 attempts at creating sock-puppets which have been disabled automatically. This gives 1.27% of all attempts to create an new account are blocked, which is significantly less that the the claim that 'all new accounts' are being blocked.

        So what janrinok is trying to say, is that all new accounts are being blocked. Not the ones that never login, because those are not actual accounts, but out of the total, how many might be actual users?

        It is possible, indeed likely, that there will be a small number of genuine accounts buried in there somewhere but it is difficult to identify them until they become active.

        Reports from various ACs who have been banned from commenting, and have attempted to register a user name on SoylentNews, is that as soon as an account is activated (they log in), the email is changed by admin, the password changed, and the account is for all practical purposes banned. So what we know so far: The vast majority of new accounts equals

        A total of 2198 accounts have been successfully created during December. Unfortunately the vast majority of these were created by a bot and they will never become active

        2198 - 28 = 2170, which leaves the rest

        In those accounts we have successfully identified 28 attempts at creating sock-puppets which have been disabled automatically. This gives 1.27% of all attempts to create an new account are blocked, which is significantly less that the the claim that 'all new accounts' are being blocked.

        Right. Numbers don't lie, but people using numbers do. We are missing a couple things here. First, what constitutes a "successful" sockpuppet identification? Is there any objective verification of such?

          Second, were there any actual new accounts, outside of the specified bots and sockpuppets? Janrinok gives a percentage, but not any numbers that this is derived from. As usual, SoylentNews editors operate behind a veil of obfuscation.

          The only conclusion is that all new Soylentil accounts are blocked, except for the undetected sockpuppets.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @01:06AM (21 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @01:06AM (#1284859)

          And now, aristarchus, you should kindly turn off your bot. Permanently.

          Yes, it's your bot creating those accounts. It is the only logical conclusion. In fact you threatened to spam this site with bot accounts if you weren't unbanned. The evidence is here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], and here [soylentnews.org].

          You threatened that if you weren't unbanned, this site would be spammed with bot-created accounts. You weren't unbanned. Lo, and behold, we have a bot creating dozens of accounts each day. It is your bot. That is the only logical conclusion.

          I expect you initially created the spam accounts assuming that each account had to be manually reviewed by the staff, and you hoped a few sock puppets would slip through the cracks amid the torrent of fake accounts. Since this is now an impossibility, it stands to reason that you continue operating your bot for the purpose of being a nuisance. Your now hope that the volume of accounts will eventually cause issues with the database. You desire to bring this site to its knees, that you can negotiate being unbanned in exchange for disabling your bot.

          Of course, that is also a pipe dream. Your bot can't create nearly enough accounts to pose any threat to this site, so it is just a minor irritant. You will fail in your efforts. It is time for you to disable your bot, once and for all.

          Before I conclude, I should also point out that your bot has a name: Cyberian Tiger. In fact, you acknowledge that here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org]. The latter has a user ID that coincides with your threats to spam this site with fake accounts. You have a history of spamming this site with your Cyberian Tiger bot, previously threatening to post APK spam all over the front page [soylentnews.org] with the bot.

          I am quite certain that janrinok can confirm that those accounts are all sock puppets you created. Although the IRC logs are presently inaccessible, janrinok confronted you about your bot-related threats on IRC several weeks ago. The evidence is clear and compelling that you have been operating a spam bot, first to flood the front page with APK spam, and now to create fake accounts.

          Turn off your bot. It is time for the Cyberian Tiger to become extinct. Everyone will now know that you are behind the fake accounts and that you also posted the APK spam. You have lost.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @09:39PM (20 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @09:39PM (#1285049)

            And now, aristarchus, you should kindly turn off your bot.

            aristarchus runs no bots.

            Yes, it's your bot creating those accounts. It is the only logical conclusion.

            No, it is not.

            In fact you threatened to spam this site with bot accounts if you weren't unbanned. The evidence is here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], and here [soylentnews.org].

