Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> writes: > I tried to take everyone's comments into consideration. > I think less is more here, so I've tried to make the > charter as spartan as possible. I put a "1" in the > header, in case we need extensive revisions in the > next draft. Be aware that besides this document, there > will another which explains this one in detail and > includes all the minutia.
> Sci.Math.Mod
> This newsgroup, sci.math.mod, is for the discussion of > mathematics. This includes mathematics at all levels, > mathematics education, history of mathematics, mathematical > resources, such as journals, software, websites, and > conference announcements.
> Posting Guidelines:
> The proposed guidelines are as follows:
> 1. Postings which are blatantly off-topic will be rejected.
> 2. Posting containing publically unacceptable language, > personal attacks, racist or political rants, or other forms > of "fighting words" will be rejected.
> 3. Repetitive postings and threads which have degenerated to > the "is so/is not" level are subject to rejection.
> 4. Cross-posted articles are generally rejected, as replies > from an unmoderated group can place undue burden on the > moderators.
> 5. Accepted posts much be in ASCII only, although the group > is allowed to change this in the future, should it become > advisable.
> Duties of the Moderators:
> 1. To enforce the guidelines given above.
> 2. Create and maintain a readily accessable FAQ, including > this charter and explanations of the moderation guidelines.
> Guidelines for the removal of a moderator are as follows:
> 1. An RFD on the removal of a moderator must be posted to > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and sci.math.mod, > with the follow-ups sent to news.groups.
> 2. Should there be a consensus that a vote is appropriate, a > CFV will be issued by a third party, to last not less than > two weeks and not more than 30 days. This ballot will > include the following options:
> a. Should <name> moderator be removed? (Y/N)
> b. The replacement moderator should be: <name>
> If more than 2/3 of the voters agree that the moderator > should be removed, and there are no more than 100 no votes, > then the top name in section b becomes the new moderator. > Each ballot can contain a vote for one and only one new > moderator.
> 3. Initial moderators: <names>
Well, there you have it, a now probably a bit dated proposal for a moderated mathematics group. First, some background for news.groupies. The idea of a moderated mathematics group, for posts and topics possibly falling below the standards of solemnity and seriousness in sci.math.research, has cropped up occasionally. This time it seems more people are interested in the notion. This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of messages of apparently random[1] drivel. There's also your usual cast of cranks, loons, trolls, people valiantly battling stagnant orthodoxy, and people valiantly if with baffling perseverance battling the formerly mentioned, etc. etc. In other words, sci.math's a brisk and lively corner of news.
There have been numerous more-or-less specific suggestions regarding the moderation policy etc. Alas, I fear many people taking part in the discussion are not very familiar with the mechanics social and technical of Usenet. Before I let the good people of news.groups have their say, I'll voice the following thoughts that so trouble me. First, I'm not at all convinced we need another moderated group, in addition to sci.math.research. There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, I don't think the limitations of web interfaces should dictate decisions Usenetical. Second, from what I can tell, none of the proposed moderators have any technical experience, either with moderation, or dealing with all sorts of e-mail, NNTP, etc. issues. Third, I doubt most people realise how much hard work goes into getting a group propagated, setting up moderation software. Fourth, the part in the above quoted guidelines about procedure for moderator removal is out of touch with the harsh realities.
I may have had other grievances, but I've quite forgotten what they were by now. Ah yes, the name should be sci.math.moderated.
Most of the blather about a new moderated mathematics group has been in the following threads:
Finally, a few words for the sci.mathers. The Big-8 group creation procedure went through an upheaval a few years ago. If you're unfamiliar with the current procedure, have a look at
News.groups is famously a very friendly group, where discussion is conducted in an atmosphere of chirpy cheerfulness, in the spirit of holding-of-hands, kittens, the brotherhood of all men, feeding the poor, and all things good. Expect to receive good advice from the news.groupies, who offer such advice unselfishly and with great kindness. Alas, not all members of the Big-8 Management Board read news.groups, though some do. According to the current B8MB policy, official group proposals (formal and informal) go to news.groups.proposals, the scope of which has been recently -- well, not /that/ recently -- widened to cover pre-RFD discussions as well.
As to myself, I used to be a moderator (for news.groups.proposals), stopped being a moderator, and then became a moderated once again (for news.admin.announce).
PS. I received an e-mail with malformed headers from an unknown person, asking whether I'd like to help with the moderation. As is probably obvious from this post, I don't much care for the idea of a new moderated group. I'm nevertheless perfectly willing to assist in any way I can if enough people feel it's a good idea, and if the B8MB seem to incline towards voting for the group -- I'm even more opposed to the idea of a dead moderated mathematics group than I'm to that of a live one.
Footnotes: [1] Musatov has stated, if my memory does not play me false, his purpose is to amass a volume of news articles, to form a proof that all problems in the complexity class NP (for "non-deterministic polynomial time") are also in P (for "polynomial time"), in order to donate the resulting proof to charity. While this goal is certainly laudable -- there are many poor and famished people who would no doubt be thrilled by such a proof -- Musatov's antics have been perceived slightly distracting by some.
[2] This is, I believe, technically known as lying through one's teeth.
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> The proposed guidelines are as follows:
>> 1. Postings which are blatantly off-topic will be rejected.
What about postings that are only somewhat offtopic?
>> Guidelines for the removal of a moderator are as follows:
>> 1. An RFD on the removal of a moderator must be posted to >> news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and sci.math.mod, with the >> follow-ups sent to news.groups.
That's not the purpose of NAN.
As for news.groups, what's the point? What Aatu sez below about "reality" such as it might be. Moderator removal is an intranecine affair.
[...]
> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance > artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar > experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of > messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
Does this person morph, or change addresses? That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one wishes?
[...]
> Third, I doubt most people realise how much hard work goes into > getting a group propagated,
That's the tough part. If you can talk the bambies into sending a newgroup message (an easily done exercise) then comes having to get the group added on servers worldwide.
Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> writes: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance >> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar >> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of >> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
Yes, very incompetently.
> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one > wishes?
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:58:59 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote in <87vdkhnlws....@alatheia.truth.invalid>:
> ... According to the current B8MB policy, >official group proposals (formal and informal) go to >news.groups.proposals, the scope of which has been recently -- well, not >/that/ recently -- widened to cover pre-RFD discussions as well.
Let's distinguish, if we may.
Only formal RFDs that pass the sanity tests go to n.a.n.:
If an RFD gets published in n.a.n., the board requests that discussion of it be reflected in (not confined to) n.g.p.
The board allows informal RFDs in n.g.p, but in no way requires that they be published there. The idea of "informal" implies that proponents get to perform to self-set standards in the way they present their ideas.
> ... I'm even more opposed to the >idea of a dead moderated mathematics group than I'm to that of a live >one. ...
Me, too.
FWIW, I've set up a wiki version of the NetNews Moderator's Handbook, with the permission of Kent Landfield:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance >>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar >>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of >>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
>> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
> Yes, very incompetently.
>> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one >> wishes?
> It is not at all difficult.
Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for the purpose of exclusion.
> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for > the purpose of exclusion.
As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil. Musatov can post all the math he wants, as long as he doesn't just repeat the same stuff over and over, and people can respond to his math all they want, as long as they leave his mother out of it.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Bart Goddard wrote: > Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> wrote in
>> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for >> the purpose of exclusion.
> As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will > have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil. > Musatov can post all the math he wants, as long as he doesn't > just repeat the same stuff over and over, and people can respond > to his math all they want, as long as they leave his mother out > of it.
Martini Mustache posts math? Nay, he posts mathematical non-nonsense, which is not allowed by the current guidelines for not being sensible.
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Bart Goddard wrote: >> Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> wrote in
>>> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for >>> the purpose of exclusion.
>> As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will >> have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil. >> Musatov can post all the math he wants, as long as he doesn't >> just repeat the same stuff over and over, and people can respond >> to his math all they want, as long as they leave his mother out >> of it.
> Martini Mustache posts math? Nay, he posts mathematical non-nonsense, > which is not allowed by the current guidelines for not being sensible.
>> Even Martin Musatov's? I'm not a fan of creating a moderated group for >> the purpose of exclusion.
> As we've said, no one will be excluded. Everyone, however, will > have to stay on topic (which is quite broad) and fairly civil.
The key word here is "fairly." It's difficult to moderate for civility without creating a padded playpen, and it's a slippery slope down to it. Take a look at news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting (nanab) for a group that has a fairly good balance.
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's > easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of > MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth > in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, ...
With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
Dave Sill wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >> ...
> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >Dave Sill wrote: >>Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >>>in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >>>... >>With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.: >>http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html >Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was injected.
Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >> Dave Sill wrote: >>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>>> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >>>> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >>>> ...
>>> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
>> Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >> simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
> The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was injected.
I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, (while you sent via eternal-september.org)
Axel Vogt wrote: > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>> Dave Sill wrote: >>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>>>> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>>> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>>> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their >>>>> teeth >>>>> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the >>>>> garbage, ...
>>>> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
>>> Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >>> simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
>> The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was >> injected.
> I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, > Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, > (while you sent via eternal-september.org)
No, it analyzes the header field From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mole...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>Let's distinguish, if we may. >Only formal RFDs that pass the sanity tests go to n.a.n.:
Let's tell the truth: Only RFDs not written by certain authors go to n.a.n. The Board interferes with moderation of news.announce.newgroups and carries out its Usenet vendettas through rejections of RFDs.
Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>>Dave Sill wrote: >>>>Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>>>... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>>>easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>>>MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >>>>>in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >>>>>... >>>>With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.: >>>>http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html >>>Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >>>simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc. >>The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was >>injected. >I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, >Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, >(while you sent via eternal-september.org)
That header has nothing whatsover to do with what News server was used to inject an article into Usenet either. Please stop guessing.
Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>>> Dave Sill wrote: >>>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>>>>> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>>>> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>>>> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >>>>>> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >>>>>> ...
>>>>> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
>>>> Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >>>> simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
>>> The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was >>> injected.
