Sockpuppets on t'other forum

[stuart]

This is done, Chris is no longer on the moderation team distribution list for messages sent to that list. This now appears to be brushed to the side as if it’s nothing.

Does this apply to SE26 & SE6.life? Otherwise it doesn't address the problem of sockpuppet and inappropriate moderation. You may remember SE26.life was where this thread started. They have been run as one network. Sanitising one bit of it is no answer.

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

Chris runs the tech \ admin’ side of the forum, but excludes himself from the moderation team. This is done, Chris is no longer on the moderation team distribution list for messages sent to that list. This now appears to be brushed to the side as if it’s nothing.

But given the evidence on Chris's trustworthiness, and his unquestioned technical abilities, many people will see this as nothing. Surely that is not hard to see.

[oakr]

This is done, Chris is no longer on the moderation team distribution list for messages sent to that list. This now appears to be brushed to the side as if it’s nothing.

Does this apply to SE26 & SE6.life? Otherwise it doesn't address the problem of sockpuppet and inappropriate moderation. You may remember SE26.life was where this thread started. They have been run as one network. Sanitising one bit of it is no answer.

Stuart

No idea I'm afraid - they run as separate entities. I don't even have a log on to the se26.life site.

[stuart]

No idea I'm afraid - they run as separate entities. I don't even have a log on to the se26.life site.

Stuff (much of which is questionable) is cross posted. So it is SE23.life's problem too. The problem is magnified in that a SE23.life mod can't see where it originated from if it was first posted on Se26/6.life.

Hence they are not seperate and it merely outsources moderation back to a person the SE23 remaining mods can no longer trust.

Stuart

[JGD]

Day 3 of a request to the @moderators on SE23.life in the form of an open - and honestly stated - appeal to them.

We have moved to a position where now two moderator in the .life teams have commented publicly here on STF. JMLF is a moderator on SE26.life and Oakr on SE23.life. Both are to be credited with what they have done so far. I would echo Stuart's warm comments above.

It must be reported that Oakr makes some personal observations about his activities with a real measure of candour and is silent on any systemic failure of moderation on SE23.life. It is still the case that no other moderator from SE23.life has reached out as requested in our appeals made in the last two days
In that same period a significant volume of reports has been made about other sock-puppet and trolling activities by Chris Beach. More and more incidents are emerging about which some hard evidence is materialising.

The known scope of Chris Beach’s actions and predilections for harassing and instilling fear in his own community is growing. The impact of having to deal with it by eradicating it might not be easily achieved, see Rachael’s comment below.

Irrespective of why this silence and inaction prevails, your community is aware that Chris Beach can no longer be trusted. They know now that he has created multiple sock-puppets and used them in his activities and may still be doing so. That awareness is spreading across a wider number of people who now believe that there is something wrong and that the wrongdoing is significant.

In case you have not yet understood, the case has altered. Nic did NOT publish Beach family details into the public domain. She is not guilty of that charge.

Chris Beach is guilty of that charge. And possibly for the purposes of engendering fear and harassment in Nic’s mind. We might agree that Nic’s actions could be viewed as unwise by some, not least for her personal safety. Others might not have done it the way she did. But she was a person being harassed by Chris Beach’s activity. She did have pretty clear evidence FlavaBaker was Chris Beach and he was hacking around her private life for the purposes of frightening her. Being unwise in the choice of a course of action does not make her wrong in her goal of trying to prove it was Chris Beach.

And from that single confession by Chris Beach, so many other of his questionable actions have been revealed supported by hard evidence and incontrovertible facts.

So at what point will you determine that this volume of questions from the community deserve to be answered ?

You may think this will be potentially punitive, but here we are. Chris Beach’s despicable activities went undetected by a pool of moderators - good and bad – a systemic failing if you will. I am sure you will see that an accounting of what was and what was not known is essential. Not least for your own standing but most of all to prevent it happening again.

The community will think better of you. In the community’s eyes, your silence potentially condemns the integrity of that position and you.
A summary of comments made in this period for you.

