Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider a topic that matters. It's not important that this list be run according to certain basic rules and principles? And no doubt there are others here who dislike your own comments for the simple fact that they extend the thread - even after I said I'd leave it alone. Navel gazing and fault finding Navel gazing is not the same thing as fault finding. I don't see how there's been any of the former, or how the latter should be criticized if it deals with an issue. are hardly of a general interest. Granted it's a meta issue, and not a general Foundation policy issue. But this is not the foundation-press-release list either, such that all posts need to conform to some sanitized concept. -Stevertigo Again, I think this thread is done. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
Why did you feel it necessary to reply to Gerard? Is it so important to you to have the last word? In your last e-mail, you said you didn't want to continue this thread any further. The best way to put an end to it is to stop responding to others' messages rather than to tell others not to respond to yours. Mark On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Please consider a topic that matters. It's not important that this list be run according to certain basic rules and principles? And no doubt there are others here who dislike your own comments for the simple fact that they extend the thread - even after I said I'd leave it alone. Navel gazing and fault finding Navel gazing is not the same thing as fault finding. I don't see how there's been any of the former, or how the latter should be criticized if it deals with an issue. are hardly of a general interest. Granted it's a meta issue, and not a general Foundation policy issue. But this is not the foundation-press-release list either, such that all posts need to conform to some sanitized concept. -Stevertigo Again, I think this thread is done. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
Actually youre not right about it Mark. I tried sending a different titled message about the block and that returned a mod bounce also. Im no computer scientist but a name block not a killfile appears to have been the actual process used. Im not going to want to continue this thread any further. S On 7/31/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the decision not to post it to the ML, at least as far as I can tell. It looks to me like Austin did exactly what he should've so I'm not sure why you're implying he made an incorrect decision. Exactly what did he do wrong in your opinion? Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Well to be fair there were a number of people who expressed a strong dislike for the thread I started. And even though their posts were on their own were mostly insubstantial and rude, I understood that there were enough of them regardless, and so I replied with my last post indicating I would stop further posts here and take it back to wikien-l. The decision to actually do the blocking of the last post - the one in which I conceded the matter - was itself blocked by Austin alone apparently. If the other moderator was involved, he did not take any interest or action, as perhaps he should have. Perhaps there need to be more moderators on this list, like there are on wikien-l - such as to keep each other in check - and to insure that proper notification is posted to the public list, and to communicate intelligently with the blocked/moderated person. I don't know if anything at all is really discussed in private. That's just the way private communications work. What I am saying is that in general we even want our technocrats to be quite forthright about what they think and do, why, and where any orders or suggestions are coming from. To do otherwise would be quite unfair to them. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
Hoi. Please consider a topic that matters. Navel gazing and fault finding are hardly of a general interest. Thanks. GerardM 2009/8/3 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com Actually youre not right about it Mark. I tried sending a different titled message about the block and that returned a mod bounce also. Im no computer scientist but a name block not a killfile appears to have been the actual process used. Im not going to want to continue this thread any further. S On 7/31/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the decision not to post it to the ML, at least as far as I can tell. It looks to me like Austin did exactly what he should've so I'm not sure why you're implying he made an incorrect decision. Exactly what did he do wrong in your opinion? Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Well to be fair there were a number of people who expressed a strong dislike for the thread I started. And even though their posts were on their own were mostly insubstantial and rude, I understood that there were enough of them regardless, and so I replied with my last post indicating I would stop further posts here and take it back to wikien-l. The decision to actually do the blocking of the last post - the one in which I conceded the matter - was itself blocked by Austin alone apparently. If the other moderator was involved, he did not take any interest or action, as perhaps he should have. Perhaps there need to be more moderators on this list, like there are on wikien-l - such as to keep each other in check - and to insure that proper notification is posted to the public list, and to communicate intelligently with the blocked/moderated person. I don't know if anything at all is really discussed in private. That's just the way private communications work. What I am saying is that in general we even want our technocrats to be quite forthright about what they think and do, why, and where any orders or suggestions are coming from. To do otherwise would be quite unfair to them. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. Stevertigo is a long-serving and trusted (if passionate) member of the community. You forgot funny. Anyway, for the record, the last message I sent to that thread - itself quite obviously (from its content) intended to be my last message on that thread - was never posted. Also for the record, I emailed Austin Hair twice for an explanation of the block, and his one terse reply indicates that he must be overworked and in need of some relief. Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I don't quite understand how or why foundation-l can or should do things any differently. