SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Known as the Fyllingsdalstunnelen, the tunnel cuts through the Løvstakken mountain in the southwest Norwegian city, linking the residential areas of Fyllingsdalen and Mindemyren. Cyclists can continue on to the centre of Bergen using existing routes.
[...] Both the Fyllingsdal tunnel and the rest of the cycle route to Bergen city centre are financed through the municipality’s state-supported Miljøløftet (Environmental Promise).
Its goal is to make it easier for more people to choose cycling and walking over driving. Not only could this help reduce traffic in the city, it could also help cut planet-heating emissions and unhealthy pollution.
The route’s total distance - from Fyllingsdalen to Festplassen in the city centre - is 7.8 kilometres, which takes around 25 minutes by bike. Currently, cycling between these areas takes around 40 minutes.
Is it really the longest in the world?
Bergen’s cycle tunnel has been touted as the world’s longest - but it comes with some caveats.
The Snoqualmie Tunnel near Seattle, USA, is 3.6km long. However, it takes over an abandoned railway tunnel, so was not built for purpose.
The Fyllingsdal cycle tunnel is therefore the world’s second longest overall, and the longest that was built for purpose.
Running parallel to the new light rail line that opened in November, the tunnel doubles as an escape route for train passengers.
"Basically, it is an escape tunnel for the tram. But then there were wise minds who said that it is possible to cycle through this tunnel as well," explains project manager Arild Tveit. "By creating a walkway here, it is also possible to exercise... So it is public health in every metre of this tunnel."
I can't say I'm impressed with their logic, but regardless of how you feel about superlatives, it is pretty neat. The article has a nice video that rides through it and you can see all the artwork they've added.
The tunnel will be open from 5.30am to 11.30pm daily. It features well-lit rest stops and security cameras throughout. Emergency phones are available every 250 metres.
Colourful dynamic lighting will create a wave of light when a cyclist or pedestrian enters the tunnel at either end, alerting cyclists to oncoming traffic. It is also lined with artwork and installations to make the journey more interesting.
It will be kept at a constant temperature of 7 degrees Celsius, making it an attractive training route for runners on colder days.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday April 17, @10:31PM (1 child)
I couldn't figure out how to watch the video without scrolling through more than a dozen domains or doing a potentially dangerous script-blocking disable on all. After giving up on the few I thought might be the CDN, I found the YouTube version. [youtube.com]
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17, @11:40PM
even better.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/b8rOsGotlfo [youtube.com]
Since they have those overhead turbines providing ventilation why didn't they put a divider down the middle and blow the air in opposite directions? You'd encourage a lot more cyclists if they always had the wind at their back.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Woodherd on Tuesday April 18, @10:34AM (23 children)
HIs journal entry has slipped off the front page, but the issue is not resolved. Why is c0lo still mod-banned? Admin claim not to know why. I suspect editorial bias. Restore c0lo's rights, or suffer the consequences. (You seem to think there will be none, just as you thought when you censored aristarchus. We will see how this plays out. )
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18, @10:46AM (6 children)
Hmm, yes, seems strange that I should be concerned, but searching I cannot find c0lo's journal entry, which makes me suspect that it has been "censored"? Not that I would say that this is what definitely happened, but it does look probable. Can we get any confirmation that the issue is being looked into? Does anyone care that random Soylentils are silenced, at random? If not, then c0lo is the least of our problems.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 18, @12:47PM (5 children)
It is still there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, @09:19AM (4 children)
There, but is it still functioning and accessible? And why has the shadow mod-ban situation not been resolved, instead of pushed off the front page and covered up?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 21, @12:33PM (3 children)
Because we haven't got a Perl programmer available that can investigate the problem.,
Journals don't get "pushed off the front page and covered up", new journals are simply released and are more current.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, @11:56PM (2 children)
Thus we are back to Hanlon's Razor! Prove that you are not intentionally censoring soylentils you disagree with, jan! Prove it!!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:11AM (1 child)
janrinok seem to think that Woodherd is claiming that the c0lo journal was intentionally slid off the front page, which is absurd, and nothing that Woodherd ever said. But the question remains, why does the admin have so little interest in a long standing accidental moderation ban? I don't thing Woodherd has suggested malicious intent, he only has a reasonable question. Why so long? Others have mentioned Hanlon's Razor, and I am one for whom it seems to apply. In the Obverse.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:41AM
The Spam mod is the tell. Official Admin disapproved comment.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19, @12:49AM (6 children)
I spam modded you because:
a) Your post is the same type repetitive complaining that has been going on for over a year now. This is nothing more than an attempt to threaten and discredit SN. It's a vague threat and you are inept, but your post is still a threat. It has nothing to do with hubie's journal.
