RESULT - Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated FAILS 25:41

[Barry Salter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES

Summary: Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated FAILS 25:41

NO beat YES by a majority of 16 votes. For the proposal to succeed,
there must be 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal
FAILS.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting closed at 23:59:59 GMT, 15th February 2013.

Proponent : Mark Goodge <mark (at) good-stuff (dot) co (dot) uk>
Votetaker: Barry Salter <urcm2-queries (at) ukvotes.southie.me.uk>

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution:

These results have been posted to the following newsgroups:

uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
uk.net.news.moderation

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Results:

The results follow below in the following order:

1) Summary of Mail Received During the Voting Period
2) Results
3) Individual Vote Details
4) Votetakers Comments
5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines
6) Rationale
7) Newsgroups Line
8) Proposal

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF MAIL RECEIVED DURING THE VOTING PERIOD

90 messages were received to the Ballot Request Address, of which:

88 were valid Ballot Requests
2 were test messages sent by the votetaker

69 messages were received to the Voting Address, of which:

68 were valid votes
1 was a revote requested for technical reasons

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS:

Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

YES : 25 votes
NO : 41 votes
ABSTAIN : 2 votes
Total : 68 votes

NO beat YES by a majority of 16 votes. For the proposal to succeed,
there must be 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal
FAILS.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS

Voted Yes - 25 votes
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
attila#the#moderator#googlemail#com Steve Walker
Brian#bjforster#force9#co#uk Brian
chl#clerew#man#ac#uk Charles Lindsey
crn#netunix#com c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
david#kemper#ntlworld#com David Kemper
davidlang#blueyonder#co#uk The Medway Handyman
iain-b#dircon#co#uk Iain
jcb#news#ntlworld#com John Blundell
judith#smith#outlook#com Judith
katstuff#the-kat#org kat
mark#good-stuff#co#uk Mark Goodge
mentalguy2k8#gmail#com Mentalguy2k8
mike#jasper#org#uk Mike Tomlinson
mrbenn_usenet#yahoo#com John Benn
muzhmuzh#centrum#sk Peter Keller
Nick#Spam#yahoo#co#uk Nick
noparadise#gmail#com noparadise
owenrees#fastmail#fm Owen Rees
periander#of#corinth#googlemail#com Periander
peter#wpp#ltd#uk Peter Parry
tapan#blueyonder#co#uk Trevor A Panther
tom#britsc#com Bertie Wooster
usenet#jan2013#adslpipe#co#uk Andy Burns
xurcm2#mollymockford#me#uk Molly Mockford
{voter}#watman#clara#co#uk paul

Voted No - 41 votes
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
alan#p#collier#googlemail#com The Luggage
alex#ap-consulting#co#uk Alex Potter
andyl#azaal#plus#com Andy Leighton
armb#chiark#greenend#org#uk Alan Braggins
ben#darling#tesco#net ben.d...@outlook.com
clive#evil-c#co#uk Clive George
colin#nelson2#ntlworld#com Colin Nelson
colin#colinreed#co#uk Colin Reed
damerell#chiark#greenend#org#uk David Damerell
geomannie#googlemail#com geomannie
graham#drabble#me#uk Graham Drabble
guddies#btinternet#com Sigi Gudd
ian#clifton#chem#ox#ac#uk I J Clifton
ijackson#chiark#greenend#org#uk Ian Jackson
jaimie#sometimes#sessile#org Jaimie Vandenbergh
jcb#inf#ed#ac#uk Julian Bradfield
john#zothique#plus#com John Kendall
jongru#btinternet#com The Todal
louisxiv#spamcop#net Pete Lindsay
m#r#causer#googlemail#com Mike Causer
matthew#debian#org Matthew Vernon
matthew#woodcraft#me#uk Matthew Woodcraf
mcpheat#hotmail#com mcp
mdw#distorted#org#uk Mark Wooding
michael#richard#jones#gmail#com Mike Jones
mike#urgle#com Mike Bristow
news2011#colyer#plus#com Danny Colyer
NEWS#sarlet#com Roger Merriman
news#thenyes#org#uk Graham Nye
nige#danton#gmail#com Nige Danton
nmm1#cam#ac#uk Nick Maclaren
not-for-mail#ahjg#co#uk Anthony Gold
owend#chiark#greenend#org#uk Owen Dunn
p#j#clinch#dundee#ac#uk Peter Clinch
palmersperry#yahoo#com Alistair Gunn
phil#lee-family#me#uk Phil W Lee
pschleck#oasis#novia#net Paul W. Schleck
rjk#greenend#org#uk Richard Kettlewell
roger+urcm201301#nospam#firedrake#org Roger Burton West
sarakirk#blueyonder#co#uk Sara Merriman
tcnw81#tarrcity#demon#co#uk Wm

