Mailing List Archive

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Starling<tstarling@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

2009/7/31 stevertigo <stvrtg@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

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, stevertigo<stvrtg@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

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hair<adhair@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

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.wiki@gmail.com


On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hair<adhair@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

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

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chan<ktc@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

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, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chan<ktc@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

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson<node.ue@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

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, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson<node.ue@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

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@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

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.ue@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, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson<node.ue@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

Hoi.
Please consider a topic that matters. Navel gazing and fault finding are
hardly of a general interest.
Thanks.
GerardM

2009/8/3 stevertigo <stvrtg@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.ue@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, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson<node.ue@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

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Gerard
Meijssen<gerard.meijssen@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

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, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Gerard
> Meijssen<gerard.meijssen@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

I wrote:
> I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email
> not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread.

I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision, and to
let this thing with Austin drop. I repeated this request in a second
private email when he started posting in this thread, and he has
ignored it.

Cary has contacted me expressing an interest in adjudicating this
case, and he is the relevant authority on this kind of thing. Thus I
have put Stevertigo back on moderation pending his decision.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tim Starling wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private
>> email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread.
>>
>
> I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision, and
> to let this thing with Austin drop. I repeated this request in a
> second private email when he started posting in this thread, and he
> has ignored it.
>
> Cary has contacted me expressing an interest in adjudicating this
> case, and he is the relevant authority on this kind of thing. Thus
> I have put Stevertigo back on moderation pending his decision.
>
> -- Tim Starling
I'm allowing Austin, as active list moderator, to work this out with
Stevertigo, who can contact Austin directly or work things out with me.

That being said, since Micheal Bimmler's retirement, and the fact that
I'm not certain of Ral315's list moderation activity level; I leave
the question with Austin, do you want someone to volunteer to help out
with moderation?

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkp4Z2QACgkQyQg4JSymDYl1cQCfQgf4lvFh3bM6oVG83AlnWcDt
TecAoKhb3SaMUg8AlzckB+K0utyQZ7J2
=JjcP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cary Bass wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private
>>> email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list
>>> thread.
>>>
>> I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision,
>> and to let this thing with Austin drop. I repeated this request
>> in a second private email when he started posting in this thread,
>> and he has ignored it.
>
>> Cary has contacted me expressing an interest in adjudicating this
>> case, and he is the relevant authority on this kind of thing.
>> Thus I have put Stevertigo back on moderation pending his
>> decision.
>
>> -- Tim Starling
> I'm allowing Austin, as active list moderator, to work this out
> with Stevertigo, who can contact Austin directly or work things out
> with me.
I want to rephrase my unfortunate choice of words for clarification.
"I'm allowing..." means, "I'm not going to step in and decide for the
moderator who is perfectly capable of making these decisions on his
own." Anyone who is on moderation is perfectly welcome to contact me,
however, I'll only serve as an intermediary between him/her and the
list moderator. Ultimately, the public (and most of the private)
lists are run by volunteers, who don't need my help or advice to run them.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkp4auwACgkQyQg4JSymDYmeGwCg22OoPMCGlsMjuGgmYAP5n5IL
ltgAoI9kOqzQZ6PSd//fLTX9m1YKjve1
=jh+V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l