JMLF a moderator on SE26.life wrote:

“All I think is that it’s pretty despicable behaviour on all accounts and I find it highly suspicious that 1. CB gets caught out lying directly to members of the forum 2. Is caught making up a fake account to use to his own benefit, something he has been repeatedly accused of in the past. 3. The mods acted extremely swiftly to try to lock/hide the thread within about 12 hours of it all blowing up 4. When some users felt that this was hasty/unfair/not productive a poll was used which was about 2/3 in favour of it staying open but then it got locked/hidden away anyways due to him reporting the stalky/threatening message he received by posing as an imaginary Caribbean food outlet to be opening in FH.
……..
All reeks of trying to hide what has been found out about the whole bizarre situation.”
Stuart wrote: “I can believe that decent mods couldn’t imagine the true horror that is now belatedly being exposed. It’s hard to shift loyalties. The temptation to simply walk away must be there. I’m guessing the remaining may be splitting into ‘save SE23’ or ‘Save Chris’ camps. They may need to resolve that before anyone dare reach out.”

Rachael wrote:

“Meanwhile, the unwitting still continue to post on the forum, and the mods who should be protecting them are instead exposing them to risk. I’m ashamed of the lot of them. “
And
“If anyone becomes aware of, or even suspects an account of being, a CB sock puppet on Twitter, it would be helpful to post the information here. I have 2.7k twitter followers and while my account is locked down now, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if CB hadn’t planted a puppet in there a long time ago, but weeding it out manually will be tortuous.”

Jmoney posted on SE23.life

“Thanks for this. OK after reading the update it’s not going to be a good forum ever if admins continue to cover what’s happened up. Fgs there’s no way this can be under police investigation no one has none anything illegal lol. But there was a serious, serious beach of trust with this community and I would not be surprised if people feel like they don’t want to post here anymore I would not blame them. Ilwonder how long my reply will stay up."

Londondrz responded to jmoney’s single post on SE23.life by saying,

“Why don’t you wait and see. I certainly have nothing to hide.”

[JGD]

I can and always have been able to see that thread. It’s still in the main forum, tagged General. I am not logged in and viewing the forum using private browsing.

I think i may have misunderstood you and thereby am wasting your time.

I can confirm I CAN see the thread Threats, cyber-stalking and lost pets: The life of a community group admin but is marked closed and has not been restored on my non-login status.

[JGD]

I’m not sure what all this public domain shit is about. The woman sent a threatening email to him. It matters not if it was in private or the information wasn’t hacked. It doesn’t even matter if she sent it to the wrong person! The relevant legislation is the Malicious Communications Act. Look it up. Interesting stuff.

Interesting use of the word shit. To what does he refer one wonders ? And not for him any evidence based logic, let's just repeat the discredited accusation when it's more convenient.

And

No sides being taken here. Both parties look like spoilt children to me, and I daresay I’m not the only one who will hold that view, outside of the frothing at the mouth crew on the Sydenham forum.

Could he be angry in anyway or for any reason ? And could he possibly be referring to this happy band on this forum ?

And no sign of any moderation whatsoever.

[stuart]

James Evans on SE23.life wrote:
No sides being taken here. Both parties look like spoilt children to me, and I daresay I’m not the only one who will hold that view, outside of the frothing at the mouth crew on the Sydenham forum.

Could he be angry in anyway or for any reason ? And could he possibly be referring to this happy band on this forum ?

And no sign of any moderation whatsoever.

IMHO that should not be moderated. I wouldn't have done it even though I find it both unpleasant and quite wrong. Objective moderation should discount 'feelings'. If it crosses the line into 'hate' or intention to deceive or is a sockpuppet then the truncheon is raised. Otherwise its free speech. Its a good test that those doing moderation can take 'shit' .

A measure of difference between the old and the new at SE23.life? I hope so - do I test it by being moderately rude?

Stuart

[Pally]

So ...is it worth looking at SE26 forum or not? Or is it best ignored?

[Homecroft]

Here's a question. Is it OK to film someone in public, argue with them, post the video shaming them, then also publicly post their address also?

Harrassing elderly people on their doorstep, intimidating them by putting a camera in their face, then posting the results of it on a local forum, complete with their address in a report elsewhere.

Hmmm.

[Rachael]

I can and always have been able to see that thread. It’s still in the main forum, tagged General. I am not logged in and viewing the forum using private browsing.

I think i may have misunderstood you and thereby am wasting your time.

I can confirm I CAN see the thread Threats, cyber-stalking and lost pets: The life of a community group admin but is marked closed and has not been restored on my non-login status.