Abstained - 2 votes
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark#aziraphale#homeip#net Mark Williams
news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Votetakers Comments:

Overall a relatively simple vote to run, with the usual peaks in voting
at the point the CFVs were posted, tailing off around the half way point
and again towards the end of the voting period.

One voter seemed to be a little confused by the "comments to votetaker"
section and requested the address in the results be changed. Explicit
instructions as to how to do so were provided, but they elected not to
do so, so are listed against their original address.

Voter verification was mostly problem free due to most voters being
"known", but it came to the attention of the votetaker that certain
providers are stripping or encrypting key headers from messages sent
through their services, making verification of votes from same somewhat
more difficult.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on CFVs on
behalf of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties. The rules under
which this vote is taken are posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or
can be found at the following URL: <http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html>

The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>

There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to
uk.net.news.announce. Allegations of irregularity should be sent to
control (at) usenet (dot) org (dot) uk.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

RATIONALE:

There has been much discussion in uk.net.news.* regarding the moderation
policy of uk.rec.cycling.moderated. In particular, one of the issues is
the moderation policy with regards to banned posters.

This RFD seeks to amend the charter to clarify this policy. It should be
noted that no change is proposed to the ability of the moderators to ban
individuals from poosting to the group; the intent is simply to ensure
that any ban is both transparent and proportionate.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSGROUPS LINE

uk.rec.cycling.moderated Cycling in the UK (Moderated)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSAL

At the end of the first section of the charter of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated (immediately prior to the section headed
"Binaries and Formatting"), add the following text:

The moderators may, at their discretion, maintain a list of contributors
who can reasonably be expected to abide by the charter and moderation
policy when posting. Posts from contributors on this list may be
approved automatically by the moderation software without the need for
human intervention.

Posts from any contributor, whether on the pass list or not, which can
be determined by software to be in breach of the charter or the
published moderation policy (for example, those not in plain text or
crossposted beyond any limits imposed by the moderation policy), or
which are not validly formatted Usenet messages, may be rejected or
discarded automatically by the moderation software without the need for
human intervention.

For all other articles the decision on whether to approve or reject any
post will be made solely according to its content and not the identity
of the author, with one exception:

If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
time.

In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
after this notice has been posted.

Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.

Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
rejection email sent to the poster.

END PROPOSAL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBUSaYwWOfGXkh8vHZAQFZtQP9EYgNsJI49qwOWeaFrWoG3xMX9unNLa+V
y7ekvsokFByWR8Ftw4FFNJFuWfnLSiGasvZx8ZSP07mDDwTcNzGig5ckmGJlQAyO
IYR6kHQ6ZJf4iy940mdBdLW3ETyyx13We8riC9J/Dnv1QlzyXHIdoyLqsDMpLgSd
mezUtz8O1xc=
=YLHT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...

> Abstained - 2 votes
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> [....]
> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson

I'd like to say why I abstained.

I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
been banned.

I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
because they support the current moderation practices.

However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
should take home. They need to change.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Alex Potter]

Tim Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
>
>> Abstained - 2 votes
>> -
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [....]
>> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson

> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> because they support the current moderation practices.

I think you've probably hit the nailon the head. If the proposed changes
had been limited to "The moderators may, at their discretion, maintain a

list of contributors who can reasonably be expected to abide by the charter
and moderation policy when posting. Posts from contributors on this list may
be approved automatically by the moderation software without the need for
human intervention.

Posts from any contributor, whether on the pass list or not, which can
be determined by software to be in breach of the charter or the
published moderation policy (for example, those not in plain text or
crossposted beyond any limits imposed by the moderation policy), or
which are not validly formatted Usenet messages, may be rejected or
discarded automatically by the moderation software without the need for
human intervention.