            None of those are aristarchus.

            I expect you initially created the spam accounts assuming that each account had to be manually reviewed by the staff, and you hoped a few sock puppets would slip through the cracks amid the torrent of fake accounts.

            No, did not. And what is a "spam account", anyway?

            Before I conclude, I should also point out that your bot has a name: Cyberian Tiger. In fact, you acknowledge that here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org].

            Quite the online sleuth you are! Of course, wrong, completely false.

            The latter has a user ID that coincides with your threats to spam this site with fake accounts.

            No, it does not.

            You have a history of spamming this site with your Cyberian Tiger bot, previously threatening to post APK spam all over the front page [soylentnews.org] with the bot.

            No, that was not aristarchus. Perhaps you are scared and confused?

            I am quite certain that janrinok can confirm that those accounts are all sock puppets you created.

            Your certainty is worth, nothing. Particularly since you are in error.

            Although the IRC logs are presently inaccessible, janrinok confronted you about your bot-related threats on IRC several weeks ago.

            Convenient that the IRC logs are now hidden, since they contain most of the evidence of janrinokian mendacity.

            The evidence is clear and compelling that you have been operating a spam bot, first to flood the front page with APK spam, and now to create fake accounts.

            No, it is not, not evidence, not compelling.

            Everyone will now know that you are behind the fake accounts and that you also posted the APK spam.

            Wrong! Now everyone will know that all new user accounts on SoylentNews are blocked, banned, rejected, discombuberated, and non-existant. There is no one behind the fake accounts, except janrinok's paranoid obsession that someone is out to get SoylentNews, because it supports fascism. Time for free speech to die, and be replaced by total fiction, asserted by clowns like yourself. We all know that you are APK running a false flag janrinok defense! Everybody knows it!

            [P.S., Kevin Mitnick and me have hacked your phone, and rigged it to launch a pre-emptive nuclear spam attack next time you post as AC on SoylentNews. Careful what you do, because, personal responsibility.]

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday January 04 2023, @10:25AM (19 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 04 2023, @10:25AM (#1285103) Journal

              You are lying.

              The Cyber Tiger accounts were both created along with other sock puppets accounts using THE EXACT SAME EMAIL ADDRESSES in 2 batches. (18738-18748) and (19809-19820). As you used your 'aristarchus' name in each of those groups ('aristarchus 4', 'Unban Aristarchus Now', and 'Aristarchus Will Win, Niggers') it isn't difficult to identify you.

              You also signed your threat to use Cyber Tiger using the 'apk' nickname. How would 'apk' know you had a bot with that name, and how could he threaten to use it? 'APK' (capitalised) is a different account, 'apk' (lower case) was simply you trying (unsuccessfully) to disguise who you were. Nobody was fooled. Others, including the AC you are replying to, have discovered the same.

              In those same groups you also compromised your control of the 'Fuck You Niggers' series, Azuma Hazuki x.0 series, and other accounts.

              So carry on trying to convince people otherwise with your bluster and denials. You are not very good at what you are trying to do, in fact you are particularly bad at it and you should be embarrassed. Script kiddies would disown you. You are the one responsible for most of the site disruption, which began around 2017. You are the one responsible for forcing us to remove AC access to the main stories. You are stuck as AC for your efforts and I do not see a way to reintroduce ACs to the front page while you are still intent on continuing.

              Act like an adult. If you shut up perhaps people will stop pointing out your many inadequacies and failures.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2023, @03:51PM (18 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2023, @03:51PM (#1285124)

                Decided to check back in on the drama. I am the one that keeps pointing out how SN can easily reveal IPs, though your comment about TOR and VPNs correctly highlights how easy it is to avoid most of the tracking. Your insistence that you don't care about WHO or WHERE people are is bullshit since you repeatedly unmasked ACs and continue to make false accusations about identities.

                I bring that up in this thread because I see once again you are posting an opinion that I know is at least partially false, yet you state it with absolute conviction.

