Moderator Vacancy Investigation: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

[Usenet Big-8 Management Board]

This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
the moderated newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning,
and may have been abandoned by its moderator. This investigation will
attempt to verify the reasons for non-function, and may result in the
removal of the group or the selection and installation of a new
moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers the third
alternative--changing the status of the group from moderated to
unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.

The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
<bi...@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for
soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum". Bixby has volunteered to
take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
not to do so.

Bixby has also communicated the following about their choice of alias:
-----
It is an alias, and the fact it is an alias should be known.

Each major on-line project I am involved in has its own alias, as a
way to maintain my personal privacy on-line.

My identity is not a secret, and will be disclosed on request to any
group member or the board, but when posting to systems which can be
automatically scanned, an alias is prudent for privacy.

(The origin is "Horace E. Bixby", the Mississippi boat pilot who
taught Samuel Clemens.)
-----

Followups to this post have been set to news.groups.proposals, to ensure
that any resulting discussion can be followed in one place.


RATIONALE:

Attempts to post to the group currently result in a bounce message from
the ISC moderation relay.

The most recent moderator, Stephen Graham, posted to the group on 7th
June 2017 to report that the group's moderation platform, robomod.net,
had suffered a catastrophic failure (Message-ID: <epqo2qFak6qU1
@mid.individual.net>). Robomod.net was never restored to service, and it
appears that no alternative moderation system was ever put in place.
Stephen Graham posted a followup on 26th October 2017 (Message-ID:
<f5ee8g...@mid.individual.net>) to say "As you can tell, robomod.net
has not been restored to service. At this point, I expect most former
readers have found alternative fora."

The group has been dormant since then, apart from a single post in 2019
that may not have been officially approved.

It therefore appears that no alternative moderation system was ever set
up, and that the moderator abandoned the group at this point without
appointing a successor.

Sadly, we have discovered that Stephen Graham died soon afterwards, in
2019. All of us thank Mr. Graham for generously volunteering his time as
a group moderator, and extend our condolences to all who knew him.

https://www.ece.uw.edu/spotlight/remembering-steve-graham/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190704082457/https://people.ece.uw.edu/gra
ham_stephen/

Because of this unfortunate news, it seems clear that a vacancy exists
and that a new moderator could be appointed.

The Big-8 Management Board is particularly keen to solicit input from
former participants in soc.history.war.world-war-ii, as the Board
members are unfamiliar with the community and are not well placed to
judge whether a prospective moderator would be a good fit. To this end,
this MVI has been crossposted to soc.history.war.misc and alt.war.world-
war-two. These groups have recently been used by some of the people who
previously posted in soc.history.war.world-war-ii, which will allow the
remaining community to give their views on the appointment of a new
moderator.


NEWSGROUPS LINE:

soc.history.war.world-war-ii History & events of World War Two
(Moderated)


HISTORY OF THE GROUP:

soc.history.war.world-war-ii was proposed by Joel Furr
<jf...@acpub.duke.edu> in early 1994, along with soc.history.war.misc.

soc.history.war.world-war-ii passed its vote 181:17 on 19 April 1994.


CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY OF SOC.HISTORY.WAR.WORLD-WAR-II:

The charter of soc.history.war.world-war-ii: Discussion of the
era 1939-1945 in particular, but ranging as far back as 1918 and
as far forward as the 1950's for discussion of events leading to
the War and post-war events such as the occupation of Japan and
Germany. The discussion will be limited to social, political,
military, economic, technological, demographic, and historial
aspects of World War II, including discussion of:

* Arms limitations treaties in the 1920's, intended to head
off any future war
* the Weimar Republic
* the rise of the Italian Fascists
* the Japanese war with China
* the rise of the Nazi Party
* American isolationism
* Franco-British appeasement
* Italian misadventures in Africa
* German occupation of the Sudentenland and Austria
* the war proper, 1939-1945
* the Manhattan Project
* the Holocaust
* Post-war occupation of Japan and Germany
* Post-war governments of Europe
* and so on.