For all other articles the decision on whether to approve or reject any
post will be made solely according to its content and not the identity

of the author", I'd have been perfectly happy to vote for the RFD.

>
> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> should take home. They need to change.
>

Indeed they do. If they don't moderate on the sole basis of the "CIP test"
then the RFD's will continue. One hopes that the next one will only contain
text relating to that.

--
Alex

[Roger Merriman]

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
>
> > Abstained - 2 votes
> > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [....]
> > news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson
>
> I'd like to say why I abstained.
>
> I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
> practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
> the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
> been banned.
>
> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> because they support the current moderation practices.

In part yes

>
> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> should take home. They need to change.

They don't there are very few posters (even the ones who have to nym
shift) who post and collectivly the numbers are dropping, RFD's etc seem
somewhat like reranging deckchairs. if one wanted to talk about bikes,
almost anywhere else is better.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <MPG.2b90cd945...@text.usenet.plus.net>

On 22/02/2013 00:35, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
>
>> Abstained - 2 votes
>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [....]
>> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson
>
> I'd like to say why I abstained.
>
> I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
> practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
> the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
> been banned.

I'm not convinced a major change is necessary but would have voted YES
if the proposal had concentrated on content rather than person.

> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> because they support the current moderation practices.

Correct.

> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> should take home. They need to change.

Why should they change? Posting to the group is optional. Are you
saying that if enough people make enough noise something must be done to
placate them?

--
Wm ...

[John Benn]

"Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b90cd945...@text.usenet.plus.net...

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
>
>> Abstained - 2 votes
>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [....]
>> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson
>
> I'd like to say why I abstained.
>
> I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
> practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
> the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
> been banned.
>
> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> because they support the current moderation practices.
>
> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> should take home. They need to change.

There will be another modified RFD soon which will remove the need to make
public the people who are banned. However, there will be a requirement to
inform the people who have been banned individually.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <kg7dtl$222$1...@dont-email.me>, John Benn wrote:
>There will be another modified RFD soon which will remove the need to make
>public the people who are banned.

By "soon", do you mean in three months, or that that rule is going to be
ignored, or that there will really be a new unrelated proposal that isn't
subject to the three month rule?

> However, there will be a requirement to
>inform the people who have been banned individually.

So, no change from current practice?

[Richard Kettlewell]

Presumably the idea is that when the vote to mandate current practice
fails, current practice will have to be changed so that the outcome
makes sense retroactively.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Judith]

On 22 Feb 2013 09:53:42 +0000 (GMT), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan

Braggins) wrote:

>In article <kg7dtl$222$1...@dont-email.me>, John Benn wrote:
>>There will be another modified RFD soon which will remove the need to make
>>public the people who are banned.
>
>By "soon", do you mean in three months, or that that rule is going to be
>ignored, or that there will really be a new unrelated proposal that isn't
>subject to the three month rule?

I do not believe that there is a formal rule that actually says there can be no
follow-up RFD /CFV on a differently worded change to a particular charter. The
guideline wording is ambiguous - I suspect it would be at the committees
discretion (or perhaps even control's) as to whether a totally new proposal was
accepted. I would hope that if the wording was sufficiently different from the
last RFD - that the committee would accept it.

The original wording was almost certainly intended to stop repeat proposals for
new uk groups without a break: ie genuine identical repeat proposals to form
specific new groups. To offer a different proposal in terms of a charter
change should not in my opinion be covered by the three month rule.

By the time that there has been a reasonable discussion - with modified RFDs -
then three months would probably be elapsed anyway.

One fact is quite clear: URCM moderation is not fit for purpose and should be
changed as soon as possible in order to make it work as smoothly any other
moderated uk group.

All the discussion to date has actually shown that there is probably very
little wrong with the charter - as long as the moderators interpret it in a
sensible fashion. The problem is that they seem to be unable to do so, and
that is why things need to change

I have not seen any reason stated as to why the charter should not be changed
to state that the moderators will be elected annually (plus any other wording
which makes it implementable). This of course would not be a vote of NC in the
current moderation team: because some people seem to think for some reason that
they are not allowed.

Until this happens the current moderation team will continue to think that they
can do what they like.

[John Benn]

"Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnkieg1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...

We need to ensure that posts are moderated on content only and that the
existing charter is adhered to (which has not been happening).

[John Benn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kg7hon$j9c$1...@dont-email.me...

