Ubuntu IRC Dispute - Sent to you as per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess

[Bobby Coop]

In the interest of not coming off as childish or argumentative more than
I'm sure I already have, I'm not going to stretch this conflict out into
an extended back-and-forth war on a public list past this response.

I would appreciate it greatly if readers would read the logs of what
actually took place (attached to the original list post) and weigh in on
the situation.  I understand that Dennis is very active and helpful in
the community, and I certainly am not trying to convince anyone that he
is a 'bad person', but I feel that his behavior in this situation was
way out of line.

On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 09:51 +0200, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> On wo, 2007-08-08 at 20:44 -0400, Bobby Coop wrote:
> 
> > 	There was an animal rights debate in #ubuntu-offtopic that got a bit
> > heated (in the operator's eyes) and Seveas and ompaul had said that it
> > must stop.  Someone made a comment directed towards me after this had
> > occurred, and I responded to it and was banned by Seveas.  I wasn't
> > happy, but this is not the basis of my complaint.
> 
> This is the basis for all your problems. There were numerous warnings in
> -offtopic that it should stop, including 2 kicks (other people) and a
> warning that the next one will be banned.
> 
I have little interest in a prolonged debate about the facts of the
issue, which is why logs were attached.  It is not my intention to 'be
stubborn' about this, I feel wronged and am leaving it up to the
judgment of the reader to decide if it's justifiably so. An offtopic
violation in a channel containing the word 'offtopic' in the channel
name itself (during the course of a debate that had gone on for 10+
minutes, no less) should certainly not be grounds for prejudice in my
judgment in other channels.  Had I been using vulgar language or
disruptive tactics I would be more understanding, however that was not
the case here, seeing as the entire impact I had on #ubuntu was three
lines in a 30-45 minute time period.

I'm sincerely not trying to bicker with you, and I do not intend to
stretch this issue out past this response, but it's important to note
that my ban from #ubuntu-offtopic is _not_ what I'm concerned about
here, it's your behavior in banning me from #ubuntu and #ubuntu-ops.
> > 	I sent Seveas a private message roughly 5-10 minutes later asking about
> > the ban, as it had not been lifted, and received no response.  I tried
> > again to contact him via PM 5 minutes later with no response.
> 
> I'm sorry that it took longer than 10 minutes to respond, but a little
> patience never hurt anyone.
> 
For the record, you never responded via PM during this whole incident.
> > 	I tried to get Seveas's attention in #ubuntu (I was unaware that there
> > was an op channel at this point) by making the comment 'Seveas: alll i
> > am sayyyingg is give cooop a chance', which was admittedly me trying to
> > be cute.  Seveas warned me about being offtopic, and persisted in not
> > responding to my private messages.  After 20 minutes of attempting to
> > contact him privately, I sent '!offtopic | Seveas, coopster would like
> > you to know that he loves you and that' to #ubuntu, causing ubotu to
> > address the message towards Seveas.  This was an hour after the original
> > ban from -offtopic, and I was not terribly happy with the fact that I
> > couldn't communicate with the op who banned me.
> 
> So you continue to be offtopic after being warned and being banned from
> another channel.
> 
> > 	At this point I was banned from #ubuntu.  I looked at the website and
> > went to #ubuntu-ops to try to talk about the situation.  
> 
> And being stubborn about it. I explained several times why I banned you.
I believe that it is the prerogative of a person who feels that they
have been wrongly banned to try to discuss the situation. Double so when
they are doing it in the channel designated as appropriate to seek
resolution in a user v operator dispute.
> 
> > I did not
> > appreciate Seveas's attitude towards me, but the logs are there so I
> > won't characterize it any more than that.  After prolonged discussion
> > with Seveas and his insistence that nothing would be done and he would
> > unban me no sooner than Tuesday of next week (6 days from now),
> 
> ...because I'm leaving for holiday today and won't be back until then.
> 
> > despite
> > the fact that I actively do help out in #ubuntu, I tried to get other
> > ops involved.  Seveas was not happy with my description of what had
> > happened and banned me from #ubuntu-ops at that point.
> 
> I did not ban you, I muted you because you were lying.
The fact that I was not kicked does not change the fact that I _was_
banned. I was discussing the situation in the channel designated as the
channel for solving a dispute between a community member and an IRC
operator.  If you thought my description (which I was muted in the
middle of giving and literally was not able to finish typing the second
sentence of before I was banned/muted) was factually incorrect, the
appropriate response would be to shed light on the situation as to what
actually did happen via discussion and reference to the logs of the
incident.  When a person feels that they have been wronged by an IRC
operator and is trying to get other operators involved (as I was trying
to do at that time, I had moved past just talking to you),
banning/silencing that person _in the channel designated for dispute
resolution_ is NOT appropriate.  Or mature.  That sort of behavior is
very harmful to this community.

>From https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/OperatorGuidelines (emphasis mine)
- 
-- Snip --
Don't use ignore 

      * Even when people are very offensive to you in private chat,
        don't use your /ignore function. __You gave up that privilege
        when you opted to accept the position.__
----------

 From my log - 
-- Snip --
<coopster> I've been banned from a community support channel in which I
both request and provide support on the grounds of three lines of
'offtopic' conversation in which I attempted to contact an operator who
did not respond to PMs.  This is very counter to any sort of community
attitude.
<Seveas> coopster, now you are just lying and forgetting to tell most of
the story
<coopster> If I didn't actually care for the Ubuntu
communitiy/spirit/cause/whatever this would have been more than enough
to make me just leave and not come back.
<Seveas> so come back when you can talk like a reasonable person instead
of that
* ChanServ gives channel operator status to Seveas
* Seveas sets ban on %*!*@c-71-236-54-213.hsd1.tn.comcast.net
* ChanServ removes channel operator status from Seveas
<coopster> Seveas, that is not true.  That is all that occurred in
#ubuntu, the channel which I was banned from 
* #ubuntu-ops :Cannot send to channel
<Tm_T> err
<coopster> !!!
* #ubuntu-ops :Cannot send to channel
* Tm_T doesn't understand
-- Snip --