The thread that Stuart said was closed and I referred to as reinstated is the one in which we are currently represented as a bunch of froth-mouthed loons, and started by Pauline, not the original CB post currently locked down because of the putative police investigation.

[Rachael]

OakR - thank you for coming here and being open and frank about your dealings with Nicola. It is very much appreciated.

I wonder, though, if you are looking on this with too narrow a focus? What Nicola did in exposing the FlavaBaker account started this cascade of events, but it was only the trigger. If you take Chris’s issues with Nicola entirely out of the discussion, there is still a wealth of evidence, both anecdotal and more substantial, that CB has been using sock puppets, false identities and many other underhand methods to control, coerce and intimidate people he comes to perceive as his enemies. This list of his supposed enemies grows longer by the day and includes a wide range of people with nothing more in common than they chose to challenge him. The evidence is that he has been doing this for years, before the inception of SE23 Life. He has been banned from many online spaces (not just forums). I have no reason to believe he is not still contributing to SE23 Life using a well-established sock puppet account - he has form for doing this elsewhere. The moderators have no ability to stop him manipulating the site in his capacity as technical admin to his own advantage. So removing him from the mod team really, sadly, is as good as doing nothing.

Now, as a moderator on the forum, what should or even can you do with that information? There are no easy answers to that, and it may be unfair to expect you to be judge and jury over what CB may or may not have done outside the realm of the SE23 forum. And yet to carry on moderating the forum as if none of this information has been provided to you will, rightly or wrongly, make people question your judgement. I’ve been in your position. I could find no solution, except to walk away. And so I repeat my genuinely-made question of earlier: what can the current moderation team achieve that I could not, in the face of insurmountable odds against keeping CB from interfering the forum one way or another, as much and as for as long as he likes?

[oakr]

I realise I've made a typo in my original post, this:

I have agreed as above that I won’t publish anything she sent to me, and I will continue to respect that, though it appears from JDG’s comments some of my communications may now be in wider circulation (I've seen this directly myself).

Should read

I have agreed as above that I won’t publish anything she sent to me, and I will continue to respect that, though it appears from JDG’s comments some of my communications may now be in wider circulation (I've not seen this directly myself).

Apologies. I'm not sure how to edit the original post, if an admin could do that so the post is clear, that would be great. Thanks.

[hotterthanurex]

I've revised my previous opinion after a wee google. Seems CB is using the .Life forums as a shop front for his coding business, so no, this doesn't look good. I almost feel for the guy, but no one forced him into these spats, or made him invent a Caribbean bakery. It's such a shame, because there are an awful lot of people out there doggedly trying to prove that everyone else on the internet is wrong (many of them related to me) -- and IRL that almost always has zero consequences. But as the wise Rachael said upthread, real people have been hurt here -- and it looks like Chris might be one of them too. The new .Life thread makes interesting reading... doesn't seem many people are buying the police investigation thing. I wouldn't shop someone for a crime I could easily get done for.
if the owner of the site has admitted to using sockpuppets it puts a huge dent in its credibility, especially as it's main and most useful purpose seems to be getting recommendations for local businesses. Mods need to address that as well.
P.s. Thanks Oakr for being so upfront -- and being generally great.

Respectfully I disagree with you. Most hr teams a bit useless with this and the most social media channels get is a quick scan to check applicant not an isis or national front sympathiser. Beachys tweets are pretty frothy but all this stuff would require unpicking that no one would have time for (but wouldn't they have fun if they did?). So I think his professional reputation (as the social media editor of the South East finest imaginary carribean bakery, natch) will be fine but he has made himself look daft in front of the locals.

As has been said earlier, the report of appalling and possibly illegal actions that are now attached to his online persona will seriously impact on any assessment of his integrity made by a potential new client or new employer. Quite some price to pay for what Chris Beach thought was a well hidden predilection. The owner of a civic forum using that forum to persecute and inflect fear and harassment in his community. Not easy to explain away.

Perverse, some might say.

If it's on his CV that he's the creator of SE23Life, they're likely to look at that though and the thread that was removed would have been embarrassing for him. What's left of the thread (the heavily moderated OP) doesn't give any indication of any wrongdoing on CB's part. I can see why he'd want to do that, at a personal and professional level; and he can, because he owns it.