                I did not create the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account, I simply saw a comment from the actual creator in response to the original Azuma Hazuki telling them to fuck off and stop using her name. The POS gave away the password, racial slurs unsurprisingly, so I decided to see if they were lying and try logging in. The account's karma was fucked, the email address was [something]@mcc-sharktesting.com (maybe no dash), and I left the email address because it was evidence of where the account came from. I rehabilitated the account's karma with non AC posts since that is the only way to get karma that I was aware of, and then used the account for AC posts except when I forgot to check the box. I didn't think Azuma would mind and asked a few times in replies to her comments if the account should just be terminated, never saw a response. After some ensuing drama from a journal post calling out rightwing dipshittery (is anyone on the fence after the US' insurrection and continued fascism?) the original owner reset the password and supposedly disabled the account. Track that password reset and you'll have the creator of the account, I simply turned the account around to add some honest moderation with all the sock puppetry going around, and I did my best to only downmod appropriately and not based on personal bias against usernames.

                Anyway, the point is that I've seen lots of lies around the account and it goes absolutely against Aristarchus' entire personality to use racial slurs and attack Azuma Hazuki that way. Maybe he is an epic troll, but it is much more likely that apk/APK/Runaway1956/Ethanol-Fueled were the trolls attacking other users and using sock puppets so they could spam their worst hate filled racist rants. Now there is a BOT creating thousands of sock puppets and naming Aristarchus? Why would Aristarchus do such a thing and then deny it? I've seen accounts that actually seem like the original Aristarchus, and many that use Aristarchus in the name to spew racism.

                After being constantly attacked myself, mistaken for Aristarchus because I stand up against the admin abuse that was regularly going on and the lies about privacy and security, well it has become clear that you Janrinok are either a fool or part of a rightwing campaign. Your insistence that your privileged information, which you then try and spin as not so useful, allows you to KNOW I am Aristarchus when I am not has shown me how much correlation and presumption goes on with your statements.

                I can't speak to the details of who created what accounts, corrected the record and shared the email domain of the prick that created the spoof account, and pointed out for anyone that cares how easily Soylent News can obtain real IPs while pretending they are securely hashed. You keep trying to downplay that fact and everyone here should be concerned about why that is. Do you expect every nerd to understand internet security? Why not be open, why require users to drag out the details and unmask the lies and half truths?

                Why tolerate downmods of such factual information? Why not update SN guidelines and offer advice for people to protect their identities? Why allow spam mods on non-spam posts just because you suspect the author is someone else? Why allow spam mods of actual Aristarchus posts if they are not spam? You tolerated racism for a long time until recently when the spam mod was approved for such posts, but Aristarchus criticizing the site is too far?

                Food for thought, may it be buried yet again under more downmods so few users see this post and wonder how much validity there is to the criticisms. I have stated facts and opinions and been clear about which is which, and hopefully no one still visiting this site is still unaware of the problems around here.

                "So carry on trying to convince people otherwise with your bluster and denials. You are not very good at what you are trying to do, in fact you are particularly bad at it and you should be embarrassed."
                - not aristarchus, also not the AC you replied to who may or not be aristarchus

                "Act like an adult. If you shut up perhaps people will stop pointing out your many inadequacies and failures."
                - right back at you with your multiple false accusations that I am aristarchus or that aristarchus is the one spamming new user accounts with their own name and racist slurs. While I can not say whether aristarchus went nuts and decided to spam slurs and spoof other users it sure seems more likely that it is a rightwing asshole impersonating all the vocal leftwing users. I am just an AC tired of the lies, intentional or not, but sadly there is no way to prove to others that your accusations that I am aristarchus are false. So these posts are the best I can do. Be a better admin Janrinok.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2023, @06:58PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2023, @06:58PM (#1285145)

                  This AC is correct. aristarchus doesn't do racial slurs, and someone using the name means nothing.