And additionally that all posts are moderated in a timely-fashion. At
present, some posts are delayed excessively before being processed.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <kg7dtl$222$1...@dont-email.me>

I don't like the implied threat.

If you concentrate on content and leave person out of it you may have a
proposal I would support.

Problem is, I think you'd have to leave Judith, etc. behind. It would
mark you out as an individual if you went against the flow.

--
Wm ...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <l9hei8p8u58fl7efs...@4ax.com>

On 22/02/2013 10:33, Judith wrote:

> Until this happens the current moderation team will continue to think that they
> can do what they like.

I'm not sure what it is that you want to achieve. If you state clearly
what it is you'd like to happen people would probably help you or at
least give guidance.

--
Wm ....

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <kg7hon$j9c$1...@dont-email.me>

Content only will get a YES from me.

--
Wm ...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <kg7i32$l1b$1...@dont-email.me>

On 22/02/2013 10:43, John Benn wrote:

> And additionally that all posts are moderated in a timely-fashion. At
> present, some posts are delayed excessively before being processed.

That is unlikely to work in an RFD unless you are very careful about
your wording. I for one will vote against your proposal if it makes
unreasonable demands of the mods.

--
Wm ...

[Nick]

On 22/02/2013 00:35, Tim Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
>
>> Abstained - 2 votes
>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [....]
>> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson
>
> I'd like to say why I abstained.
>
> I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
> practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
> the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
> been banned.
>
> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> because they support the current moderation practices.
>
> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> should take home. They need to change.
>

No they don't need to change. That is rather the point of the vote.
People may have voted against the proposal for any reason but because
they voted against it no change is required. Simple really.

Judith et al may continue their campaign, which if anything appears to
have injected a bit of life in the group but I think most normal posters
who don't like the moderation style will potter off and post elsewhere
or not at all as I suspect most of the discontented already do. What is
left now are posters who are relatively happy with the moderation team
and will support it. Very few of the discontented leavers will even be
aware of any future vote let alone be bothered to vote for change.

I think the best thing is to leave them to it.

[Adam Funk]

It depends on the noise. Some (few, IMO) of the complaints are
legitimate.

[Percy Picacity]

I am sure a vote to sack the current moderators is allowed, it is only
a technicality that a 'no confidence' motion refers solely to the
committee, as this is the accepted form (well beyond usenet!) for
sacking a board or similar by the membership of an organisation. Since
the moderators aren't an elected board a no confidence motion is not
appropriate. A charter change to sack them and install a new
moderator, plus or minus the other changes you mention, would seem to
be a perfectly valid RFD. You may not find electing moderators very
popular, and might prefer to leave this part to the initiative of the
new moderator(s), or as an alternative in any vote.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

A fair fashion, that is no great differential delays between
individuals, would be a more reasonable aspiration than timeliness.

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)

It is a nice little club for the "Friends of Chiark"

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)

Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Richard Kettlewell]

Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>
> Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
> cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?

It’s about right for the last 60 days, though I don’t know how many of
those top 11 are moderators.

It’s superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five
of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Judith]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:15:27 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

Yes I agree - that is just what I had thought.

(PS I am still not convinced that a MONC is inappropriate:
"A motion of no confidence is primarily a statement or vote which states that a
person in a superior position - be it government, managerial, etc. - is no
longer deemed fit to hold that position. Wikipedia (I know - not an authority
- but surely as authoritative as anyone here))

[Judith]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:25:31 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>
>Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?

It is a nice little club - effectively members only. New joiners and certain
views are not welcome - there is a history of delaying posts for moderation. I
do not believe that that happens by chance. Just have a look at the current
status of posts on the URCM status page.

There are posts waiting for moderation for 25 to 30 hours as I write. Posts
from David Damerell, Ian Jackson, and Peter Clinches have been manually
approved whilst other posts continue to languish there.

[Judith]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:42:01 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

Do you have figures for other moderated groups?

[Steve Firth]

And yet Cambridge managed to rummage up 30 shills.

> It is a nice little club for the "Friends of Chiark"

Indeed.

What it isn't is a fit part of uk.*. However this CFV was flawed although
being able to bus in zombie votes means any CFV is likely to fail.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:25:31 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>>
>>Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>>cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>
>It is a nice little club - effectively members only. New joiners and certain
>views are not welcome - there is a history of delaying posts for moderation. I
>do not believe that that happens by chance. Just have a look at the current
>status of posts on the URCM status page.