But then this highlights a fundamental problem, is it right that the owner of a civic forum puts his personal needs above those of the community? The community voted for the thread to remain, it was undemocratically removed against their expressed wishes because it suited the owner to do so. And the placemarker that remains alludes not in any way to any wrongdoing on CB's part, yet still points to CB being the victim of a campaign of harassment by a member of the community (albeit now unnamed). The subject heading of the post, "Threats, cyber-stalking and lost pets: The life of a Facebook group admin"; the one remaining sentence before the moderator update talking of a police investigation, "I recently read the above article about Ian’s experience running a community group (I love SE4 in his case). It resonated." There are different rules being applied dependent on whether you're the owner, or another member of the community. That the moderation team is allowing this smacks of a lack of impartiality on their part. As others have said, this hurts real people, and causes real pain; and we have a civic forum that is facilitating that. To copy what someone else said above, the mods who should be protecting community members are instead exposing them to risk. It's a disgrace.

[stuart]

This list of his supposed enemies grows longer by the day and includes a wide range of people with nothing more in common than they chose to challenge him.

Yes Oakr - it would be excellent PR if the mods were to wipe this enemy list clean. Most were not enemies but CB targets. If they had a beef it was with Chris and not a community forum. If he is genuinely out of the way then they can behave as well or otherwise as many of them do here.

If you think about it - they could be your canaries who would pick up signs that the techical reach was messing with members. Some have highly tuned Chris detectors. There is more that could be done to detect sockpuppets here and other forums. Best discussed offline.

As you will be in intense discussions with Chris - please do give thought to the other two sites. The good moves you are making explicitly reveal which many of us have known or suspected for a long time - se23.life was an unsafe place that needed sanitising. If Chris has a moderating role then we have a moral responsibility of warning members that it SE26/6.life be an unsafe place for them.

That would be deeply unpleasant for all concerned. Hence the issue of good governance there needs to be addressed. While you may not be personally involved it would have to follow a parallel process. Of course the current posting rate there might make any change superfluous.

Stuart

[P1971]

Yes, as Rachael said I posted a topic a few days ago "Despite former threads I feel this forum is great for the local community" and I do feel that way.

I am completely transparent as a person and anyone that knows, or knows of me will know this.

As I said on SE23.life in my opinion both parties in this are at fault, but I won't stop posting and commenting as I feel it is a great forum for SE23. I am concerned that one has took the time to find the others family. We can all share our views and opinions as individuals and are big enough and ugly enough to take it. But just because we have an opinion as an individual no one should ever overstep the mark by bringing our family into our opinions as they are completely innocent regardless of who is right or wrong.

There are two people (not just one) using community social media in one way or another to basically be rude to each other which is not great from either.

I hope all appreciate Al (OakR) posting on here, I certainly do

[Homecroft]

I don't think anyone has questioned the nature in the way things unfolded, it certainly wasn't ideal that's for sure.

However as has been said, the information was on a public social media site, and only found its way to the masses due to the actions of the man himself.

What is being questioned here is the bigger picture and not an individual occurrence. The simple fact is the actions which occurred just brought the whole matter to a head. I am sure this is not the first time you have heard accusations made against him for sock puppet accounts, hounding people, trolling people, and indeed making hurtful and defamatory comments about people.

The issue here is the lack of acceptance of wrong doing, other than a short lived post admitting all the things he had done. Once again making something public, just like the contents of the email, in the hope to rally support and get praise. Unfortunately once again it blew up in his face, and actions were taken to hide the admission of his actions and focus the attention him being the victim, and what had been done to him.


Many share the same sentiment that the forum is brilliant, I certainly do, but the issue isn't the forum, but the trust it relies upon to exist and thrive.

[hotterthanurex]

Pauline, our point is that although two people might be mudslinging on social media only one of them owns se. 23 life. That's the issue. Trust. It's still not public that Chris was using sock puppets and bringing his personal gripes onto a site that people assume is moderated by disinterested, community minded volunteers!

[stuart]

Its been enough to re-awaken SE23.COM: https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=14095

Stuart

[Robin Orton]

Oh no. Does everything have to keep getting get more and more complicated? Can someone please offer some Clear Moral Guidance for us simple folk who want to have a forum for Forest Hill (and one for Sydenham) but don't know which one we ought to be using?