                  Signed,
                  TheRealAristarchus
                  [And if you believe this, I have a janrinok to sell you!]

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday January 04 2023, @07:51PM (13 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 04 2023, @07:51PM (#1285154) Journal

                  Now there is a BOT creating thousands of sock puppets and naming Aristarchus? Why would Aristarchus do such a thing and then deny it? I've seen accounts that actually seem like the original Aristarchus, and many that use Aristarchus in the name to spew racism.

                  I think that you are confused? The thousands of fake accounts are just that - fake accounts which are being created by a bot. The sock puppet accounts number between 600-700. You don't even know what you are talking about - yet you will glibly admit to abusing somebody else's user name. How much trust should we put in what you say? I can answer that - none.

                  You say it isn't aristarchus. He has compromised his original email address - the one which was used to create the 'aristarchus' account - and which can be traced to the creation of hundreds of sock puppets. When it suits him, he claims he is not aristarchus because he has an alternative username - or more correctly over 600 usernames. It doesn't matter which name he wishes to use, he is not welcome on this site. Nor is anyone else who behaves or acts like him.

                  Now either Azuma Hazuki stated to somebody who was abusing her name "to fuck off and stop using her name" or she didn't. Yet you felt that you had every right and her implied permission by her not responding to your 'requests': I didn't think Azuma would mind and asked a few times in replies to her comments if the account should just be terminated. How unclear was her original response that made you think that what you were doing was OK? And you have just admitted to sock-puppetry yourself. If you act like aristarchus you will be treated like aristarchus.

                  pointed out for anyone that cares how easily Soylent News can obtain real IPs while pretending they are securely hashed

                  We don't have to bother - every IP address arrives at our server unhashed, either IPv4 or IPv6 format. We already HAVE the IP address - why would we bother to hash it if we wanted to use it? The hashing is NOT a security feature as I have explained several times previously. CmdrTaco found it easier to work with hashes in the code than with IP addresses and, like us, he didn't see any reason for having them lying around in the database. If you object to IP addresses then get off the internet because that is how it works. And let me see someone present a rainbow look-up table that works for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. We haven't got one - the NSA might have one but if that is what worries you then again you shouldn't really be posting on here should you?

                  However, can you substantiate a single element of what you have written? You haven't done so up to now. Yet you have admitted that, if not him, then you are no different from him. And you will be treated like him.

                  it has become clear that you Janrinok are either a fool or part of a rightwing campaign.

                  Ah, so that is it - we are back to the right-wing accusations. You are convinced of my political beliefs yet I argued publicly against ANY political topics being discussed on this site back in the very early days. Both sides have been treated in exactly the same way. They have received the same punishments for the same abuses. All of aristarchus' posts and submissions are still there to be seen. He has not been treated unfairly.

                  So are you aristarchus, or are you Azuma Hazuki 2.0 today, or are you somebody else entirely? You know, I simply don't care who you are.

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2023, @02:18AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2023, @02:18AM (#1285221)

                    Let's go, janrinok!

                    [I think he is already mostly gone. aristarchus has destroyed him! ]

                    Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
                    You mad, jan?

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @02:42AM (8 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @02:42AM (#1285408)

                    You say it isn't aristarchus. He has compromised his original email address - the one which was used to create the 'aristarchus' account - and which can be traced to the creation of hundreds of sock puppets.

                    This is a blatant lie, or an attempt by janrinok to dox the original aristarchus. Lying Liars and the lies they tell.

                    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday January 06 2023, @04:12AM (7 children)

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2023, @04:12AM (#1285417) Journal
                      Account 17903.
                      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @05:55AM (6 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @05:55AM (#1285427)

                        Search says no such user found. Fault of search, or fault of janrinok? Secret, so we will never know. Are there any other editors we could talk to? I hate to go all Karen on janrinok, but it is quite evident that he is no longer mentally competent for the task at hand. And, he luvs him some Runaway!