Given virtually none of usenet is currently seeing an increase in poster
counts, and that 'new users' in other groups I frequent are also virtually
non-existent, why do you believe there to be any number of new joiners to
URCM? How come that group attracts so many new people who then discover
they're not welcome? Interested in your views on that.

We could perhaps use the reason for all those new posters arriving to
reinvigorate the rest of Usenet which is either static or in decline.

Has there been a corresponding increase in new posters to the unmoderated
cycling group, or the other transport groups in the UK hierarchy? Do the
disenfranchised users go on to make useful contributions elsewhere by any
chance?

>There are posts waiting for moderation for 25 to 30 hours as I write. Posts
>from David Damerell, Ian Jackson, and Peter Clinches have been manually
>approved whilst other posts continue to languish there.

Correlation does not imply causation. For example, perhaps David, Ian and
Peter write one sentence replies to most posts and so they are easier to
read than long replies by other people who get delayed.

I look forward to a more indepth analysis from you to link the correlations
you're seeing and prove some cause.

[John Benn]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lfuei8tsru7j89g3b...@4ax.com...

My belief is that the excessive delays applied to certain posters are a
deliberate attempt to discourage them posting there. I really don't believe
that it takes a board of moderators that length of time to decide whether a
post is ok or not. It should be an almost immediate decision.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <im5kv9x...@news.ducksburg.com>

I think most of us would listen to genuine complaints from real people.
They get drowned out by the crap from Judith and her friends. If
Judith stopped her faux complaints the real people would be heard.

--
Wm ...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <q3uei8tnhoo2r3tkm...@4ax.com>

On 22/02/2013 13:59, Judith wrote:

> Yes I agree - that is just what I had thought.
>
> (PS I am still not convinced that a MONC is inappropriate:

I'd like you to try a MONC, it will be very embarrassing for you just
like Mark got a bloody nose from his ill thought out attempt at change.

> "A motion of no confidence is primarily a statement or vote which states that a
> person in a superior position - be it government, managerial, etc. - is no
> longer deemed fit to hold that position. Wikipedia (I know - not an authority
> - but surely as authoritative as anyone here))

Go for it, I'll object.

--
Wm ...

[Judith]

When you say real people : do you mean those who post through anonymous
remailers - and call themselves Anonymous rather than William Tarr?

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <emrei81hldgl85s1g...@4ax.com>

On 22/02/2013 13:20, Judith wrote:

> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>
> It is a nice little club for the "Friends of Chiark"

Shouldn't you also say what proportion of posts to uk.rec.cycling are
made by you and your club members? Play fair, please.

--
Wm ...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <87obfco...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>

You made me laugh, RichardK, thanks.

--
Wm ....

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <g2vei89gs51a5bg2v...@4ax.com>

On 22/02/2013 14:11, Judith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:42:01 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>>> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>>>
>>> Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>>> cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>>

>> It�s about right for the last 60 days, though I don�t know how many of

>> those top 11 are moderators.
>>

>> It�s superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five

>> of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.
>
>
> Do you have figures for other moderated groups?

You have been told to do your own homework before.

--
Wm ....

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <kg7vmj$ot8$1...@dont-email.me>

So what you are arguing for is a quick kill rather than a considered
delay, right?


If you want to raise an RFD suggesting any post to
uk.rec.cycling.moderated that hasn't been decided on in under (say) 6
hours should get dumped I'd support your proposal.

--
Wm ...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config
<992771818383235111.755307%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>

On 22/02/2013 14:13, Steve Firth wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> What it isn't is a fit part of uk.*. However this CFV was flawed although
> being able to bus in zombie votes means any CFV is likely to fail.

What were you expecting from a religious person?

--
Wm ...

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:08:18 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> uk.net.news.config <q3uei8tnhoo2r3tkm...@4ax.com>
> On 22/02/2013 13:59, Judith wrote:
>
>> Yes I agree - that is just what I had thought.
>>
>> (PS I am still not convinced that a MONC is inappropriate:
>
> I'd like you to try a MONC, it will be very embarrassing for you just
> like Mark got a bloody nose from his ill thought out attempt at change.