In other words, the mandate for soc.history.war.world-war-ii is
intended to be broad, rather than narrow, with moderation in
place less to limit discussion than to keep out Gannon and the
Holocaust Revisionists and other malicious posters. Should Dan
Gannon or Serdar Argic submit articles which actually discuss
World War Two rather than spreading their brand of conspiracy
theory, their articles will be approved for submission as well.

Moderation policy:
------------------

Soc.history.war.world-war-ii will have a very relaxed moderation
policy. The main purpose, as noted above, for moderation of this
group is to prevent it from turning into a revisionist flamefest
akin to misc.headlines or soc.history. As such, any message
which actually discusses World War II will be approved for
posting, provided that it does not attempt to claim that events
such as the Holocaust never happened. There are other groups for
discussion of that question, most notably, alt.revisionism.

Moderation rules:

* Articles which discuss World War Two and its events will be
approved for posting.

* Articles arguing that the Holocaust never happened will not
be approved for posting.

* Articles must contain original thought. Lengthy quoting of
source material with a couple of lines of comment at the end
will not be approved for posting.

* Blank messages, test messages, advertisements,
MAKE.MONEY.FAST, and so forth, will not be approved for
posting.

* Articles which include excessive quoting (e.g. an article
which quotes an entire other article in order to add a few
comments at the end) will be trimmed down by the moderator in
question.

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will
not be approved for posting.

* Rejected articles will be shared with the other moderators
for group consideration.

As noted below, the group will be group-moderated, to minimize
delay between submission and posting and to keep the group
running when the traffic becomes heavy.

Moderators will be added by majority vote of the existing
moderators and moderators will be removed by 2/3 vote in the
event that a moderator is shown to be failing to do the job (i.e.
not posting anything).



DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
soc.history.war.world-war-ii
soc.history.war.misc
alt.war.world-war-two


PROPONENT:

Bixby <bi...@sctb.ch>


PROCEDURE:

Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should
subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant
threads in that newsgroup.

To this end, the followup header of this MVI has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

For more information on the MVI process, please see

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderator_Vacancy_Investigations


CHANGE HISTORY:

2023-09-28 Moderator Vacancy Investigation

[a425couple]

On 9/28/23 07:15, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:
>
> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
> the moderated newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning,
> and may have been abandoned by its moderator. This investigation will
> attempt to verify the reasons for non-function, and may result in the
> removal of the group or the selection and installation of a new
> moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers the third
> alternative--changing the status of the group from moderated to
> unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.
>

Good luck with your future decisions on this.
I was an active member of that group.
I miss that group.
I was unhappy that Steven Graham refused to suggest another newsgroup
where the small 'group' of us still participating could have gone
to to keep together.
I am sorry to hear he died (we worked long time at the same
big institution).
I'll keep reading.

[John Dallman]

In article <MPG.3f7f9aa2a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
bo...@big-8.org (Usenet Big-8 Management Board) wrote:

> PROPONENT: Bixby <bi...@sctb.ch>

Thanks to Bixby, and to the Management Board.

John

[Bixby]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:15:17 EDT, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:

> The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
> <bi...@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for
> soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
> us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
> under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum".

And other aliases, before and after, long forgotten.

> Bixby has volunteered to
> take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
> not to do so.

Yes.

> Sadly, we have discovered that Stephen Graham died soon afterwards, in
> 2019. All of us thank Mr. Graham for generously volunteering his time as
> a group moderator, and extend our condolences to all who knew him.

It is always a shock to find someone you knew of, has passed away, and it
may even have been years ago.

Moving on from that shock and its sadness, regarding the charter and
moderation policy, the text embodies my experience of the group, and my
thought and intent with regard to future moderation.

I would think to propose one superficial modification to moderation
policy, namely;

> * An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will not be
> approved for posting.

Automated email harvesting occurs, so I would look for this particular
clause to change to;

* An article MUST have a valid reply-to address, or an obfuscated reply-to
address from which a valid reply-to address can be discerned, or it will

not be approved for posting.

This allows for "bixby at sctb-remove-panzeriv dot net" and the like.

> * Rejected articles will be shared with the other moderators for
> group consideration.
>
> As noted below, the group will be group-moderated, to minimize delay
> between submission and posting and to keep the group running when
> the traffic becomes heavy.
>
> Moderators will be added by majority vote of the existing
> moderators and moderators will be removed by 2/3 vote in the event
> that a moderator is shown to be failing to do the job (i.e.
> not posting anything).

The clauses regarding group moderation appear to assume a minimum of three
moderators.

Group moderation in and of itself seems desirable, as it ideally allows
for moderators across a range of time-zones, provides a mechanism for
second opinions, and reduces the risk of poor moderation from an inept
single moderator by providing mechanism by which other moderators can
assess conduct and if necessary, remove a moderator.

Majority voting and 2/3 voting function only once there are three or more
moderators.

Stephan Graham, the previous moderator, looks prior to the end of
moderation to have been the single and only moderator for some years, so
being run, at least to begin with, by a single moderator is not now out of
the ordinary.

The obvious thought then seems to be that to begin with the risk of a
single moderator is run, where there is a particular goal to recruit
additional moderators, and once three or more moderators are in play, the
charters group moderation mechanisms come back into play.

> PROPONENT:
>
> Bixby <bi...@sctb.ch>

Some words about myself.

I am a 50 year old British male. I am a digital nomad, and have been for
about ten years. When I work, I work as an IT contractor. I run one of
two significant projects on-line, each of which as with Usenet are
conducted through a persona, to maintain my individual privacy. The Board
has been made aware of these projects, and considerably more detail than I
have written here of myself.

I began posting to Usenet in 1994, in my first year at University; I
remember well the halcyon days of Usenet's hey-day.

I have been reading military history, particularly relating to WW2, but
also in later years history in general, since I was nine years old, when I
read my first military history, a book for children describing the 1942
Malta convey within which the SS Ohio sailed. A few years ago, living in
Malta at the time, I saw the Grand Harbour, and the ship's wheel and bell,
in the military museum.

Regarding WW2, I should outline my general view of the history, to assure
the Board and the group that my views are well-informed and reasonable.

I regard WW1 as being the genesis of WW2; Foch was correct. It was not
possible for Germany to develop political and economic stability, which
led to the opportunity for dictatorship.

German success in Europe came from being about ten years ahead of everyone
else in armoured tactics; a window of military opportunity combined with
an expansionist dictator.

The Holocaust occurred. I have lived in Germany for about two or three
years, in total. I have never visited a camp, because I know fully what
happened there, so I do not need to go to learn, and I know how profoundly
I would be affected by it. I have no wish for so terrible an experience.

Regarding the German campaign in the East, I am of the view Germany could
have won, but they messed it up - the fatal mistake was the early
deviation from the thrust on Moscow in 1941, which ended up leading the
Germans into fighting too far from their own borders.

One significant question I do not know the answer to is whether or not the
Sovet Union would have survived 41/42 without Allied aid. I suspect
probably yes. I'm not sufficiently clear about the extent of that aid -
obviously, numerous convoys, and critical material, but I need more
information, both of the convoys and also Soviet military production
during that period.

After the Soviet Union weathered the storm, they would in the end have
defeated Germany without the need for the Allied landings in 44, and
Europe would indeed have been taken, as the Warsaw Pact countries were.

I've written now quite a bit.

Are there any questions, or observations?

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <uf9pue$12mjp$1...@dont-email.me>, bi...@sctb.ch says...

>
> I would think to propose one superficial modification to moderation
> policy, namely;
>
> > * An article MUST have a valid reply-to address or it will not be
> > approved for posting.
>
> Automated email harvesting occurs, so I would look for this particular
> clause to change to;
>
> * An article MUST have a valid reply-to address, or an obfuscated reply-to
> address from which a valid reply-to address can be discerned, or it will
> not be approved for posting.