b) You are aristarchus. You're not using your billbellum account any longer, which picked up some spam mods. Instead, you've moved in to spamming with this account. The conditions of aristarchus' ban indicate that posts by him are spam. Because you are aristarchus, I've spam modded you.
If you want to complain about your well-deserved spam mod, you know how to email admin@soylentnews.org. Tell them dalek sent you, and that you (aristarchus) would like to report that dalek spam modded you. I'm posting AC to avoid cluttering up hubie's journal more than you already have.
dalek
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 19, @09:33AM
Pretty obvious that you are APK, pretending to be dalek, to stir some shit. Janrinok can probably confirm.
a) the Real Dalek would not be so petty as to break the rules about not spam modding just due to a difference of opinion.
b) If it was the real aristarchus, why has he not doxxed the dalek already? Your assumption of the identity of a fellow soylentil is uncool.
c) this kind of whining and moderation abuse is what is driving this site to destruction. Just stop it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20, @10:29PM (4 children)
As annoying as Ari's whinging is, people complaining about his complaining is even worse. Threat? The threat is bad comments, worthless submissions, and censorship and manipulation. I am starting to think that some bad actor is AC posting and abusing dalek's good name!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 21, @12:39PM (3 children)
Thanks for your sock-puppet contribution.
You got 3 out of 4 - if only you had practised what you currently preach.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @10:08AM (2 children)
Except, not a sock-puppet, an AC of good standing on SoylentNews. Unless such members are no longer allowed.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 23, @10:39AM (1 child)
Your account was disabled. It was a sock puppet account. I would hardly call that 'good standing', would you? I will not give the username or email that you used.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @10:43AM
Bit 'o mercy, that. But not really, since it is impossible. I had no account, used no email. I am pure an unfettered AC, janrinok's worst nightmare, since he as no way to track me, or censor me. Poor janrinok.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @06:16AM (8 children)
People have taken to Spam modding Woodherd, eh? A rather recent, and thus more objective, soylentil, but he is plastered and ostricised before the position is given any consideration. I, for one, welcome our recent and newbie soylentils, but may Janrinok have mercy upon their souls. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate. (It's OK to post things in other languages, since most American Alt-right persons barely are literate in English. Janrinok is trying to learn French, but it is a challenge for a Brit, due to strong cultural prohibitions.)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:09AM (7 children)
As predicted, Woodherd has been banned. You might quibble about the terminology, but his account has been disabled, password changed and associated email changed to soy2014+25391 something. All he did was express concern that c0lo had been shadow mod-banned for a couple years, and now he too is not only mod-banned, but banned banned. I predict that this will happen more and more, as janrinok sinks deeper and deeper into a dark well of paranoia, where every new account is an attack upon the site, and each and every true AC is aristarchus coming for him. In fact, I am neither Woodherd, nor aristarchus, but I keep in touch with the SoylentNews diaspora. Message me for information on how to join!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:26AM (1 child)
aristarchus has a whingefest yet again and the sky is falling.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:49AM
Unless, maybe it is not aristarchus, and every sane person is being driven away from SN, so we end up with Parler refugees?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @12:04PM (2 children)
The only thing I'm surprised about is that janrinok was as patient as he was, and didn't ban your Woodherd sock puppet sooner. Despite your denial, you are aristarchus, and Woodherd was your sock puppet. You're just like APK, posting and pretending to be someone else who supports him [soylentnews.org] because nobody (except Azuma Hazuki 2.0) wants you here.