I wouldn't say that Mark got a bloody nose. He didn't get his CFV
through but people shouldn't try and turn every RFD/CFV in to a us
vs them conflict - even though the pressure of RFD after RFD sometimes
makes it feel like that.


--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Judith]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:21:16 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>uk.net.news.config <g2vei89gs51a5bg2v...@4ax.com>
>On 22/02/2013 14:11, Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:42:01 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>>>> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>>>> cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>>>

>>> It�s about right for the last 60 days, though I don�t know how many of

>>> those top 11 are moderators.
>>>

>>> It�s superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five

>>> of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.
>>
>>
>> Do you have figures for other moderated groups?
>
>You have been told to do your own homework before.

You've been told to fuck off many times - but you still keep coming back to
give us all a good laugh.

Keep it up.

[Judith]

How did he know that they were all you?

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <mi2fi8dgt3jreosp1...@4ax.com>

I haven't complained about postings not getting to a moderated group.

Maybe you think I am someone else?

I am William Tarr

--
Wm ...

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
> > cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>
> It's about right for the last 60 days, though I don't know how many of
> those top 11 are moderators.
>
> It's superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five
> of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.

Evidence ?

This sounds like a conspiracy theory, please give us a list of your
5 alleged sock puppets and the reasons for your belief.

Failure to convice us will mark you as as bullshitting net kook.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <slrnkif48k...@azaal.plus.com>

On 22/02/2013 15:39, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:08:18 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> uk.net.news.config <q3uei8tnhoo2r3tkm...@4ax.com>
>> On 22/02/2013 13:59, Judith wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I agree - that is just what I had thought.
>>>
>>> (PS I am still not convinced that a MONC is inappropriate:
>>
>> I'd like you to try a MONC, it will be very embarrassing for you just
>> like Mark got a bloody nose from his ill thought out attempt at change.
>
> I wouldn't say that Mark got a bloody nose. He didn't get his CFV
> through but people shouldn't try and turn every RFD/CFV in to a us
> vs them conflict - even though the pressure of RFD after RFD sometimes
> makes it feel like that.

OK, I'll retract the bloody nose.

I'm still a bit confused as to why Mark thought he should put his oar
into the cycling waters and fuck it up so badly. I'm guessing it is a
Christian thing and he couldn't help himself.

--
Wm ...

[Anonymous]

In article <kg7uml$uv4$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

> I look forward to a more indepth analysis from you to link the correlations
> you're seeing and prove some cause.

That is the Tony I voted for.

[Alistair Gunn]

Wm twisted the electrons to say:

> If you want to raise an RFD suggesting any post to
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated that hasn't been decided on in under (say) 6
> hours should get dumped I'd support your proposal.

Cue the new (or perhaps just "new") poster who makes their first post at
00:15, (ie. when all the moderators had gone to sleep) and then appears
in unnm wanting to know why their first post was auto-rejected at 06:15
(because none of the moderators work up that early).

This is not to say that your basic idea doesn't have some merit, but 6
hours is a bit of a short window overnight.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Tony]

Weird. I think you were conned then.

[John Benn]

<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message
news:kg8517$t2f$1...@news.albasani.net...

I've just noticed that Richard Kettlewell has a greenend.org.uk which makes
him a personal mate of Ian Jackson. I can see where he's coming from now,

[Roger Merriman]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:53:37 +0000, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

> >On 22/02/2013 00:35, Tim Jackson wrote:

> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:29 +0000, Barry Salter wrote...
> >>
> >>> Abstained - 2 votes
> >>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [....]
> >>> news#timjackson#plus#com Tim Jackson
> >>
> >> I'd like to say why I abstained.
> >>
> >> I strongly believe that a change is need in the urcm moderation
> >> practices, and considered voting 'yes'. However, I was not happy about
> >> the proposal that the mods should publish details of people who have
> >> been banned.
> >>
> >> I would guess that some of the people who voted 'no' did so because they
> >> too were unhappy about aspects of this particular proposal, rather than
> >> because they support the current moderation practices.
> >>

> >> However, my fear is that the mods will take such 'no' votes as a
> >> vindication for their current practices. That is not the message they
> >> should take home. They need to change.
> >>
> >

> >No they don't need to change. That is rather the point of the vote.
> >People may have voted against the proposal for any reason but because
> >they voted against it no change is required. Simple really.
> >
> >Judith et al may continue their campaign, which if anything appears to
> >have injected a bit of life in the group but I think most normal posters
> >who don't like the moderation style will potter off and post elsewhere
> >or not at all as I suspect most of the discontented already do. What is
> >left now are posters who are relatively happy with the moderation team
> >and will support it.
>

> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>

> It is a nice little club for the "Friends of Chiark"

indeed and who helped it along?