                        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday January 06 2023, @08:12AM (5 children)

                          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2023, @08:12AM (#1285440) Journal

                          Accounts: 2645 (aristarchus) and 17903 (SillyJanrinok) were both created using the same email address. I will not compromise the email address here. They both exist in the database and both accounts have been banned.

                          Account 17903 was created on 2 Aug 2022.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @08:54AM (1 child)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @08:54AM (#1285444)

                            So there are at least two banned users on SoylentNews? Nice that you do not directly dox anyone, Mr. Admin Janrinok.

                            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday January 06 2023, @09:05AM

                              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2023, @09:05AM (#1285446) Journal

                              Only 1 person is banned permanently - all of his accounts are eventually banned but initially they are only disabled by software. It still requires an admin action to ban the account.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @09:05AM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @09:05AM (#1285447)

                            The user account aristarchus on SoylentNews had this email associated
                            with it. A web user from 2a01:cb08:89ef:1b00:7512:8cd8:3f7a:7c8 has just changed it to
                            janrinok+aristarchus@protonmail.com.

                            janrinok gets all my email, now. So why did he create a sockpuppet account for a banned user, you may ask?

                            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday January 06 2023, @09:18AM (1 child)

                              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2023, @09:18AM (#1285448) Journal

                              I don't get any of your email. We change the email address that we hold for your account so that any emails that WE ARE SENDING are rerouted so that you do not receive them. Your sock puppet accounts can request a new password, but you will never receive it.

                              Accessing your email accounts would be an offence under US law and elsewhere.

                              • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:25AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:25AM (#1285633)

                                Finally, janrinok admits to felonies under US Law. Runaway to follow. Both of you are guilty of conspiracy to commit illegal banning of a member of a news aggregations site. Stand by to receive summons, under pain of penalty.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:27PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:27PM (#1285725)

                    The answers to your question are in the comment, but I'll spell it out for you since you so really very truly don't care :|

                    I am not aristarchus and I did not create the AH2.0 account. I simply took over the account to add some sane moderations, and a few journals critical of right wing nonsense. Some comments made as AC, and a few where I forgot to click post as AC.

                    I had one account I created sometime after the site launched that I stopped using after seeing the abuse of admins and staff with unmasking users and handing down punishments for aristarchus that most here thought were aristarchus whining, such as the moderation ban, figuring his karma was what did it. Turns out that modban was real as another staffer figured out.

                    So I am no other user that anyone gives a shit about and the creator of the AH2.0 account reset the password and controls it now. I take you to task for the lies, half truths, and blatant abuses of power, and for that I'm accused of so much. Your information is incomplete, you make many false accusations, and barring my good sense I've explained my part in this dumb drama.

                    So fix yourself, build a real community of trust, accountability, and high standards (duh racisssmmmm) if that is truly something you value. Even now there are enough good users left, and at least you implemented the user accounts only rule which will help with the worst content abuses. However that goes against the pure free speech ethos, and the ban of aristarchus also goes against those values. So update the site policies to match your actual governance, and if you ban one user for publishing public information then you should ban others engaging in stochastic terrorism or spreading bigotry. Or unban aristarchus, though I personally would prefer that ban stay if the doxxing really came from that account along with banning the bigots and terrorists. The hypocrisy is a huge issue, along with power abuse and mysterious database wipes.

                    Really wonder what this site is actually about, none of these problems make sense and the blatant lie that you care about privacy while storing IPs forever and unmasking some AC posts is hard to get past.

                    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @04:14AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @04:14AM (#1285779)

                      Your comment is ignorant. It's laughable to say that I don't care about privacy concerns. In fact, I emailed janrinok within the past week to raise privacy concerns, including about the duration that IP hashes are retained. The fact is, janrinok and I had a polite and civil discussion about my concerns. I appreciate him writing me several emails, which I'm sure was a significant time commitment. I chose not to post my concerns in the comments because I didn't think it was the appropriate forum. I don't think adversarial behavior toward the staff is the correct way to raise concerns. I've sent multiple emails to the staff about concerns I have, and I'm quite certain they haven't always been very happy with me for things I've said.