If there's one disagreement that I have with janrinok, it's that he's far more patient with you than I would be. He lets you get away with far more than I would. I'd have closed your Woodherd account much sooner, and I'd just delete all of your spam threads like this one. I don't fault janrinok for his patience. He's a better man than I am to put up with your constant bullshit and be as patient as he is.
Still, I am very glad that janrinok decided to flush SN's toilet and get rid of your spam accounts. Of course, I'm sure you've already created new sock puppets, just like Woodherd was a sock puppet you created to replace your billbellum account.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 23, @06:58PM (1 child)
Better the devil you know.....
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:11AM
Or the aristarchus you think you know, . . .
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @10:03AM (1 child)
Just for the record, Woodherd was not a sockpuppet, of anyone. But he is now the latest casualty of the war against ACs that Bersarkerganger Janrinok is waging. Pathetic, for a news aggregation site.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 30, @02:13PM
How do you know?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @06:08AM (11 children)
Just to point out, the recent front page articles are showing a clear and present right-wing bias. Any chance anyone there in Control Central could rectify the situation. I hate to go off topic on hubie, but he is staff, and this seems to be one of the few avenues we have to communicate, without getting the janrinok bum rush.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 22, @06:14AM (4 children)
hubie is not an Administrator. Use email.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @06:18AM (1 child)
Administrators are assholes, or worse, janrinok. SN is dead.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @07:21AM
Are we now modding "spam" anything that is demonstrably true, now? Hurts the janrinok feels, it does! Poor admin! Must suck to be so hated, and have to hang with Runaway.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @06:56AM (1 child)
I suggest you promote him. We need an admin that is not insane, like janrinok. I say this as arisarchus, who has deranged janrinok to the edge of insanity. Give us hubie, he is much more, um, sane.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:12AM
Yes! Promote Hubie! Fire janrinok! Spam mod this post!! Oh, the Mores et Tempora!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @11:49AM (1 child)
You know, you're more than capable of doing something about this supposed right-wing bias. It's obvious you spend much of your life sitting at your computer and spamming SN. You could spend that time submitting articles about STEM topics that don't have the right-wing bias you're throwing a temper tantrum about. No, I'm not talking about the overtly political articles you used to flood the submissions queue with before, aristarchus. I'm talking about articles that actually discuss STEM topics. You could submit such articles and counter this right-wing bias that you claim is present.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:48AM
Have you ever tried that? Doesn't work. Eds will go for the right-wing dog-whistle over any fair and balanced article. Problem is not a lack of material, it is editorial bias.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @11:12AM (3 children)
The current front page article regarding copyright is chock full of industry shills, bad history, and libertarian conservatives. I would appreciate it if the entire article was removed, because it violates the copyright of several authors.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 27, @01:46PM (2 children)
No it doesn't. It is used under the 'Fair Use [copyright.gov]' doctrine.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @06:58PM (1 child)
And you pretended to be worried about the cost of legal liabilities over the alleged doxxing incident? Corporate copyright owners are vicious, and have much deeper pockets. Another janrinok lie.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @08:41AM
Oh, look! another Spam mod! Must be another inconvenient truth.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @10:13AM (43 children)
Just a notification that if you use anonymous (and, god forbid, encrypted?) Proton mail, janrinok will disable your account. If you use Proton mail, or TOR, or post as AC, you are aristarchus. But, then, we all already knew that. Right, Mon janrinok?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 23, @10:58AM (22 children)
Another lie from AC. You can use any email address that you wish. However, if by doing so you use the same email that has been used numerous times by sockpuppets then you might just compromise your true identity and have another account disabled.
So albelard (3 times), blackpuffin (3 times), billbellum (3 times), adamantine_flower (36 times) and so many others, I wonder how we identify you? We must have some leet skills - or perhaps you are stupid.