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Percy Picacity]

Yes, but the moderators are not elected by the uk.* electorate.
Therefore, unlike an elected body which is morally, and usually by
terms of reference, forced to resign if its electorate rejects it, they
need do nothing more than note it if it is passed. And of course it
puts nothing in their place. You could add the changes you want to the
motion, but in that case the no confidence bit would be redundant, and
its ad homines nature might put off at least some voters who would
otherwise support the changes.

--

Percy Picacity

[John Benn]

"Roger Merriman" <NE...@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:1kypcpm.1qqwmixpdkva2N%NE...@sarlet.com...

The group was created because some people were unable to tolerate criticism.
It really is as simple as that.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.config <e65fi89cvstik4aoq...@4ax.com>

On 22/02/2013 15:55, Judith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:19:22 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> uk.net.news.config <87obfco...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>
>> On 22/02/2013 13:42, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>>>> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>>>> cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>>>

>>> It�s about right for the last 60 days, though I don�t know how many of

>>> those top 11 are moderators.
>>>

>>> It�s superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five

>>> of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.
>>
>> You made me laugh, RichardK, thanks.
>
>
> How did he know that they were all you?

You need to get help about your paranoia, it wasn't me.

--
Wm ...

[Anonymous]

In article <6c4gih....@news.alt.net>

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-22 10:33:16 +0000, Judith said:

> I am sure a vote to sack the current moderators is allowed, it is only
> a technicality that a 'no confidence' motion refers solely to the
> committee, as this is the accepted form (well beyond usenet!) for
> sacking a board or similar by the membership of an organisation. Since
> the moderators aren't an elected board a no confidence motion is not
> appropriate. A charter change to sack them and install a new
> moderator, plus or minus the other changes you mention, would seem to
> be a perfectly valid RFD. You may not find electing moderators very
> popular, and might prefer to leave this part to the initiative of the
> new moderator(s), or as an alternative in any vote.

Judith has asked and been told an RFD is all she needs.

[Anonymous]

In article <6c4u28....@news.alt.net>

I want Judith to attempt the MONC so she fails.

You should be encouraging her not putting her off!

[Percy Picacity]

What fiendish cunning! Why didn't I think of that?

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:04:44 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> considered Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:23:21

>+0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>uk.net.news.config <e65fi89cvstik4aoq...@4ax.com>
>>On 22/02/2013 15:55, Judith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:19:22 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> uk.net.news.config <87obfco...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>
>>>> On 22/02/2013 13:42, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 50% of posts are made by just 11 people (including three moderators)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming that's true (I've not checked), what do you believe to be the
>>>>>> cause of that, and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
>>>>>

>>>>> It�s about right for the last 60 days, though I don�t know how many of

>>>>> those top 11 are moderators.
>>>>>

>>>>> It�s superficially true of this newsgroup as well ... except that five

>>>>> of our top 11 posters by From: line are the same person.
>>>>
>>>> You made me laugh, RichardK, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> How did he know that they were all you?
>>
>>You need to get help about your paranoia, it wasn't me.
>

>Judith was talking to her (other) self, not you.


Now, now Anchor - what would you know about paranoia?

<snigger>

May I have a top up please.

[Mike Bristow]

> RESULTS:
>
> Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> YES : 25 votes
> NO : 41 votes
> ABSTAIN : 2 votes
> Total : 68 votes

A quick analysis - which I won't post, as I know it's not quite right - tells
me that most non-posters to the group voted yes, and people who post to the
group overwellmingly voted no.

I'm not sure what that means (beyond the obvious: if you want an
RFD affecting urcm to succeed, you need to get on-side readers of
the group as well as the "peanut gallery in unn*), but I found it
interesting.


Cheers,

[Squashme]

That should be dead easy for Judith. She has obvious diplomatic skills.