                      I'm not ignoring privacy concerns. But those concerns don't justify creating sock puppets, abusing the spam mod, doxxing, and other abuses. Yes, there is racist spam on this site. But that doesn't mean you should be using the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account. You could have created a separate account for that purpose, and you've never actually explained why you needed to use the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account. By the way, there are many sock puppets [soylentnews.org] using the Azuma Hazuki username.

                      If you want changes to how this site retains data, email the staff to let them know you're not satisfied with the policy and want changes. But don't use it as an excuse to break the rules or harass users.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2023, @09:43AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2023, @09:43AM (#1285254)

                  Your explanation is not plausible. Here's the discussion you reference, where you claim to have acquired the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=39634&cid=1053663 [soylentnews.org]

                  In that discussion, the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account is complaining about alleged admin abuses, just as you are doing now. I find that interesting.

                  Moving on, however, Azuma Hazuki clearly said:

                  Do me a giant fucking favor and don't try to use me to push whatever agenda you have, okay? If this were really about moderator/admin abuse, you'd have registered a name that looks like Uzzard's at first glance, *not* mine. This is kind of funny in a juvenile way, but it's also gross and creepy.

                  In response, Azuma Hazuki 2.0 responded claiming to give away the password to the account. If you actually found that password and took over the account, it is virtually certain that you also saw Azuma Hazuki's condemnation of using her user name or similar names. Those comments were posted on September 20, 2020.

                  Roughly an hour after that comment was posted, the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account posted this: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1058477&sid=36480 [soylentnews.org]

                  The asshole who created this account wasn't lying when he gave the password, so I've appropriated it :) Reverse troll fuckers! If you don't want me using this account to moderate posts instead of posting AC just reply here.

                  Nearly 24 hours after that, the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account posted the following journal: https://soylentnews.org/~Azuma+Hazuki+2.0/journal/6080 [soylentnews.org]

                  I just wanted to apologize for creating this troll account.

                  It isn't a good idea or else this site will devolve into parody and stupidity the likes of which 4chan can only dream of.

                  Be best everyone!

                  Let's be clear about what's going on here. Azuma Hazuki 2.0 posted it's supposed password in response to Azuma Hazuki's criticism. An hour later, Azuma Hazuki 2.0 posted a comment saying the account has been "appropriated" for use in moderating comments. The next day, the account posts a comment admitting to being the creator of the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account and apologized for creating the account. To summarize:

                  1) You got called out by Azuma Hazuki and pretended to give the account away.
                  2) You then claim the account has been "appropriated" to moderate comments.
                  3) The next day, you apologize that you created the account.

                  There is no way that you didn't see Azuma Hazuki's condemnation of the account, but you chose to use it anyway. If you were otherwise an AC and just wanted to moderate, you could have created your own account. You had no need at all to use the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account, especially after Azuma Hazuki explicitly condemned the account.

                  The account was never given away. You created the account, then pretended to walk everything back once you got called out by Azuma Hazuki and others. But you admitted that you were the creator of the account. From the beginning, Azuma Hazuki 2.0 complained about alleged admin abuses, exactly like you're doing now.

                  It was your account. You created it. Azuma Hazuki 2.0 was always your account. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have admitted it was in a journal.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @12:12AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2023, @12:12AM (#1285380)

                    Anger about the truth, not shocking. No false statements made, and hypotheses clearly separated from fact. SN users be warned, staff are incompetent or malicious, and for a supposed pro-privacy free speech platform they should at least be clear about the tracking being done. Only by repeated questions were the answers teased out, and every post pointing out the facts argued and downmodded.

                    SN users beware.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:27AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:27AM (#1285635)

                    Your explanation is not plausible.

