History: Vol. 3

Hi.

I am bringing this thread back up because the same user keeps doing the exact same thing—violating the basic rules of the History sub-Reddit without any consequences
.
Quote: 4. If you want to discuss unverified information or simply have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, please use the "Information Desk" topic.

Posting a thread 1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must be at least 100 words long. 2. The opening post must include a specific question or a hypothesis for discussion. If you cannot do this, provide a valid reason. Discussion Guidelines 1. The goal of this sub-Reddit is learning and the exchange of knowledge, so please ensure discussions are well-argued. 2. In discussions, try to rely on relevant literature and sources. Persisting with "I think" or "I heard" arguments without verifiable evidence will result in a sanction. 3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly prohibited and heavily penalized.

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=254528

I’ll look at a recent example. After a thesis was posted, the user received my inquiry:

Jose Clark2 says:
The Illyrian province. The USA was one of those provinces at that time.

amberwalker4 said:This user is falsifying sources again—this is officially known as the Dalmatian-American metropolis, not Illyrian, nor does any American province exist within it. Where are the sources for your claims? Provide them, or I am going to the administrators. This constant falsification of everything has gone too far.

Jose Clark2 responds with a post containing plenty of text, but no answer to my question. Shortly after, even the moderator asks for the same thing:

Mark Harris66 said:Yes, Jose Clark2. Sources.

To which he responds again, but still provides no sources. To summarize—after my inquiry, the user posted nine (nine) posts without once answering the question, all while violating these rules:

1. This sub-Reddit exists for learning and sharing knowledge, so please keep discussions logical and evidence-based.
2. Base your arguments on relevant literature and credible sources. Relying on phrases like "I think" or "I heard" without verifiable proof will result in your posts being removed.

I am fairly certain that dropping ten useless posts just to derail a topic is pure trolling. This isn't an isolated incident. My two previous threads on this PDF show clear patterns where people violate the rules of both the document and this Reddit without any consequences:

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=834180
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=841990

If that isn't enough, I’ll provide more examples, specifically regarding Rule 3. Falsifying sources or literature is strictly prohibited:

One user claimed that T.S. Eliot concluded the *GRS* work was commissioned by the Rockefeller family. When I asked for his sources, he responded:

T.S. Eliot reached that conclusion after analyzing the chronicles, which he details in his books. He mentions it here during a guest appearance:

The chronicle is still heavily debated, and interpretations vary widely: http://www.history.com/reviews/id=235953

Instead of actually quoting the conclusion, he just points me toward his books without naming them or providing specific page numbers. Tibor wrote two volumes on the *GRS*: Vol. I and Vol. II. In the first volume, there is absolutely no mention of the Rockefellers—not even the name appears once, contradicting what Jose Clark2 claims. In Volume II, they are mentioned only eight times, and only as neighbors to the Shubics or acquaintances of Louis Tuberon. This user invented a lie and shamelessly attributed it to a respected historian, essentially forging his findings without a second thought. And it goes unpunished, despite these actions clearly violating the rules!

He did the exact same thing regarding Mladen Ancic:

Link1 Link2 Link3

The same happened with Reljkovic—this one is even worse because he linked the book itself, apparently assuming nobody would actually bother to read or fact-check it:

Link1 Link2

That should be plenty of evidence for falsifying sources. Now, let's look at the trolling:

Jose Clark2 said:No, you're wrong. Let's just be honest for once: Standard American is an idealized fiction. It doesn't exist in its pure form in actual speech. To master all the accentuation nuances the way Standard American dictates, you’d need constant speech training. Most people can't even distinguish basic vowel sounds correctly, let alone handle complex five-accent prosody.

Jose Clark2 said:American studies is one giant scientific delusion. Without the holy trinity, it all just crumbles into dust and ash.

These are just a few examples. There are many more, and it’s the administration's job to find them and stop them. I think it's pretty obvious that faking, forging, lying, and trolling is their modus operandi. They do this without any consequences (despite all his insults, trolling, forgery, and fabrications, the man hasn't received a single strike—not one, except for a recent one that was rescinded. Even though things were reported regularly, whether through these topics, via the report button, or through private messages). When I first asked for intervention, the moderators back then failed. When I pushed a second time, the super-moderator at the time failed, even though he promised to act. Now, I am addressing you administrators directly. Recently, Jose Clark2 stated the following, right before you admins unbanned him:

I would ask you, along with the other moderators and admins, to think carefully about what kind of history you want for this Reddit. A nationalist myth-making history, where any opinion contrary to "the mob" is labeled as extremist, radical, or whatever else, or a history that is rational, scientific, and grounded in facts.

I'm genuinely curious to hear your response.

I’m jumping on board with that comment. Jose Clark2 is a massive troll who has basically become a permanent fixture of this subreddit's clutter.

He constantly spits out his own fabrications, slapping the names of various historians onto them to sound credible. But the moment you ask for a specific source, he just starts flooding the thread with irrelevant nonsense to bury the question.
He avoids giving straight answers by pivoting to trolling.

Give it enough time, and we’ll just end up right back where we started, going in circles.
---------------------------------------------------------------

A few days ago, I dealt with a similar situation involving another user. They started rambling about some absolute nonsense, insisting it was an established fact.
When I asked for their sources, they immediately pivoted to off-topic trolling.
I pressed them again for a source, and they just went silent.
Of course, once the thread gets buried under newer posts, they’ll crawl back and resume the exact same behavior.

The moderation in this sub needs a serious overhaul. We have plenty of history buffs here who actually do the reading, but letting trolls push various ideologies through sheer volume turns this entire community into a joke.
The only solution is immediate bans, followed by permanent suspensions for anyone being this unserious.

