[Imc-aotearoa-ed] Re: dk hidden + proposal

[ksimpson at ihug.co.nz]

I've learned next to nothing from his non-abusive posts and been 
seriously upset by his abusive ones. In the wider scheme of things, 
it wouldn't make any difference if he was banned entirely.
A kinder option would be to automatically put all his posts on a 
separate page with a dk link and inform him weekly or monthly how 
few people visit it.
Ken

On 22 Dec 2003 at 9:11, clare wrote:

> hello,
> 
> how long have we been dealing with this person? 18 - 24 months. he's not
> getting better in my opinion. he always tries to push us as far as he
> can and i've had enough. 
> i've lost track of how many warnings we have given him to stop abusing
> people (which, is mostly directed at me)
> 
> and apart from the abuse, he just doesn't respect the site at all. 
> 
> and, his non abusive posts are for the majority incomprehensible to
> anyone but himself, and he floods the wire with it. i don't want the
> newswire to be his personal vomit bowl, sorry, it's makes the newswire
> not very useable.
> 
> 
> > You are talking about a MAJOR change to the ed policy, one which should
> > perhaps be ratified at the conference and definitely requires discussion on
> > imc-aotearoa. Personally I am opposed to banning DK or anybody. Banning is a
> > blunt instrument and I think the spammer list is a better way of dealing
> > with overzealous posters.
> 
> of course we need further discussion not just on this list... but i want
> him banned too,  the spammer list is not really working for dk, or we
> wouldn't be having this discussion.
> > 
> > That said I too have emailed DK. I told him my opposition is contingent on
> > his manners improving 1000-fold immediately. Let's hope he takes our
> > warnings seriously.
> 
> sure, but, how many times have we done this already?
> 
> yours,
> fucked off
> 
> clare
> (but not at you stypey)
> 
> > 
> > RnB,
> > Strypey
> > 
> > Quoting YudA <kjnis at yahoo.co.nz>:
> > 
> > > Looks good, I'm going to wait a day or so before
> > > approving DK's banning, I sent him a note (basically
> > > saying chill the fuck out) if he continues I'll agree
> > > 
> > > As for the changes maybe have something on the wiki
> > > spammer list page that the spammer has been been
> > > revoked off the spammer list? I dunno
> > > 
> > > K.
> > > 
> > >  --- "finn c." <finn at animal-liberation.org.nz> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > #13523 #13524 #13525 #13457 have been hidden.
> > > > 
> > > > I think that we should ban DK from posting on
> > > > indymedia totally. He has
> > > > simply gone too far this time, and I am sick of the
> > > > vile little bigot.
> > > > 
> > > > It'll need an amendment to the ed policy though. I
> > > > suggest:
> > > > 
> > > >  C. Spam Attack Procedure
> > > > 
> > > >  A spam attack is defined as a pattern of abuse of
> > > > the newswire by a
> > > >  particular poster. If the editorial collective
> > > > reaches consensus that a
> > > >  specific individual is launching a spam attack on
> > > > the AIMC newswire,
> > > >  the spammer's post(s) may be hidden from the
> > > > newswire by a member of
> > > >  the editorial collective. Each instance of
> > > > recognized spam will be
> > > >  considered individually, and the reason why the
> > > > editorial collective
> > > >  perceives the post(s) as spam will be stated on the
> > > > editorial list.
> > > >  When a member of the editorial collective hides a
> > > > post, (s)he shall
> > > >  immediately notify the editorial listserv.
> > > > 
> > > >  In extreme circumstances a designated spammer may
> > > > be banned from
> > > >  posting on the newswire completely. If the
> > > > editorial collective reaches
> > > >  consensus, the spammers post(s) can be hidden on
> > > > sight. The spammer will
> > > >  be notified of their banned status via email. 
> > > >  
> > > >  If a member of the editorial collective wishes to
> > > > revoke a banning, 
> > > >  they can do so by proposing it to the editorial
> > > > collective. If
> > > >  consensus is reached then the spammer will be
> > > > allowed to post on the
> > > >  newswire again, but their 'spammer' status will
> > > > remain. 
> > > > 
> > > >  It is to be noted that because IMC's are open
> > > > publishing sites, posts
> > > >  may be made that are not readily identifiable as
> > > > being from the same
> > > >  person. It is the responsibility of the editor
> > > > raising the issue of a
> > > >  potential spammer to list the trademark spam
> > > > patterns of that potential
> > > >  spammer. If the Editorial collective agrees this
> > > > author is spamming the
> > > >  A-IMC site, their trademark spam patterns will be
> > > > recorded on a page of
> > > >  the A-IMC site, currently here.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > finn
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Imc-aotearoa-ed mailing list
> > > > Imc-aotearoa-ed at lists.indymedia.org
> > > >
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-aotearoa-ed
> > > 
> > > http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals
> > > New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Imc-aotearoa-ed mailing list
> > > Imc-aotearoa-ed at lists.indymedia.org
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-aotearoa-ed
> > > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-aotearoa-ed mailing list
> Imc-aotearoa-ed at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-aotearoa-ed
>