                    Looks very plausible. Certainly more plausible than your paranoid delusion of a conspiracy to, well, do something other than make SN look really fucking stupid, which you have already done. Mission accomplished, game over.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:04AM (14 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:04AM (#1284913) Journal

          Reports from various ACs who have been banned from commenting, and have attempted to register a user name on SoylentNews, is that as soon as an account is activated (they log in), the email is changed by admin, the password changed, and the account is for all practical purposes banned. So what we know so far: The vast majority of new accounts equals ....

          Only 1 person is banned - so who are these 'various ACs ' that you claim to have also been banned from commenting?. You can comment freely - you are doing so now. The next step would be simply to disable AC posting completely for those who are not logged in - but we would rather not do that. Why punish others for the sins of one idiot?

          Where are you seeing these 'reports' - you know, the ones that you do not write yourself? Must be on another site, because they are not on ours. May I suggest that you move permanently to that site and then you can at least be be among friends?

          But the only way we can tell if two Soylentils are the same Soylentil, is if both of them downmod Runaway, or say things critical of janrinok.

          If your allegation is correct (which of course it isn't), they never get to log in, so the detection of sock puppet accounts cannot be based on how they respond to other users. I've downmodded Runaway as have many other accounts - that doesn't make somebody a sock puppet. The accounts are disabled as soon as they are identified - it has nothing at all to do with whether they log in or not.

          The log-in is only significant with fake accounts created by a bot (which are NOT blocked at all). Very little data is added to the database by creating an account. Almost all the records are created when an account logs in for the first time. As fake accounts do not do this they cause us no problems whatsoever.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:51AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:51AM (#1284917)

            janrinok seems to be bothered by reports of the facts that there are no new accounts on SN. He also said Ncommander has halved the expenses, by halving the servers, but neglected to mention that this also reduced posting by over 80%, banned AC posting, and hid journals, and IRC log files. Soon, SoylentNews will be on a paying basis! For a free public-propaganda site.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @05:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @05:29AM (#1285616)

              So, you are saying, no new accounts are allowed on SoylentNews? How ever will we grow to out populate the Green Shite?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:32AM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:32AM (#1285636)

            I have personally heard from over a hundred ACs who have been rejected and bannished when trying to establish new user accounts on SN. Not sure how that ranks as a sample of the total number, which will have to remain unknown. The depths of janrinok's censorship are deep, but how deep no one knows. 6-700 new accounts rejected? On what basis? Were they all aristarchus, or "aristarchus friendly"? Very telling, as far as tells go.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:36AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:36AM (#1285637)

              Correction: You've posted over 100 AC comments pretending to be a victim because your sock puppets keep getting banned.

              Earth to aristarchus: GROW THE FUCK UP

              • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:46AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:46AM (#1285641)

                aristarchus is gone, he no longer posts here. Trust me, I know, for I am he.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday January 08 2023, @08:58AM (1 child)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2023, @08:58AM (#1285801) Journal

                  for I am he.

                  Therefore he has not gone and he just has posted.

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2023, @07:26AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2023, @07:26AM (#1285926)

                    Janrinok knows his logic! Can't get anything passed him with mere double negatives or Cretan paradoxes! If only we had such a wise and temperate editor, more fair than a Sumner's day.

                    Invalid form key: ZrEUba4KKK

                    Strange, there it is again!

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:51AM (6 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:51AM (#1285648) Journal
              I asked:

              Where are you seeing these 'reports' - you know, the ones that you do not write yourself? Must be on another site, because they are not on ours.

              You replied:

              I have personally heard from over a hundred ACs who have been rejected and banished when trying to establish new user accounts on SN

              Evidence? None at all - you are just repeating your own claims. Or do these people contact you while you sleep, or via a ouija board perhaps?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @10:36AM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @10:36AM (#1285654)

                Evidence? None at all - you are just repeating your own claims.

