RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

[Rohan Dhruva]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Valorie Zimmerman
<valorie.zimmerman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:14 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 disagree. Thanks so much for taking the time to email about this.
>

Thank you, Valorie. From our brief interactions, you have been nothing
but reasonable, in spite of our disagreements, and I appreciate it.

>> 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
>
> The #ubuntu channel is huge, and is for technical help. Anything else
> is unwelcome, since it is so busy. That is why there are *lots* of
> other channels.
>
>> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards
>> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War
>> II and Hitler)
>
> Such language is not welcome in an *buntu space. In fact, it is not
> welcome anywhere on the Internet, IMO.
>

I've addressed this elsewhere, but this stemmed from the fact that I
did not have the perspective to realise those words are incendiary.
Sorry!

>> * 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)
>
> To me, this is your weakest point. #ubuntu-ops is for the purpose of
> ops helping on another out, interacting with the bots, and dealing
> with people out of the main channels. I was really disappointed in how
> much you escalated the discussion there.
>

The escalation happened only after the initial escalation of a
cross-channel ban. That issue was never really addressed, prompting
this email thread. While I understand your disappointment, I felt a
similar disappointment on being banned across channels.

>> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an
>> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement
>> * 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?
>
> All non-ops are asked right in the /topic to leave when their
> conversation is done. "General lack of responsibility"? Seriously?
> This is the entire reason we have become ops -- because we feel
> responsibility for keeping the channels pleasant and helpful.
>

I agree, and in no way am I trying to undermine the good work done by
the ops. That said, I do feel this was a wrong action, and I
originally felt there was no good recourse to it.

>> 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).
>
> This is exactly what should have been done. Once a person is quieted,
> they can discuss in private with the op if that is appropriate. Of
> course flooding and trolls are treated differently.
>
>>> 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.
>
> They are extremely offensive. I can imagine no venue where these terms
> would be NOT offensive.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Quieting an argument in a technical help channel is not "pretext". It
> is the appropriate way to keep the channel useful.
>
>>> * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
>>> discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
>
> #ubuntu-ops is NOT a "completely separate channel." It exists to
> safeguard #ubuntu and the other core Ubuntu channels.
>

Yes, but my point is that disagreements there should not spill over
into other channels, as happened 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?
>
> That is not personal bias. Those terms are alway offensive, everywhere.
>
>>> * 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?
>
> It isn't bad; just impractical for all but the worst offenders -- such
> as those who would use their power to penalize/punish users. Quieting
> and kickbanning are not punishment; they are protection of the
> channel.
>

As someone used the analogy in the channel -- it is akin to being told
to sit in the box during a hockey game, which is a form of penalty.

>>> * 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?
>
> I find the quality of ops to be almost universally high.
>
>>> * 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
>
> Nice to talk to you again in a more calm, reasoned manner. Again,
> thank you for taking the time to take the discussion to email.
>
> All the best,
>
> Valorie
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc



-- 
Rohan Dhruva