RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

[Charles Profitt]

Rohan:

Thanks for taking time to write about this to the IRC list. I want to offer some advice that was given to me a long time ago that I found valuable.

advice: When involved in an emotional discussion it is best to step away, regain emotional balance and refocus on the issue in a positive frame of mind.

Specifically:
Reflect on your actions, words and emotions in this situation.
     - When re-reading the logs do you feel your involvement helped to move the situation forward in a positive manner?
     - How do you feel the people you were talking too felt?

I am sure that we would all like to have a happy, friendly and inviting IRC and I believe this is your concern as well. 

Charles

---- Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Hi ubuntu-irc,
> 
> I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a while I
> ask questions and answer things I know.
> 
> Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a
> misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one of
> them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also
> off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and rude --
> especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and maybe
> new to Ubuntu itself).
> 
> On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk in
> #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On the
> -ops channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with the
> op who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it
> boils down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are offensive
> or not.
> 
> Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op chose
> to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in #ubuntu
> or provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was that I
> was likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any evidence
> of having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in
> various ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers' time,
> I can summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline hostile
> -- in (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the channel. I
> was unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with various
> people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as pathetic.
> 
> I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel will
> tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but here
> are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:
> 
> * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an argument
> seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding drama?
> ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person --
> there was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing
> language.
> 
> * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
> discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
> ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op overreaching:
> this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's
> personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed to
> affect a user's ability to enter a channel?
> 
> * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The
> discussion was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking up
> against the very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the channel's
> attitude was "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same
> things over and over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the
> channel, nor the very obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at least
> I felt that way from the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs show
> people suggesting each other to skip reading the scrollback and offer
> sympathies for people who actually wanted to read it. If that can be
> written off as humour, I would like to ask why the same kind of humour
> leads to a ban in #ubuntu.
> ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first forum in
> the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and
> hostile.
> 
> * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that
> instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as opposed to
> people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can ban
> someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion in
> another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least some
> kind of disciplinary action?
> 
> * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is that
> the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu
> standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several different
> ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow. People
> claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that the
> general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking about
> this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of your way
> to ban someone for a joke here and there?
> 
> * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes. Could I
> have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as much
> appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.
> 
> If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward to
> hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will try
> my best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was :)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Rohan
> 
> [1]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html
> [2]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html
> 
> -- 
> Rohan Dhruva