[Imc-web] Re: [Imc-info] [Imc-mediation] concerned about apparent violation of acceptable use policy

[Mike Lehman]

It was I who edited this post, in line with the special circumstances 
surrounding dealing with DAN. This hasn't been discussed lately, so I 
can see why this situation may have dropped of the radar, leaving it 
unclear what is going on.

I would be more than happy to simply hide the damn thing and all future 
posts by him, but we have decided in the past to deal with him flexibly 
because that seemed to minimize his offensive behavior better than an 
outright ban seemed to. Making a further comment to the specifics of 
what was altered seemed likely to only exacerbate the situation, so I 
did this without further comment.

Please be assured, except for DAN's special circumstance, which was 
consented to at the time of the decision, and minor factual corrections 
on an occasion that I am certain were the intended text of the author 
(such as day and time corrections that I know to be accurate), nothing 
is altered without notice.

Please note that 3 or 4 other equally bad or worst comments to the same 
article by Joe made by DAN were hidden, in line with the DAN policy.
Mike Lehman

Zachary C. Miller wrote:
> Is it possible that our security has been compromised and that this
> edit was not made by an approved web editor? If not, could the person
> who did this (at least privately to me) own up to it so that we don't
> have to wonder about the security?
> 
> Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> 
>>I agree with this concern.  Although it is _incredibly_ tempting to
>>utilize editorial control over posts, I feel that our job as editors is to
>>keep the site working smoothly and enforce the Acceptable Use Policy.  I
>>think it's an understandable action given that this has never been made
>>explicit to the Web Editorial Group, but we should really adhere to the
>>protocols we've set forth (as to do otherwise would open up a HUGE can of
>>worms).  I would say a post like the one Joe mentioned should simply be
>>hidden.
>>
>>--Sascha
>>
>>On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Joe Futrelle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The post in question is in the following thread.
>>>
>>>http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/11088/index.php
>>>
>>>I have two concerns about the first comment; a minor concern, and a
>>>major concern.
>>>
>>>1. minor concern: the post calls me retarded. that's an offensive
>>>personal attack, but I am relatively unconcerned about it because it
>>>is so transparently unfounded that I consider it more damaging to the
>>>poster's credibility than to me.
>>>
>>>2. major concern: the post's title was originally "JOE, YOU ARE A
>>>STUPID IDIOT".  The title now reads "JOE, I AM A STUPID IDIOT".  The
>>>post was obviously edited.  I have two concerns about this.  First,
>>>the post does not meet the criteria for editing posts as specified in
>>>the appropriate use policy because it does not "pose an immediate
>>>threat to the welfare of the IMC and the IMC website".  Second, the
>>>required comment explaining why the post was edited was not posted to
>>>the thread.
>>>
>>>It's gratifying that the post was edited the way it was -- it's funny
>>>-- but I'm concerned about the apparent failure to adhere to the AUP
>>>because the AUP is so often invoked by the editors in defending other
>>>much more important editorial decisions.