From: warnold@gossip.urich.edu (William W. Arnold)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Keywords: situational ethics, appropriate cancels, Guido and Luigi
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:39:28 GMT
Organization: University of Richmond

>In <Brpt62.65u@redpoll.neoucom.edu> red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
>it is acceptable for
>........................................
>A.  the author of the article
The Poster of an article is always entitled to cancel it.

>B.  the copyright holder
The copyright holder is always entitled to cancel an article.

>C.  the author's sysadmin or news admin
This depends on many factors outside the content of the post being
canceled.  Such as whether the poster has paid for access etc.

>D.  the newsgroup's moderator (if a moderated group)
The moderator is entitled to cancel any article in his group.

>E.  the gateway's admin
The gateway admin gains no additional authority to cancel articles,
except in that he is also a news admin, if he wasn't before.

>F.  a highly respected news admin such as (insert name here)
The only thing a hrna has over a na is that he is well known, and
therefore People will trust his judgment on many borderline cases.

>G.  the newsgroup's enforcer(s) (see P.S.)
>H.  any sysadmin or news admin
>I.  the injured party
>J.  J. Random Hacker

>K.  no one
The Poster/copywrite holder/moderator of an article is always entitled
to cancel it.

>........................................
>to post a net-wide cancellation of the article,
>........................................
>a.  and anonymous/forged cancels are OK in this case.

Anonymous/forged cancels are NEVER acceptable.  If you aren't prepared to
stand up for your actions.  You aren't entitled to make them.

>b.  and no explanation is necessary.

I can think of NO reason to EVER post an cancel of someone elses
article without putting an explination or pointer to one in AT LEAST
the cancel message.

>c.  if an explanation is posted to "control" in the cancel message itself.
>d.  if an explanation is mailed to the author of the original article.
unless there is some particular reason not to.

>e.  if an explanation is posted to the newsgroup(s) in which the article
>    appeared.
>f.  if an explanation is posted to news.admin.
In most cases.

>g.  if an explanation is posted to the nntp-managers mailing list.  :-)
>h.  if an explanation is posted to news.announce.important.
I can't think of an reason for this, but someone else might.

>i.  no matter what the excuse.
>
>1.   When a sendsys attack is made,
CFGHI 
>2.   When copyrighted material is posted without permission of the
>     copyright owner,
BC
FGH if f and d

>3.   When an article is posted to a moderated group with bogus approval,
CD
>4.   When a mal-formed article crashes news systems,
CFH 
>5.   When an enormous article threatens to clog uucp links,
CFGH
>6.   When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,
CFGH
J if distrubition is limited to those countries where "pyramid scheme"
letters are illegal and not just frowned upon.

>7.   When a binary article is posted to a discussion group,
No cancels,  FLAME him.  This usually also fits in case 5.

>8.   When an article violates the accepted charter of a newsgroup,
Flame away.

>9.   When a forged article is posted in the name of a victim,
the victim of course.  Or the victims Sysadmin.  Or anyone who knows
the victim, and believes the victim would want it canceled.  Just be
prepared to justify your actions to the victim.

>10.  When a forged newgroup or rmgroup is posted,
CFGH
>11.  When an escaped newgroup changes the moderation status of
>     a newsgroup,
DFGH if moderated -> unmoderated
J if unmoderated -> moderated.
it's probably more important to send out correct newgroup messages.

>12.  When a blatant advertisement is cross-posted to multiple
>     groups outside the "biz" hierarchy,
Flame Bait.
>13.  When a gateway recycles old articles with new headers,
DFGH if you're sure that they're old.

>14.  When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,
Flame.

>15.  When an article is maliciously cross-posted (e.g. to misc.test),
Flame again.

>16.  When a request for postcards for Craig Shergold is posted,
CFGHI 

>17.  When the old "FCC proposes tax on modems" file reappears,
same as 16
>18.  When an article is inappropriately cross-posted,
very mild flame.

>19.  When the author of an article requests a cancellation,
anyone

>20.  At any time, and for any reason,
ABD
C depending on contract/authority 

-billy- warnold@nomad.urich.edu news@nomad.urich.edu has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin