From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:10:29 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein 
  wrote: 
  
 >some cases I'm reasonably sure I'm missing relevant data (I certainly 
 >don't have all the talk.religion.bahai failures, for example, nor do 
 >I have the failure of the stupid us.* proposal), but for what it's 
 >worth: 
  
 There were only 2 failures of the Bahai group.  The us.* proposal is 
 under other_articles in the ISC archive. 
  
  
 >soc.religion.christian.home-church 137:68, February, 2000 
 > 
 >(note that the group didn't meet the 150-vote recommendation, though 
 >it did meet the 120-vote one; note that it would have been moderated; 
 >note that a previous vote on this group had been invalidated for 
 >campaigning violations, although it's actually pretty damn hard to get 
 >a vote invalidated on those grounds...) 
  
 This was a case of people voting NO because they didn't believe the 
 support for the group was there, forcing the group to have more 
 support than was needed.  I think that there may also be a bit of 
 prejudice at work. 
  
  
 >talk.religion.bahai 109:65, February, 1998 
 > 
 >(basically, various Baha'is, including sometimes moderators of 
 >soc.religion.bahai, thought that the existence of an unmoderated 
 >forum for discussion of their faith was contrary to the principles 
 >of their faith.  Over time, they gradually concluded that instead, 
 >stifling free discussion was what was contrary to those principles. 
 >Or some such; I didn't follow each discussion in detail.  This was 
 >the next-to-last vote of several.  Um, also, the proponent was a jerk.) 
  
 The last point is the key.  The proposal was eventually passed after 
 bringing on other proponents, and convincing Frederick Glaysher to 
 refrain from most of the discussion.  It should be noted that he was 
 not able to participate in the first week of discussion of the first 
 try (the above is the result of the 2nd) which led to a certain 
 skepticism of whether this was a stealth group or what.  I think the 
 opposition had more to do with concern about the motives of the 
 proponent, than necessarily a desire to suppress open discussion of 
 their faith. 
  
 [I've moved this] 
  
 >talk.religion.bahai 157:691, March, 1997 
 > 
 >(see above) 
  
  
  
 >misc.activism.radical-left 115:90, May, 1997 
 > 
 >(like the previous group, this failed to meet any reasonable recommendation 
 >for minimum YES votes, but anyway it was a purely political situation; this 
 >proposal was in competition with the anti-fascism groups' proposal, which 
 >had been languishing for a year or so in RFD after RFD, and which the 
 >supporters of this group took as nothing but a vanity proposal.  They were 
 >right about that - the anti-fascism groups' moderators have almost never 
 >approved any actual articles to any of those groups - but they turned out 
 >not to be able to meet their opponents' numbers.) 
  
 Paul Kneisel was responsible for drumming up the No votes. 
  
  
 >soc.org.cisv 124:43, March, 1997 
 > 
 >(again, a low YES total; again, I'm not at all sure any NO votes were 
 >political - one of them came from the then-moderator of 
 >news.announce.newgroups - but am including the group in case.  This 
 >was the group's second vote; the first one failed for lack of 100 
 >YES votes.) 
  
 Russ Allbery in response to a comment that the proponents should have 
 considered a more meaningful name wrote: 
  
    Be nice if they'd do that, yes.  That advice has been given to them 
    twice now, and the previous time they tried to bring this proposal 
    forward, it failed in exactly the same way.  I'm hoping that 
    eventually the point will sink in. 
  
    soc.org.cisv may as well be asd.gads.qwer; both names mean about as 
    much to the uninitiated. 
  
  
 >rec.arts.tv.barney.criticism 148:69, February, 1997 
 >rec.arts.tv.barney.creative 142:74, February, 1997 
 > 
 >(again, I suspect there were good reasons for many of the NO votes, 
 >but list the groups in case; see below for why I don't list more of 
 >this kind of group) 
  
 I think there was a belief that the group was intended for parodies, 
 of a somewhat malicious nature.  It might be considered political to 
 vote No. 
  
  
 >soc.culture.azerbaijan 1732:920, January, 1997 
 > 
 >(this was evidently the last of the spectacular political NO votes; 
 >the group was to have been moderated; the most obvious source of NO 
 >votes were therefore Armenians, so note that some years later, 
 >a soc.culture.turkish.moderated *did* pass with sane vote totals) 
  
 soc.culture.turkish.moderated was later the same year (October, 1997) 
 274:92. 
  
  
 >soc.genealogy.jewish.methods 166:275, November, 1996 
 >soc.genealogy.jewish.misc 156:286, November, 1996 
 > 
 >(this would have renamed an existing moderated group, whose moderator 
 >voted NO, 
  
 The rename was for changing moderated soc.genealogy.jewish to 
 soc.genealogy.jewish.misc.  This must have been the height of 
 pernicious miscing. 
  
 >and created another moderated group.  The moderator of 
 >soc.genealogy.jewish could have simply vetoed the RFD, but didn't; 
 >but my impression of her is that she's a highly active and hands-on 
 >moderator, and I'd be shocked if her readers voted against her in 
 >much of anything.  I very much doubt any anti-Semitism was involved, 
 >therefore, but list this again, just in case, and because I didn't 
 >actually follow this debate at the time.) 
  
 The argument for the new group was that the existing group was too 
 successful, and that discussion about methodology was being smothered 
 by other discussion, such as posting of names, etc.  Since the groups 
 were gated to mailing lists, volume was also a consideration.  This 
 actually would have established a 2nd moderated newsgroup in an 
 overlapping topic space.  The existing group would have been unchanged 
 except for its name.  So in essence you have a proposed new group 
 whose name suggest that it is *the* place for discussing methodology, 
 while the other group was for everything else.  This might have been a 
 case where the best names might have been something like: 
    soc.genealogy.jewish.1st 
    soc.genealogy.jewish.2nd 
  
  
 >soc.subculture.cyber-psychos 132:64, October, 1996 
 > 
 >(the proponent was enough of a jerk to turn almost any NO vote into 
 >an arguably political one against her, her magazine, and her ideas, 
 >but she was also a moderator candidate, and it's legitimate to vote 
 >against jerks running for moderator...  I suspect, though, that there 
 >were also NO votes on the new sub-hierarchy.) 
  
 There is also the problem of naming a group that believes it 
 transcends conventional classification. 
  
  
 >soc.culture.israel.moderated 130:51, July, 1996 
 > 
 >(the list of NO voters actually suggests to me a limited role for 
 >political voting, but this is another one I don't remember...) 
  
 At this time, 40 No votes on a moderated group was ordinary.  This was 
 one of the first attempts at a robomoderated newsgroup (and had 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)