[PeterW...@outlook.com]

Mike Bristow wrote:

>> RESULTS:
>>
>> Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>> YES : 25 votes
>> NO : 41 votes
>> ABSTAIN : 2 votes
>> Total : 68 votes
>
> A quick analysis - which I won't post, as I know it's not quite right - tells
> me that most non-posters to the group voted yes, and people who post to the
> group overwellmingly voted no.
>

Perhaps more importantly, one-third of the TOTAL number of voters
would have had to vote the other way for the result to be
different.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for change.

It's no surprise that the troll-enablers voted as they did - that
reminds me of what it must have been like when the last trees were cut
on Easter Island. It meant the end of their world, but they had to do
it to get those statues errected.

No bonus points for recognising the face carved onto the virtual
stone heads here.

The current situation is such that the people who
want (and their votes above tell us that they DO INDEED want) a
place free from the constant griefing, nym-shifting, breeching
experiments, and denigration of themselves and their chosen
activity have manged with considerable effort to escape the madness
of the unmoderated group; and those who are not interested in
cycling and have to put up with the leftover griefing ("my post was
rejected and the moderaters are lying about why), nymshifting (cue
endless list of Judith socks), breeching experiments ("please
comittee, tell me {without seeing it} that I can make another RDF
and you'll waive the three-month rule") and denigration ("fuckwit")
see blaming the victims as the best solution; they'd rather
Judith/kathystarke/Mr Lamb/M Wicks/tturpin/etc. post their drivel
anywhere else than the uk.net.* groups, and if
uk.rec.cycling.moderated suffers that's just too bad.

Which itself is hardly a ringing endorsement of their ability
to understand the reality of usenet, trolls, and the proper use of
moderated groups; thank god they have been so convincingly
over-ruled by the electorate.

[Judith]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:41:16 +0000 (UTC), "PeterW...@outlook.com"
<PeterW...@outlook.com> wrote:

<snip>

>The current situation is such that the people who
>want (and their votes above tell us that they DO INDEED want) a
>place free from the constant griefing, nym-shifting, breeching
>experiments, and denigration of themselves and their chosen
>activity have manged with considerable effort to escape the madness
>of the unmoderated group; and those who are not interested in
>cycling and have to put up with the leftover griefing ("my post was
>rejected and the moderaters are lying about why), nymshifting (cue
>endless list of Judith socks), breeching experiments ("please
>comittee, tell me {without seeing it} that I can make another RDF
>and you'll waive the three-month rule") and denigration ("fuckwit")
>see blaming the victims as the best solution; they'd rather
>Judith/kathystarke/Mr Lamb/M Wicks/tturpin/etc. post their drivel
>anywhere else than the uk.net.* groups, and if
>uk.rec.cycling.moderated suffers that's just too bad.
>
>Which itself is hardly a ringing endorsement of their ability
>to understand the reality of usenet, trolls, and the proper use of
>moderated groups; thank god they have been so convincingly
>over-ruled by the electorate.

"breeching experiments" - ho, ho ho.

You are a silly chap Porky - I thought that you had said that were finished
here.


--
Porky Chapman bragged about the fact that he was taking someone he
had accused of harassing him through the court system.
All of a sudden his court case is off. Was it because Porky was scared of
being cross-examined and having to answer questions under oath?
Or did the CPS sling the case out because of Porky's "evidence"?
Why won't he tell us?

[The Happy Hippy]

<PeterW...@outlook.com> wrote ...

> Mike Bristow wrote:
>
>>> RESULTS:
>>>
>>> Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>
>>> YES : 25 votes
>>> NO : 41 votes
>>> ABSTAIN : 2 votes
>>> Total : 68 votes
>>
>> A quick analysis - which I won't post, as I know it's not quite right -
>> tells
>> me that most non-posters to the group voted yes, and people who post to
>> the
>> group overwellmingly voted no.
>>
>
> Perhaps more importantly, one-third of the TOTAL number of voters
> would have had to vote the other way for the result to be
> different.
>
> Hardly a ringing endorsement for change.

It is not necessarily a ringing endorsement that no change is needed either.
Had the proposal been different it would likely have garnered more votes in
favour than it did.

If it had simply been to better ensure moderatation by content for those not
on a whitelist I would have voted in favour of it and I believe I am not
alone.

[Anonymous]

In article <kgdqcs$qma$1...@speranza.aioe.org>

It so rare we get something poetic here