People are using all sorts of email addresses, TOR nodes, VPNs, and posting as AC. That is not what compromises them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:50AM (14 children)
It was on the front page. Are you denying?
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday April 24, @10:11AM (13 children)
Yes - I have said no such thing. If you wish to verify, why don't you check your own accounts:
This is only a selection (there are hundreds more, all from known sock-puppet email accounts). All of those accounts were successfully created. If they have been disabled it is AFTER the accounts have been created because, well, we cannot disable an account that does not exist. It isn't the email provider that gets them disabled. There are many successful accounts that use the same email providers as yourself.
Look them up - they all have account numbers. You are lying yet again in your original claim - and you know it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:22PM (12 children)
You have to share the hashes that make you think that these are sockpuppet accounts, otherwise it looks like you are arbitrarily banning usernames that you disapprove of. I mean, "Davidburge"! Who seriously thought they could have a username like that on SoylentNews?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @08:03AM (11 children)
The hashes are irrelevant - we do not identify accounts with hashes.
The email address that "DavidBurge" provided has been used 69 times to create sock puppet accounts including such names as :
etc etc
I did tell you that he is not very intelligent, didn't I?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:25AM (8 children)
You do realize, that by posting all these banned usernames, you are admitting massive banning, but also alerting the "bad actors" as to how accurate your sock puppet detection actually is. I will leave it to actual sock-puppeters (Runaway) to claim any of these accounts, and verify your veracity.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @08:46AM (2 children)
We have disabled over 600 sock puppet accounts from one person alone. And he is not the only person creating sock puppets.
None of those sock puppet accounts are linked to Runaway1956.
I don't care whether you verify or not. There are multiple factors involved in identifying sock-puppet accounts (and none of them involve hashes!). If we were not being successful you would be seeing the disruption elsewhere on the site and AC wouldn't be whinging that they keep being banned.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @11:13AM (1 child)
Well then, according to the curmudgeon Runaway hisself, you have missed some 1023 sock-puppets. Not a good batting average, jan.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @11:49AM
He actually said he could run up 1024 different virtual accounts. He hasn't actually created 1024 accounts. He created a few accounts and they have been disabled, just as yours were.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:46AM (4 children)
The mass banning is only happening because of the mass creation of sock puppets. If you weren't prolifically creating sock puppets, this wouldn't be happening.
Here are pages more of your sock puppets: https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=&query=fuck+you&author=&sort=3&op=users [soylentnews.org].
Here are some others that you also created: https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=&query=wife&sort=3&op=users [soylentnews.org].
You used this sock puppet for whinging about your ban: https://soylentnews.org/~Spectre+of+Janrinok's+Dead+Wife/ [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @11:08AM (3 children)
Who the fuck are you, and who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Has all of SN lost its fucking mind? Exterminate.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @11:14AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @10:14PM (1 child)
i'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore! And what is it with all these fucking bans on this fucking website?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 26, @05:49AM
What is it with all these sock-puppets that are being created? What is with all the personal attacks on people who have a different view from yourself? What is it with using somebody else's journal or a Poll to bitch and moan about how unfair you perceive the world to be?
Are you leaving again?
There is only 1 ban in force. Perhaps you missed it [soylentnews.org]? However, sock-puppets are not permitted.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @08:52AM (1 child)
By any chance was this a Proton email address? Was that why they were ALL banned?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 28, @11:52AM
You are not reading my replies so I am beginning to think that there is no point in writing them.
There is no single factor that identifies a sock puppet account. However, using an email address that has been used 68 times previously to create sock puppet accounts is rather stupid. Don't you agree?
Accounts may be created using ANY email provider. However, we are now using a human 'captcha' to remove those accounts that do not have a real person behind them. We also look at numerous other factors too. The identification can take weeks or longer in some cases. Some give themselves away immediately, particularly by their attitude, behaviour or actions. If an account is created and then in the first few posts does nothing but complain about the site or make personal attacks, it is often a good indicator that the account has no intention of being a good community member, but this factor alone does not result in an account being disabled.
