Link: https://lemmy.world/post/51404010/25607651

1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world

1. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

Ban & comment removal.

1. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

📑

1. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).

1. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

I commented that I am not sure @arlesh@lemmy.world even verified the story is even real. Instead of proving me with another source that the story is real, I was deemed a troll, banned, and all my comments removed. If this is how criticism is remedied, I am not sure what I want fixed.

What was your exact comment? Are you saying stories on the New York Times web page have to be independently verified? That's kind of a high bar for a random user to clear.

What did you comment to get temp banned? Also what is the source that you used?

I believe it was:

Did OP even verify this was real news?

I do not know how to look up my deleted comment.

Are you saying stories on the New York Times web page have to be independently verified?

Secondary sourcing is fine with me, as I am aware random lemmies are not journalists. But there is nothing to unsuggest NYT isn't making a slop/fakenews. Which why I requested verification, from mod & OP.

But there is nothing to unsuggest NYT isn’t making a slop/fakenews.

Too many negatives. Can´t process.

I got banned, unbanned, banned, unbanned, and banned again in the span of minutes. I am assuming that @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world is doublechecking my comments to verify if was trolling, or concerned to verify the source on this story is real.
What do you mean by source here? I only cited that NYT publishes slop. Thus my request for both OP and mod verify the source of the story.

You were perma banned accidentally. The modlogs show that, so you were then tempbanned instead.

There are alot of people who loose their minds the microsecond someone mentions NYT, ypu might have been pinned as one of them.

Also, why would you think they would verify for you? Is there a rule that they have to verify in that com?

Because NYT makes slop/fakenews, articles maybe slop/fakenews.

Because as TheTechnician27@lemmy.world demonstrated on the very same screenshot I provided:

1. Posts should use high-quality sources (for a rough idea, check out this list),

NYT fails the metric of high-quality reliable source, as they state they use slop to type their articles.

This is untrue, as by the coms own metrics, this Wikipedia page is the standard for reliability on the com. That page states that NYT is perfectly fine as a source.

Edit: added context for the green checkmark.

Read the audit date you provided me twice. 2024 isn't today. Today NYT publishes slop. Today I got permabanned, then temp banned for asking for a secondary source.

Time isn't a constant, therefore reliability.
Blindly trusting one source instead of several, with ranging perspectives is inappropriate low-quality misinforming.

Hi, I'm sorry for the accidental permaban. I meant for it to be two days to get you to stop spamming "fake news" on that post. You can see I undid that when I noticed, which is why I put Rule 0 in the comm to encourage appeals (the "mod is a dumbass" rule).

I can see why you were banned.

I can see why people don't like NYT, but why do they never try to appeal or start a conversation and instead spam this stuff. There's a real conversation to be had there.

After reading through the thread, I understand why the ban was made.

I would say YDI for their revised ban (2 days)

I am aware accidents happen, in fact, I made one in that very same post myself, and quickly deleted it (hindsight memory loss). However why are you giving me two days for a request of a secondary source?

For wanting high quality sourcing?

I want to comprehend this logic. Why do I deserve a two day ban for requesting rule 3 to be appropriately enforced?

Because you're pushing an alternate interpretation of rule 3, which explicitly notes the NYT as a valid source.

If you want to question that, a standalone thread would be more appropriate, though a message to the mod would be a better first start. That thread, however, is 100% appropriate according to the current rules.

Ok🫡, thank you for enlightening me.

The mod is already 🧵, hopefully a responds.

I believe it was:

I agree that's approximately what you replied to my comment. (Voyager won't let me see it for some reason.) You also made two other top-level comments at basically the same time which were, IIRC, "This is fake news"

And yeah, acccessing deleted comments on Lemmy is annoying. I wish the user who posted it could still view it; it'd make appeals easier.

It's fine to question it within the thread; the Wikipedia resource is a reference, not Gospel. The problem was that they were a) seemingly just spamming it, b) asserting "fake news", and c) putting responsibility on OP to "verify" for no real reason.

Responds to what? The assertion that the NYT isn't a trustworthy source?

Same answer, this isn't the thread for that. See the last rule:

Keep the comments in YPTB posts about the moderation action itself, not about the general topic in which the moderation took place.

I would make the same call regarding a temp ban after multiple comments like that. Its not a source thats against the rules, its literally referenced in there, and I would disagree about the thread being appropriate - your comm to run obv, but the trustworthiness of the NYT is an entirely different topic than what the that OP posted about. That OP didn't break any rules, and NYT is clearly what this OP wants to discuss.

That should be a separate thread.

YDI.

You were beating your own personal drum when the community allows a source you don't like.

Temp ban, comment removal, and a warning to not do it again are totally appropriate in this case.

If you don't like an allowed source on a link driven community, the way to handle it isn't whining in a thread, or here. You make your case first to the mods, then possibly as a meta post.

Nobody gives a fuck if any random person dislikes a given source. Nobody. What matters is community standards. As long as standards exist and are moderated evenly, it's users' choice to participate in that community or not.

They were different comments, one to OP, yours, and the last one I corrected as it was my mistake (the one you're lastly referring to). The one to OP was something along:

NYSlop isn't a reliable source, find a secondary source

You make your case first to the mods, then possibly as a meta post.

Is there like community for this?

Well, usually, you'll message the mods if that community, then post a meta post in that community. No point in doing so elsewhere.

I disagree.
I guess I really have to create a c/appeals

What do you think c/appeals would do?

If it isn't run by the admins and mods that you would appeal to, it's useless. An appeal that isn't made to a person that can change the thing being appealed is just whining with extra steps. This community already serves tat purpose, and it at least has enough of a user base that it might get attention from a mod that's being PTB accused.

So, I guess you can feel free to disagree with the fact that the established method for making appeals, or seeking changes in policy goes through the mods of a community, but that's just delusion.

You can also feel free to start any community you want that the instance admins where it's hosted are okay with. Hell, even though it's pointless for the thing you're here complaining about, it would at least be more productive than this post was lol.

For real here, you don't have to like the responses to a PTB post. It's pretty damn common that if the consensus verdict isn't PTB that some degree of butthurt will occur. But if you don't at least recognize that you're being told in a very direct manner that what you wanted to hear is just not a reflection of reality.

the newyork times might not be high quality, but it is news and of higher quality than some that a certain orange president recommended

PTB. That comm is liberal garbage that's supportive of fascist attacks. No surprise they're pushing sketchy news.