From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has been given.
But you know why, right?
It's because it was felt that the issue you kept returning to was not relevant for the Foundation mailing list. You wouldn't accept that, continued to post about it, so someone's obviously decided to block you so that you cannot continue.
I suspect that issue (regarding the creation of a new mailing list for dispute resolution, if I recall correctly) won't fall under the scope of wikien-l either.
bodnotbod
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has been given.
But you know why, right?
Um, if there is a reason for a blocking, stating so openly, or even in private would be nice.
It's because it was felt that the issue you kept returning to was not relevant for the Foundation mailing list.
Um, no. There is a more actual reason underlying that one - that I was embarrassing Cary, and by extension anyone else on functionaries-l or else using private communication that they were being non-responsive. There are several slang substitutes for "non-responsive" in common language.
You wouldn't accept that, continued to post about it,
I do not accept "go aways" as substantive responses - particularly when I've taken care to destroy each and every point more legitimate critics have taken the time to outline.
so someone's obviously decided to block you so that you cannot continue.
That someone should of course have an identity. In the future, when someone is blocked from a list - particularly a seventh-year contributor/editor, who's been earnest in answering each substantive comment, question, or criticism.
I suspect that issue (regarding the creation of a new mailing list for dispute resolution, if I recall correctly) won't fall under the scope of wikien-l either.
It doesn't matter. We've established that the "take it elsewhere [unspecified]" argument is entirely invalid, and the "go away" argument we all know is just an extremely large DBAD violation.
And of course this violating concept appears to be indemic wherever people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this trend.
-Stevertigo
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
That someone should of course have an identity. In the future, when someone is blocked from a list - particularly a seventh-year contributor/editor, who's been earnest in answering each substantive comment, question, or criticism.
Correction. Should be "or criticism.. then greater openness and thought should be the common practice."
-Steven
stevertigo wrote:
Um, no. There is a more actual reason underlying that one - that I was embarrassing Cary, and by extension anyone else on functionaries-l or else using private communication that they were being non-responsive. There are several slang substitutes for "non-responsive" in common language.
Please don't assume that you were embarrassing anyone except yourself.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please don't assume that you were embarrassing anyone except yourself.
This looks like good, sound, hard-learned advice, even if it is presented as an inappropriate and off-topic personal attack.
-Stevertigo