RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

[Terence Simpson]

Hello Rohan.

I'm going to try and reply the points you made in this email. And
then, in another email thread, I'm going to expand a little on some of
the issues you raise.

On 16 May 2014 07:45, 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).
>
The way we use quiets (+q) in the Ubuntu channels is as a measure to
protect the channel from some continuing disruption. The idea being
that we can talk to the user in private or in #ubuntu-ops while
preventing them from continuing to disrupt the channel.

> 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.
>
Well I think you can agree that any name-calling is going to be
counter productive. Respect is at the core of the Ubuntu community and
any kind of personal attack is really just not acceptable. Although I
can understand your frustration and the points you were trying to
make, resorting to that only damages your side of the debate.

> 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.
>
No one seems to have come forward with this, but in team discussions
regarding what happened we've come to the consensus that the ban on
you was a mistake and should not have happened.
Although the discussion in #ubuntu-ops wasn't exactly civil, I (and
others) see no reason to believe it was likely to spill over into
#ubuntu.

> 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?
If someone is continuing an argument after being asked to stop etc, yes.
> ** 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.
The guidelines are not the only circumstances an op is allowed to act,
preventing disruption to the normal flow of the channel is the primary
purpose of having operators.

> * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
> discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
Generally, no that's not OK.
If an operator has a reasonable belief that someone intends to disrupt
another channel then it's reasonable to act to prevent that. I think
that's a relatively rare situation and wasn't the case here.
> ** 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?
Name calling is bound to provoke, or at least intensify a situation.
One reason to avoid doing it at all.

> * 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.
I noticed the "discussion" in #ubuntu-ops quite some time after it had
begun, and it seemed to be going around in hostile circles (hence the
quotes). This is why I suggested to you that email may be a better
medium, as it's easier to put points across in a thoughtful manner
when you remove the real-time aspect.

The comments you refer to about the scrollback were intended as
humour, even ops aren't serious all the time. There is a difference
between what is acceptable in #ubuntu-ops and what is acceptable in
the #ubuntu support channel. The acceptable content in a purely
technical support channel, especially with a large number of users, is
restricted to technical support.
(I want to address your views on #ubuntu-ops in my next email.)

> * 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?
We have a process for appeals against operator action and we have a
governing council which is responsible for oversight of the IRC team.
Coming into #ubuntu-ops and asking for some action to be taken against
an operator is simply not going to lead to an action there and then.

We (the IRC team and the council) would generally rather discuss what
happened and use it as a learning experience than simply administer
some arbitrary punishment. That's not to say no one should ever be
reprimanded or punished for anything, just that it's not something
taken lightly.

I think the comments you made about allegations of being childish and
immature were made after people trying to explain the process to you.
Though I think the frustration on all sides made this difficult to get
across and understand.

> * 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?
Operators are accountable to the Ubuntu IRC Council, which is itself
accountable to the Ubuntu Community Council. We also try and promote a
culture of peer review, where other operators (even of other channels)
can express if/where they think a mistake/overreaction happened.

> * 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.
I think others have given you plenty of feedback on your behaviour,
and you do seem to understand it could have been handled better on
both sides.

> 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 :)
I've subject the IRC community to horrifically long emails, I guess I
should be expected to read them too ;)

> 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
>

I was going to write some of my views here, but as you said this is
quite a long email (especially with the quotes). So I'm going to
compose my thoughts into another reply.

To be continued.

--
Terence Simpson (tsimpson)