This seems entirely reasonable.

> The clauses regarding group moderation appear to assume a minimum of three
> moderators.

[snip]

Having more than one moderator is always desirable, for exactly the
reasons stated (and, as we've seen, to avoid having the group become
unusable if its moderator disappears for whatever reason). However, one
moderator is infinitely better than none at all, and a moderator can
always appoint additional moderators if they see fit to do so. I don't
see any problem with handing over moderation to one person given that
the group is currently non-functional.

> Some words about myself.
[snip]

Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough introduction, and for kindly
volunteering to take on the responsibilities of moderation.

We'll post an announcement from the Board account once people have had
the chance to ask any questions, and once a new moderation address is
ready to receive submissions.

Regards,
Rayner

[Paul W. Schleck]

In <MPG.3f7f9aa2a...@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> writes:


>This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>the moderated newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning,
>and may have been abandoned by its moderator. This investigation will
>attempt to verify the reasons for non-function, and may result in the
>removal of the group or the selection and installation of a new
>moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers the third
>alternative--changing the status of the group from moderated to
>unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.

>The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
><bi...@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for
>soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
>us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
>under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum". Bixby has volunteered to
>take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
>not to do so.

Thanks to the Big-8 Management Board for their thorough research into
the question whether this newsgroup has been abandoned, and in
publishing this Moderator Vacancy Investigation. Thanks also for the
offer from the proposed replacement moderator to take over moderation,
and anticipating many of our likely questions with detailed answers.

Some practical questions:

- What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
invite them back? Are these former participants willing to post a
reply to the MVI in news.groups.proposals stating their support of the
proposed replacement moderator, and their intention to use the
newsgroup if reactivated?

Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)? Will they be actively
seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just those from
Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

- What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software

STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has the
advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the only
one.

I recommend two excellent reference articles about newsgroup moderation
that are available at the following link:

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Documents

Pitfalls of Newsgroup Moderation

Netnews Moderators Handbook (1995; copied 2009)

Does anyone have any questions or concerns after reading these articles?

I look forward to any replies.

--
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@panix.com

[Bixby]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:17:23 CST, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> In <MPG.3f7f9aa2a...@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8
> Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> writes:

> Some practical questions:
>
> - What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
> activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
> example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
> invite them back?

This is a good question.

I could be wrong, but directly contacting feels quite forward.

Do you, or others, have thoughts with regard to this matter?

> Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
> restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
> Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)?

Yes. Posting something in a relevant public forum seems an entirely
appropriate use of a public forum.

For some of this I likely will require assisstance from initial group
members, as I am a private individual, no longer keeping a mobile phone
number, but some of these systems, such as Facebook, have I believe for a
long time mandated a mobile phone number to sign up (all part of uniquely
identifying individuals for information collation).

> Will they be
> actively seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just
> those from Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

I may be wrong, but I think it is appropriate to ensure the existence of
the group is generally known, but actively encouraging membership is
forward; people should join of their independent wish, not from
encouragement.

> - What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
> the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:
>
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software
>
> STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has
> the advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the
> only one.

I've looked through the available systems.

STUMP seems to be the only viable candidate, short of writing my own.

I am inclined to write my own, as the underying work is simple : provide
an email address, download those emails, store in database, review them
(web-based interface), send those which are approved via NNTP with the
necessary extra header to the Usenet provider.

It will be easier and quicker to implement this than to install and
configure a third-party system.

> I recommend two excellent reference articles about newsgroup moderation
> that are available at the following link:
>
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Documents
>
> Pitfalls of Newsgroup Moderation

An excellent document.

> Netnews Moderators Handbook (1995; copied 2009)

Thankyou. An excellent reference for implementing moderation software.

[Paul W. Schleck]

In <ug39u8$13bkh$1...@dont-email.me> Bixby <bi...@sctb.ch> writes:

>On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:17:23 CST, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>> In <MPG.3f7f9aa2a...@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8
>> Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> writes:

>> Some practical questions:
>>
>> - What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
>> activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
>> example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
>> invite them back?

>This is a good question.

>I could be wrong, but directly contacting feels quite forward.

>Do you, or others, have thoughts with regard to this matter?

American on-line culture may be different, and such users are likely to
be the majority of your audience. More proactive approaches may be
necessary in the 2023 near-dormant Usenet, and can be done in ways that
are polite, and could be well-received. Thirty years ago, one could sit
in a computer terminal room at a University, and have a classmate bump
their elbow and say, "Hey, check this out." Or even, as one person
famously claimed, they accidentally typed "rn" instead of the Unix "rm"
command, and stumbled on an entire world of interesting information.
Those days have now passed.

Maybe find a half-dozen individuals where you had a connection in the
newsgroup, possibly from discussion in a given thread. Maybe also reply
to them with that thread's subject, introduce yourself, let them know
you interacted with them in the past, that you are reviving the
newsgroup, and would welcome their participation. Ask them to tell
other friends from the newsgroup that they may know.

>> Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
>> restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
>> Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)?

>Yes. Posting something in a relevant public forum seems an entirely
>appropriate use of a public forum.

>For some of this I likely will require assisstance from initial group
>members, as I am a private individual, no longer keeping a mobile phone
>number, but some of these systems, such as Facebook, have I believe for a
>long time mandated a mobile phone number to sign up (all part of uniquely
>identifying individuals for information collation).

>> Will they be
>> actively seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just
>> those from Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

>I may be wrong, but I think it is appropriate to ensure the existence of
>the group is generally known, but actively encouraging membership is
>forward; people should join of their independent wish, not from
>encouragement.

You don't have to high-pressure sell them, just let them know about the
newsgroup's existence and that they can be a valuable part of it. Some
degree of "selling" and "marketing" will be required to make this effort
successful.

>> - What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
>> the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:
>>
>> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software
>>
>> STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has
>> the advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the
>> only one.

>I've looked through the available systems.

>STUMP seems to be the only viable candidate, short of writing my own.

>I am inclined to write my own, as the underying work is simple : provide
>an email address, download those emails, store in database, review them
>(web-based interface), send those which are approved via NNTP with the
>necessary extra header to the Usenet provider.

>It will be easier and quicker to implement this than to install and
>configure a third-party system.

You know your own talent and temperament. I have known
super-programmers who could whip out a secure, collaborative, web-based
application in a weekend. I have also known more mortal programmers who
thought that a given application domain was simple, but found that there
was a lot more nuance that distracted them chasing down bugs and
feature-creep for years. I would recommend that you weigh whether or
not you want to spend most of your time just maintaining tools, or in
the more important public tasks of leading a moderation team, making
editorial decisions, and making the newsgroup a quality information
resource that others would want to read.

You may also find it easier to recruit moderators for a team, including
temporary back-up or even replacement moderators, if you were using a
standard environment in which they may already be experienced. These
experienced users are also submitting bug reports to a central
maintenance team that can be shared with all users. A large user-base
can also be a resource for answering questions. With custom software,
you are mostly on your own.

I would find using a third-party system to be easier and faster than
trying to write something from scratch. I am a modest programmer, but
at least have learned from experience that some problem domains are not
so simple as first thought. For example, here are some sample
requirements for newsgroup moderation software that newsgroups that I
help moderate wound up implementing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/175cfsk/sample_requirements_for_usenet_newsgroup/

Do you need all of these features? Maybe you do, and sometimes on very
short notice to protect the newsgroup or make it less of a headache to
manage, and if you do find out that you need them, they are already
supported in a system like STUMP at Panix.

Good luck with your decisions and plans as a possible replacement
moderator for the dormant newsgroup.