>> I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, >> Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, >> (while you sent via eternal-september.org)
> That header has nothing whatsover to do with what News server was used > to inject an article into Usenet either. Please stop guessing.
See my immediate correction, Thunderbird uses the header field "From". And in most cases the poster will use an email from there, so it is enough.
Axel Vogt wrote: > Axel Vogt wrote: >> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>>> Dave Sill wrote: >>>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>>>>> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>>>> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>>>> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their >>>>>> teeth >>>>>> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the >>>>>> garbage, ...
>>>>> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.:
>>>> Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >>>> simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc.
>>> The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was >>> injected.
>> I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, >> Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, >> (while you sent via eternal-september.org)
> No, it analyzes the header field From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>.
In March 2008, I got NewsProxy to work with TeraNews. It took some time, but was worth the effort.
In news.groups on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:57:50 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta
<aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > Brian Mailman <bmail...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance >>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar >>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of >>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
Does it constitute spew, and thus abuse of the net?
>> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
> Yes, very incompetently.
>> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one >> wishes?
> It is not at all difficult.
I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work out how to use killfiles.
> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work > out how to use killfiles.
The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process incoming messages through it.
>Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>> Axel Vogt <&nore...@axelvogt.de> wrote: >>>>> Dave Sill wrote: >>>>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>>>>> ... There's loads of rubbish in sci.math, but mostly it's >>>>>>> easily filtered, and while I feel[2] for Google groupies and users of >>>>>>> MathForum (another web interface to news) who can but grate their teeth >>>>>>> in anger, lacking as they do any means of doing away with the garbage, >>>>>>> ... >>>>>> With Greasemonkey, Firefox can filter Google Groups. E.g.: >>>>>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html >>>>> Or use a mail / newsreader like Thunderbird for NGs. Then you >>>>> simply define the filter by "from contains gmail.com" etc. >>>> The From line has nothing whatsoever to do with where an article was >>>> injected. >>> I think Thunderbird takes the 'Originator' from the mail's header, >>> Originator: a...@doofus.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) in your case, >>> (while you sent via eternal-september.org) >> That header has nothing whatsover to do with what News server was used >> to inject an article into Usenet either. Please stop guessing. >See my immediate correction, Thunderbird uses the header field "From". >And in most cases the poster will use an email from there, so it is >enough.
You're flat out wrong.
Google introduced Google Groups a long time ago, buying out Deja's archives. gmail is merely a few years old. Posters through Google Groups use whatever the hell email addresses they like. Plenty of Usenet users have gmail addresses but would never dream of posting to Usenet via Google Groups.
Anybody can use any address they like to post to Usenet. Authenticating a From line has never been a prerequisite for posting to Usenet. That's why there are forgeries and spoofed addresses and invalid addresses. People may post with an actual mailbox that hasn't been checked in years. Spammers post through Google Groups and sure as hell haven't set up legitimate addresses in any domain, even if the spam isn't using forged email addresses.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Please withdraw your correction and both guesses. What you posted isn't germane to the issue of kill filing articles posted through Google Groups.
>> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work >> out how to use killfiles.
> The trouble is having to add 10 things to the killfile every > day. My killfile is so long, it takes about an hour to process > incoming messages through it.
There are various ways in which your killfile could probably be optimised for speed and accuracy. Merely pressing "k" may not be the most efficient method.
I haven't seen anybody from sci.math asking for advice about killfiling in news.software.readers. Advice on killfiling is easy to find, if one asks in the right place.
Seriously: do the supporters of this proposal really want to abandon (and consequently damage) sci.math? Why not try ignoring the trolls, kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
Note, btw, that non-Euclidean geometry is very silly indeed. The idea that -1 can have a square root is very silly indeed. The general theory of relativity is very silly indeed.
The plan to exclude silly stuff from a mathematical newsgroup worries me. A small part of today's silliness may be tomorrow's orthodoxy.
> >>> This is mostly because of one Martin Musatov, a renowned performance > >>> artists and screenwriter who has lately been conducting a peculiar > >>> experiment on sci.math and related groups, posting thousands of > >>> messages of apparently random[1] drivel.
> Does it constitute spew, and thus abuse of the net?
> >> Does this person morph, or change addresses?
> > Yes, very incompetently.
> >> That is, is it possible to simply filter out those messages if one > >> wishes?
> > It is not at all difficult.
> I find it amusing that a bunch of mathematicians are unable to work > out how to use killfiles. > -- > PJR :-)
Yet they can prove that you are homomorphic to Boy George... -- John C.
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> Seriously: do the supporters of this proposal really want to abandon > (and consequently damage) sci.math? Why not try ignoring the trolls, > kooks, troll-feeders and kook-feeders instead?
They've seen you attempting to ignore me and failing !!
> Note, btw, that non-Euclidean geometry is very silly indeed. The idea > that -1 can have a square root is very silly indeed. The general > theory of relativity is very silly indeed.
Giving excellent evidence that YOU are indeed "Silly"...... -- John C. (Most excellent Math teacher)