                Learned from the best! SN admins! Sure aristarchus sockpuppeted! Of course he doxxed some unknown goat farmer! And, most damning, aristarchus disrupted discussions! This I all know, because janrinok tells me so!

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:14AM

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:14AM (#1285659) Journal

                  Both aristarchus and Runaway1956 created sock puppets - they were seen and identified by numerous community members. The SN comments by community members identifying them are still there for you to see.

                  The doxing was in aristarchus' own submissions, under his own username. That is hardly circumstantial and was clearly attributable to the person responsible for it. The doxing is the ONLY reason that aristarchus was banned.

                  I don't care what usernames are disrupting the discussions - they are unwelcome and will all be treated the same. There was more than one real account responsible - although usually posting as AC - so all ACs were prevented from commenting on the front pages. There was no alternative - there is only 1 AC account.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:44AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:44AM (#1285662)

                  Aristarchus posted a comment in reply to Runaway, which contained what appears to be Runaway's real name. Runaway has indicated which county he lives in, and this repeated at least on one occasion by the aristarchus account. Given Runaway's name and county of residence, a search of properties from the assessor's office identifies a single individual. This amounts to doxxing, and it was done in a comment posted by the aristarchus account.

                  It doesn't really matter whether the individual really is Runaway. The comment has targeted a single individual for harassment. Runaway did not provide his name in any of his comments, but it was disclosed by the aristarchus account. Again, whether it's actually Runaway is irrelevant. The fact that a single individual has been targeted by aristarchus is a form of intimidation, threatening, and harassment. There is no doubt about who is responsible, because this was all done from the aristarchus account.

                  I am not a staff member, but I have done some searching on my own, and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. I will not link to the evidence because I do not wish to encourage further harassment, but it is still present in the site's comments. Let's just say it's not too hard to find with a bit of searching.

                  The individual behind the aristarchus account had better hope that he has been careful enough to cover your own tracks. If anyone can identify who was behind the aristarchus account, if they go to law enforcement, there might well be some serious prison time involved.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:17AM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:17AM (#1285802)

                    Let me get this straight:

                    Aristarchus posted a comment in reply to Runaway, which contained what appears to be Runaway's real name. Runaway has indicated which county he lives in,

                    So, you took one piece of info from a reply to Runaway1956, and another from Runaway his own self, and you doxxed the poor bastard dead to rights? You think if it was that easy, anyone could do it, like even a House Republican. And this is a crime, how? Since you have evidently committed it. And you didn't even share!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:53AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:53AM (#1285806)

                      Holy shit, I didn't realize you were this stupid.

                      The issue isn't that I looked up the identity of the person aristarchus purports is Runaway. There's nothing illegal about a public records search. I haven't posted any laws because I haven't posted anyone's personal information, let alone inciting harassment against them.

                      However, Runaway's name is not readily determined from his comments. Aristarchus went to some lengths to obtain that information. Moreover, instead of merely searching for the information, aristarchus chose to post it publicly. Aristarchus' intent is to incite harassment of the individual whom he believes is Runaway. The name of this individual would not have been known to me except that aristarchus chose to post it publicly in a comment under the aristarchus username, posted it a few times as an anonymous coward, and even created a sock puppet with the name. Again, this information would not have been available to be if aristarchus had not posted it publicly to see.

                      If anyone finds out who is behind the aristarchus account and turns the information over to law enforcement, aristarchus may well be looking at some serious prison time for harassment, threats, and attempts to incite violence. I don't believe your excuses, and you can bet the police won't, either.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @10:50AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @10:50AM (#1285808)

                        Local police, FBI, and other law enforcement would not care about generic online harassment and indistinct threats, even if they had all the evidence in the world and the perpetrators' identities handed to them. The bar for prosecuting these things is high because of the First Amendment, and they have bigger fish to fry. Throw in true threats or swattings and they might start to care.

                        This is for the communities themselves to take care of, and SN has. Sort of. aristarchus is still using the site every day like the boring troll he is.