If an account is temporarily disabled while we wait for a response from a person then it is not 'banned'. The account has been successfully created. Once we have received a response the account can be re-enabled. Only one account has ever been permanently banned.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:22AM (6 children)
Oh, yes, my TRUE identity! As opposed to my SN username? What the F is up with you, janrinok? Nobody here is who they say they are, except you, FatPhil, and Runaway1956 thanks to a doxxer. So what is the big deal?
Oh, yes, quite right, old chum! What constitutes "compromise"? Russian whores peeing on a bed? Runaway threatening massive death and destruction? Or, that one AC might be the same AC as some other AC who said really unkind things, and disrupted conversation at the Imperial Order of the Aryan Nations and Briton White Persons of not Markle?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @08:50AM (5 children)
We don't care who you are - your "TRUE identity" - we only care about how you behave on this site. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. You have an active account. Any other accounts that you create are therefore sock puppets.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @11:10AM (4 children)
No, sadly, I do not have an active account. I prefer to be a pure AC. That way, janrinok is not all up in my IP.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 25, @11:23AM (3 children)
And when you lose your temper you make mistakes......
Account identified.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:56AM (2 children)
And now janrinok is sending messages to my work email, and threatening members of my religious community? Such abuse shall not stand, man! You cannot do such things! Leave my mother alone, you bad man! I am beginning to rue the day I first signed up for a SoylentNews username.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 27, @11:34AM
Lol - but not me. Just more lies.
We reached that stage a long time ago. HAGD.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @11:13AM
What do you call it when evidence of illegal abuse and bullying is spam modded? Yes, it is always the cover-up, more than the crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @11:44AM (19 children)
Holy shit, you're a dumbass, aristarchus. ProtonMail isn't banned. In fact, as you've whinged about [soylentnews.org], when your sock puppets get banned, their email addresses get changed to ProtonMail addresses. ProtonMail isn't banned, and in fact, it was used to disable your 600+ spam accounts. Yes, that includes your Woodherd sock puppet account, which recently got banned.
You're also a complete loser, spending hours every day creating sock puppets and spamming SN. You clearly have nothing useful to do with your life, so you waste it trying to destroy a small website run by volunteers. I would be stunned if you actually have a job of any kind, because you appear to spend your entire life shitposting here.
Your constant fussing about AC posts being banned on the front page is also bizarre. You want Runaway banned because you say his comments and journals incite violence. Of course, there has been far more fucked up shit posted by ACs, and with greater frequency. This includes APK's anti-semitic spam [soylentnews.org], which he posted in numerous articles using his Cyberian Tiger bot. If SN is going to ban comments that incite violence, the biggest source of that was AC comments. Of course, your goal was never to get rid of extremist and violent content. If that was your goal, you would support the ban on AC posting. The problem is that banning AC comments also makes it a bit more difficult for you to spam this website with impunity.
You're basically a toddler, aristarchus, and AC posting and sock puppets are your toys that you use to cause mischief. Now that janrinok has taken your toys away that you abused, you've decided to throw a massive temper tantrum.
Grow up. Leave your mom's basement for once. Get a job. Actually make a meaningful contribution to society for once in your life.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @06:27PM (18 children)
TL;DR - "I have no problem with the blatant hypocrisy and platforming of political terrorism"
The free speech defense worked when no one was banned, though TMB had plenty of admin abuse they doled out. Personally I advocate enforcing the site rules and banning any lefty or righty that causes problems. Of course transparency is the only way to build community trust and site leadership has made it clear that no further transparency will be provided, citing privacy concerns. Pure hogwash since they claim site users are not tracked, etc. Not like transparency would require seeing user emails or IPs, though if the hash is good enough and site mods see it anyways, why worry? Don't even need a user's hashed IP anyway for most transparency efforts. Silly, forgot that there is no PERL programmer, that is why nothing can ever be done.
