RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Sat May 17 01:36:06 UTC 2014

Thank you, I promise to also reply with short answers then.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Carl Karsten <carl at personnelware.com> wrote:
> Others have given more in depth answers, I would like to give some very
> short ones:
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you everyone for your responses.
>>
>> Someone on the channel said that there is no way I can come out
>> looking good in this whole discussion. Another person suggested that
>> while I had a point earlier, it has now been diluted by the ensuing
>> discussion.
>> I agree with both of those verdicts. If the whole conversation is
>> going to be coloured by that, I fear it will devolve into the same
>> points that were hashed on IRC.
>>
>> To pare down my email, the things I felt distasteful were:
>> * ops killing organic, non-insulting, non-inflammatory discussions by
>> silencing people
>
>
> #ubuntu is for tech support.
>
>
>>
>> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards
>> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War
>> II and Hitler)
>
>
> ops have to make judgment calls.  judgment comes from thinking, which will
> be influenced by feelings.
>
>

Judgement comes from evidence, not personal bias. Drawing implications
that certain words are related to certain historical events is
personal bias, not good judgement.

>>
>> * ops banning people in the main channel for discussions happening in
>> a completely separate channel (and to be banned by the same op who I
>> had the issue with is an obvious conflict of interest)
>
>
> judgment also comes from observing behavior in other channels.
>

If so, judgement should be reserved to that other channel. Not spill
over to #ubuntu, where there was no sign of misdoing by me.

>>
>> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an
>> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement
>
>
> There are many policies and procedures in place to contend with mistakes.
> You seem to think they are not appropriate because they allow for an op to
> make a mistake in the first place.
>
>

There are procedures, but it seems like both #ubuntu-ops and this list
are not an effective way to bring them up. All I have seen up to this
point is irrational behaviour excused under the catchphrase "judgement
calls need to be made".

>>
>> * overall hostility in #ubuntu-ops, mainly with people's insistence to
>> leave the channel -- why is it so important to push people out of a
>> channel?
>
>
> When someone is speaking in #ubuntu-ops, ops notice it and stop what they
> are doing to see what is going on.  If it isn't going to be productive, it
> would be nice if it stopped.
>

Inviting people to leave the channel because the discussion does not
go the way you want or because someone disagrees with you is not
"would be nice". It's hostile. (you refers to the people in the irc
channel, not you, Carl)

>>
>>
>> Happy to hear thoughts about this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rohan
>>
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rohan Dhruva
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carl K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>

-- 
Rohan Dhruva