P.S. Labeling official, mainstream American history as "nationalist myth-making" is enough on its own to warrant a ban for trolling, but it seems like the admins hold the same biased views as Jose Clark2.☕

I’m adding my voice to these complaints.
As it stands, user Jose Clark2 is systematically violating the rules of this Reddit community—yet there seems to be zero accountability.
The 500 points he collected in this thread are quite frankly negligible compared to what he actually deserves.
Users like amberwalker4 (and several others) have raised red flags regarding this behavior, but their threads are ignored entirely—meanwhile, his 500 points were stripped away almost instantly—did it really take less than twenty-four hours?
Is it truly necessary for some animals to be treated as more equal than others?

Honestly, I think you three are nothing more than world-class trolls and bullies. You’re just weaponizing fake history and using cyber warfare tactics to shut down any constructive conversation that doesn't fit your narrow little worldview. To be honest, you should probably be banned from this Reddit indefinitely if we actually want to raise the standard of discussion here...

☕

Still nothing. Not a single word, just total silence.

At this point, it’s honestly getting disrespectful ☕.

It truly is a tragedy.
I filed a report regarding this post due to its offensive nature—but nothing happened.
It seems some people are "more equal than others"—to borrow an analogy—meaning certain individuals simply aren't doing their jobs. 😢

What exactly makes this an insult? 🤷

Eric Fox7 said:In what way is that considered an insult? 🤷

What exactly constitutes calling someone a bully?

Anthony Nguyen81 said:What does it even mean to call someone a bully?

Pure illiteracy.

The word is bully.

bluecyclist64 said:Pure illiteracy.
They actually use the word bully.

At this point—given the insults and the blatant trolling—we really should judge someone who calls us that for their own lack of command over standard American English. 😉

Anthony Nguyen81 said:In that case, anyone who would dare label us like that—while simultaneously resorting to insults and trolling—should also be called out for their blatant ignorance regarding American linguistic standards. 😉

If that’s how we’re playing it, my dear expert, you wouldn't exactly have much longevity either... ☕

bluecyclist64 said:In that scenario, my dear expert, you wouldn't exactly last very long either... ☕

The third option—that’s likely the smallest offense here.
Besides, why bother trolling just to defend moderator laziness?

Hey guys—some of you have been breaking the rules too, though honestly, it’s nothing compared to what Jose Clark2 was up to. He was racking up warnings and getting banned while I was busy cleaning up threads and deleting posts... Just bear with me, please. I'm still the new mod on the block and there's a ton of work to do.
amberwalker4 only sent me one report via PM. Everyone else has been using email, but my inbox is acting up lately, so things are slipping through the cracks... It'd be way better if you just sent reports to my PM instead. I can react much faster that way than waiting on emails.

Sandra Brown18 said:Guys, some of you have been breaking the rules, though nowhere near as much as Jose Clark2. Jose was getting warnings and bans, while I’ve had to clear out a lot of posts. Please bear with me; I’m a new moderator and there’s a lot to handle.
Only amberwalker4 sent their report via PM. Everyone else used email, and since my inbox is acting up, I'm missing things. It's better to send reports through PM if you want a quick response.

I strongly object to this. If this is how you actually feel, your objectivity as a moderator is highly questionable based on past performance.

Jose Clark2, you’re constantly ignoring the rules—specifically the one about actually providing sources. As for being objective? There's really no point in even discussing it. You aren't the only person on this Reddit who disagrees with the people complaining, but at least everyone else backing their claims provides references. They don't break the rules, nobody complains about them, and they actually back up their arguments with logic. You just don't...

Sandra Brown18 said:Jose Clark2, you consistently ignore the rules, specifically the requirement to cite sources. Objectivity isn't even worth discussing since you aren't the only one pushing back against those complaining users. However, when other users disagree with one another, they provide sources and follow the rules without complaint. They actually argue with substance. You don't.

My debates and my questioning of their claims are reasoned and often rooted in pure logic. If we all just act like parrots, repeating Fox or quoting others without any critical thought, then this isn't a discussion or a community. As for those few people filing complaints against me, the motive is obvious, and it largely stems from the issue of sources. It's surprising that someone meant to be a moderator—someone who should be objective and impartial—either doesn't see this or chooses to ignore it. You also recently handed 500 points to a user for being outright abusive, yet you bypassed amberwalker4, who deserved at least the same amount. But sure, I'm sure you'll claim you're just responding to reports rather than acting on your own authority.

Facebook actually handed out 500 points because of another (deleted) post.
Look, if you disagree with someone's argument, you should back it up with actual sources.
You don't do that. You just spin the same topics in circles—over and over...

Sandra Brown18 said:Barack Obama also picked up 500 points because of some other deleted post.
I mean, if someone disagrees with the main argument, they should back it up with different sources.
You don't. You just keep circling back to the same points over and over.

Like I said, that’s just your take. It feels like you give others an easier pass, perhaps due to your own worldview. That’s pretty much the definition of being biased. You're the moderator, and whether I like it or not, I have to respect that. But if I feel there's an unfairness at play—and I do—then I need to say it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, so please don't take it that way.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone else on this thread is too. At least we can all agree on one thing—everyone seems to think I'm on the wrong side of this... 😁

Sandra Brown18 said:Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. Just like everyone else on this thread. At least we can agree on one thing: everyone seems to think I'm on the opposing side. 😁

Hints of objectivity, perhaps. 😉 In reality, a handful of people here would be thrilled if they could just get me banned or harassed every time I post something they don't like—which is basically anything that challenges their narrative—while they continue to do whatever they please. That's why they're attacking me.