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I don't quite understand how or why foundation-l can or should do things any differently. Because they're different lists with different groups of listadmins :-) But it's usually an idea to note when moderating a regular. YMMV etc. Note also that moderation is not blocking. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, for the record, the last message I sent to that thread - itself quite obviously (from its content) intended to be my last message on that thread - was never posted. I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think likely to try to pursue the topic further, for a period of a week or so. Note again that moderation does not mean that you're prevented from posting to the list, only that we look at your posts before sending them on. Had you posted on another topic, your message would have been sent on within a few hours. Also for the record, I emailed Austin Hair twice for an explanation of the block, and his one terse reply indicates that he must be overworked and in need of some relief. I explained my actions in the original thread, but as a courtesy I also replied privately to the only e-mail I received from you reiterating that the thread was killed. I never received a second e-mail. I am generally terse if not succinct, but I don't know what about this suggests that I'm overworked. Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I don't quite understand how or why foundation-l can or should do things any differently. Again, you were not blocked. The only message from you that I held from posting was the one to that thread, and that went for everyone, not just you. And again, I did post in that thread giving notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hairadh...@gmail.com wrote: I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think likely to try to pursue the topic further, for a period of a week or so. It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't killfile the thread (whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted below somewhere) was substandard, as far as explanations go. Note again that moderation does not mean that you're prevented from posting to the list, only that we look at your posts before sending them on. Had you posted on another topic, your message would have been sent on within a few hours. 1) I did post on another topic. 2) Who is we? You? 3) A few hours later is not acceptable, particularly in contexts where discussion moves quickly. I explained my actions in the original thread, but as a courtesy I also replied privately to the only e-mail I received from you reiterating that the thread was killed. I never received a second e-mail. You said nothing courteous in your message. The point is that if you think a simple see my last post in that thread qualifies as either courteous or informative, then - nothing personal - you just need to be replaced. I am generally terse if not succinct, but I don't know what about this suggests that I'm overworked. Again, you were not blocked. You're playing a little semantic game with yourself, Austin - I said blocked/moderated, not blocked. Now consider for a minute what I actually said - that you as moderator are obligated to give notice of blocking and/or moderation. Do you disagree with me? The only message from you that I held from posting was the one to that thread, Yes, and in that post I indicated I would not continue posting to that thread on this list. Assuming your moderating me was valid in the first place, you evaluated my post incorrectly - the evidence being that its still has not been posted. and that went for everyone, not just you. This doesn't even make sense. What went for everyone? And again, I did post in that thread giving notice. No, you said, in inappropriately teenage sysadmin-speak consider this thread killfiled. Even if I had know you were the moderator, I still could not have regarded the content of your message as anything special. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
Can you guys air your dirty laundry in private? This is not really an appropriate topic to be sending to all the list subscribers, I'd think. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hairadh...@gmail.com wrote: I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think likely to try to pursue the topic further, for a period of a week or so. It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't killfile the thread (whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted below somewhere) was substandard, as far as explanations go. Note again that moderation does not mean that you're prevented from posting to the list, only that we look at your posts before sending them on. Had you posted on another topic, your message would have been sent on within a few hours. 1) I did post on another topic. 2) Who is we? You? 3) A few hours later is not acceptable, particularly in contexts where discussion moves quickly. I explained my actions in the original thread, but as a courtesy I also replied privately to the only e-mail I received from you reiterating that the thread was killed. I never received a second e-mail. You said nothing courteous in your message. The point is that if you think a simple see my last post in that thread qualifies as either courteous or informative, then - nothing personal - you just need to be replaced. I am generally terse if not succinct, but I don't know what about this suggests that I'm overworked. Again, you were not blocked. You're playing a little semantic game with yourself, Austin - I said blocked/moderated, not blocked. Now consider for a minute what I actually said - that you as moderator are obligated to give notice of blocking and/or moderation. Do you disagree with me? The only message from you that I held from posting was the one to that thread, Yes, and in that post I indicated I would not continue posting to that thread on this list. Assuming your moderating me was valid in the first place, you evaluated my post incorrectly - the evidence being that its still has not been posted. and that went for everyone, not just you. This doesn't even make sense. What went for everyone? And again, I did post in that thread giving notice. No, you said, in inappropriately teenage sysadmin-speak consider this thread killfiled. Even if I had know you were the moderator, I still could not have regarded the content of your message as anything special. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote: It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't killfile the thread (whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted below somewhere) was substandard, as far as explanations go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file Any emails to the mailing list with that subject line get auto deleted. And you can see, no email with that subject line has appeared since. 1) I did post on another topic. 2) Who is we? You? 3) A few hours later is not acceptable, particularly in contexts where discussion moves quickly. 2. I would supect we are the moderators of the mailing list. 3. That's what being under moderation means. Whether any particular person should be under moderation is a different argument. Yes, and in that post I indicated I would not continue posting to that thread on this list. Assuming your moderating me was valid in the first place, you evaluated my post incorrectly - the evidence being that its still has not been posted. See above. A thread that has been kill file'd gets auto deleted. He or any other moderator can't post it even if they want to. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file Any emails to the mailing list with that subject line get auto deleted. And you can see, no email with that subject line has appeared since. 2. I would supect we are the moderators of the mailing list. 3. That's what being under moderation means. Whether any particular person should be under moderation is a different argument. I understand now that there are technocratic terms being used. Still, the issue of blocking someone is never a technocratic one, and therefore must not be left to the technocrats. Assuming good faith, I infer that the technocrat is not really the decider in such matters, and that such decisions are communicated behind the scenes. Exposing the politburo is one of the first principles of essential openness reform. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Just checking. Mark On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:57 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file Any emails to the mailing list with that subject line get auto deleted. And you can see, no email with that subject line has appeared since. 2. I would supect we are the moderators of the mailing list. 3. That's what being under moderation means. Whether any particular person should be under moderation is a different argument. I understand now that there are technocratic terms being used. Still, the issue of blocking someone is never a technocratic one, and therefore must not be left to the technocrats. Assuming good faith, I infer that the technocrat is not really the decider in such matters, and that such decisions are communicated behind the scenes. Exposing the politburo is one of the first principles of essential openness reform. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Well to be fair there were a number of people who expressed a strong dislike for the thread I started. And even though their posts were on their own were mostly insubstantial and rude, I understood that there were enough of them regardless, and so I replied with my last post indicating I would stop further posts here and take it back to wikien-l. The decision to actually do the blocking of the last post - the one in which I conceded the matter - was itself blocked by Austin alone apparently. If the other moderator was involved, he did not take any interest or action, as perhaps he should have. Perhaps there need to be more moderators on this list, like there are on wikien-l - such as to keep each other in check - and to insure that proper notification is posted to the public list, and to communicate intelligently with the blocked/moderated person. I don't know if anything at all is really discussed in private. That's just the way private communications work. What I am saying is that in general we even want our technocrats to be quite forthright about what they think and do, why, and where any orders or suggestions are coming from. To do otherwise would be quite unfair to them. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the decision not to post it to the ML, at least as far as I can tell. It looks to me like Austin did exactly what he should've so I'm not sure why you're implying he made an incorrect decision. Exactly what did he do wrong in your opinion? Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Well to be fair there were a number of people who expressed a strong dislike for the thread I started. And even though their posts were on their own were mostly insubstantial and rude, I understood that there were enough of them regardless, and so I replied with my last post indicating I would stop further posts here and take it back to wikien-l. The decision to actually do the blocking of the last post - the one in which I conceded the matter - was itself blocked by Austin alone apparently. If the other moderator was involved, he did not take any interest or action, as perhaps he should have. Perhaps there need to be more moderators on this list, like there are on wikien-l - such as to keep each other in check - and to insure that proper notification is posted to the public list, and to communicate intelligently with the blocked/moderated person. I don't know if anything at all is really discussed in private. That's just the way private communications work. What I am saying is that in general we even want our technocrats to be quite forthright about what they think and do, why, and where any orders or suggestions are coming from. To do otherwise would be quite unfair to them. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the decision not to post it to the ML, at least as far as I can tell. It looks to me like Austin did exactly what he should've so I'm not sure why you're implying he made an incorrect decision. Exactly what did he do wrong in your opinion? Mark skype: node.ue Actually, does it matter? List moderation and killfiling happens what, once a year? I see no problem with how it occurred this time, nor any reason to change the process for the future. Stevertigo is more interested in the debate, in my opinion, than any particular outcome. But foundation-l and wikien-l aren't debating clubs; folks cite the tenor of discussion, especially the ego-fueled point-by-point debate, as a common reason for unsubscribing. If you find that people don't take your side even after you have utterly destroyed them, point by point then perhaps you should pick a new approach. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Stevertigo
I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. Stevertigo is a long-serving and trusted (if passionate) member of the community. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