Maybe if jerks like you cared about bad actors like TMB abusing their privileges then the site wouldn't have reached this point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, @09:43PM (17 children)
Then let's talk about your behavior, Azuma Hazuki 2.0. You ran that sock puppet account, which spammed QAnon disinformation and actually linked to a QAnon site in its profile when it was created. Your excuse that you just happened to take over the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account has been thoroughly debunked. If you wanted an account to participate in moderation, it would have been much simpler to just create a new account from scratch instead of starting at the karma floor of -25. I don't believe for a moment that you just happened to take over that account, but even if you did, you increased the visibility of the QAnon spam that the account posted. You directly promoted political terrorism by running an account that spammed QAnon disinformation.
Let's be clear. You don't care one bit about getting rid of content that promotes political terrorism. Like I said, if you cared about that, you would support the ban on AC posting. AC commenting has been used for massive spamming of things like APK's anti-semitic spam. But you don't care about any of that, because blocking AC commenting also makes it harder for you to spam this site. You're not doing this because you don't want people promoting political violence. This is just an excuse for you to troll and disrupt this site as much as possible. Even if janrinok did 100% of what you're demanding, you'd just find some other excuse for trolling.
This is a great summary of your post. You have no problem with blatant hypocrisy or giving a platform to political terrorism. Otherwise, you wouldn't have run the Azuma Hazuki 2.0 account, which promoted QAnon political terrorism.
Again, this is part of your commenting history:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1053747&sid=39630 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1053382&sid=39624 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1053384&sid=39519 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1053381&sid=39624 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1053402&sid=39623 [soylentnews.org]
Once you got called out for this, only did then did you pretend to care about hypocrisy:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=39634&cid=1053663 [soylentnews.org]
Don't even bother pretending that this is about getting rid of posts that could incite violence. Your own posting history proves otherwise.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24, @08:54AM (16 children)
Say goodnight, dalek!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, @08:28AM (15 children)
It is like there is one suck-up toady here on SoylentNews, who follows janrinok around, upmodding all his comments, and supporting his holy jihad against aristarchus. Renfield? That you?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, @01:16AM
Is it a sock-toad? I hear they are plentiful on SoylentNews.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 26, @06:02AM (13 children)
This action is against sock puppet accounts - not an individual. Do not flatter yourself.
The software detects sock puppets - not a specific person. The accounts that are disabled are sock puppets - it doesn't matter who has created them, and there is more than one person who does so. That you think it is against an individual says more about your mental state than our actions. Please seek help.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @09:29AM (12 children)
If there are no individuals, then there can be no sockpuppets! Listen to reason and logic, jan! You are chasing wild geese, and not the Irish kind. How can you tell that an account is a puppet, without linking it to another account held by the same individual. Makes no sense to me, and craziness like this drives away potential soylentils.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 27, @11:20AM (11 children)
And what is your objection when we CAN link it to an existing account holder?
You seem think that it is a single factor that identifies a sock puppet account. It is not - there are multiple factors. How it is created is only one of them. How it is used, how it is abused, how it builds a false credibility before being used maliciously, the behaviour patterns of the account (time of operation, the repeatable phrase and/or sentence structure that it employs, how they attempt to mask their identity, etc) and others. Usually none of these taken on their own are conclusive - but taken together they can be. In the vast majority of cases these are so well defined that even software can identify them. Repeated using of the same email address is a dead giveaway though - it takes an incredible amount of stupidity to think that such an action will go unnoticed.
Some accounts are active for several weeks, or even months or longer, before they compromise themselves.
Sock puppet accounts are also defined on Wikipedia as accounts created to cause disruption or vandalism on a website such as ours, or to give the illusion of support for a particular point of view where, in fact, it is not the case. It does not mention having to be proven to belong to another existing account, although in most case we CAN do this. No, I am not going to help you defeat our protection just so that some accounts can run amok again.
If we cannot establish that an account is a sock puppet then it means that the account is behaving like any other user. In which case, we don't need to take any action; it is just another username.
... and as I write this speak the latest one has just been created.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @07:07PM (10 children)
That's what I love, the "false credibility"! It is like "Hi, I am VLM! No really, I am! And I think all immigrants applying for sanctuary ought to be locked up! Respect my opinion, because I am a real person!" That kind of false credibility? No, actually, janrinok is still just butt-hurt that aristarchus would not bow to his authority, and refused to apologize. Empty false credibility, and it has destroyed the credibility of SoylentNews admin, far worse that the non-Migratory Buzzard ever managed.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 27, @09:49PM (9 children)
Well, we seem to be doing an excellent job of keeping the sock puppets at bay. The only butt-hurt person seems to be a certain AC who can no longer create fake accounts.
Has aristarchus been asked to apologise? Oh, perhaps you meant Sylvester.... who has gone remarkably quiet now. Why would you think aristarchus has been asked to apologise? Unless you are reading "somebody else's" emails again.
Every time you speak you shoot yourself in both feet.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, @10:52PM
Short term memory getting less reliable? https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=54501&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=-1&highlightthresh=-1&page=1&cid=1298536#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:21AM (7 children)
Well, for the four subscribers who browse at the +2 level, I am sure it makes difference. But no one does that, so everyone sees your spam mods, janrinok. Bad look.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 29, @11:03AM (6 children)
They are not my moderations.
But it is strange that you appear in the comments within minutes of emails arriving from a disabled account that you, of course, know nothing about. Coincidence, just like the Spam moderations.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:36AM (5 children)
Time to end the charade, janrinok! Everyone can see what you are doing. Your program of false-flag plausible deniability and Mau-Mau insurrection does not work any more. Why are you banning all new soylentils? Why do you still allow c0lo to be mod-banned? Why do the front page articles only come from you, with a well-known UK bias? Why, janrinok? At along last, why?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 03, @11:12AM (4 children)
We are not banning new users. Why don't you ask squeedles (28050), dustbuster (27539), guest reader (26132), Ben Colver (25395), dadaDoofy (23827) and those are just off the top of my head? All of them have commented, moderated , created journals, or have submitted stories.
Oh, you mean we are stopping you from creating sock puppets ari? That is exactly what I am supposed to do.
Another lie. Look at who is making the submissions, Freeman, Fliptop, owl, hubie, Canopic Jug, loorg and others. True, the bots find a lot too but we give priority to those that are submitted by accounts. Even your own sock puppet got a submission printed.
This is NOT a site specifically for Americans - it is intended for all English speaking people. Many of our community are not Americans. We have community members on all of the continents apart from, as far as I can tell, the Arctic and Antarctic land masses.
You mention c0lo - I have already answered your question several times but he is NOT American. So you know your claims are simply lies.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @08:27AM
I read the IRC #editorial logs. Nearly all the subs are janrinok. Shows in the choice of topics, and clear Anglocentric bias, too.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:28PM (2 children)
Rejected new user here! Tried to create an account, but here is what I received in my Protonmail box:
[emphasis added]
No doubt but that janrinok is going to accuse me of being someone, and perhaps I should not have been so snarky in my choice of username, but this is pretty rude behavior. Don't know what to make of it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 04, @07:39PM (1 child)
Three bits of evidence - but we have several more:
Covertstarchus - you have used variations of ...'starchus' in 38 previous attempts to create accounts.
soylentthrowaway@protonmail.com - plus you have tried to use this email name before but with a different provider. You have only used this provider 427 times so far.
And when rejected you immediately came on here to shout about it - just like nobody else ever does.
It is a sock puppet, And before you start getting all defensive and lying about who you are "Greg", if you emulate a sock puppet you will be treated like a sock puppet.
Yes, it is true - I consider your behaviour in in this case to be rude too, but I am surprised that you came straight out and admitted it. On to your next attempt...
ps. You do realise that you have just compromised your own email address don't you?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:35PM
Compromised? Don't spam me, bro!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:19AM
Um, over a hundred posts on the student's thingy, instead of the usual one or five? Has/ve the SoylentNews editorial staff finally found the secret of virality? (Internet, not virility, you perverts!)