There's an idiot mass-closing old unfixed bugs

[Thomas Ward]

Realized I forgot to include the Code of Conduct link ([1] below):
http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct

On 04/16/2016 11:53 AM, Thomas Ward wrote:
> Teo,
>
> On 04/16/2016 11:28 AM, Teo Tei wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to bring your attention to the harmful conduct of a user
>> handling bugs in Launchpad.
>>
>> There's this "dino99", who is closing several bug reports just
>> "because they are old", regardless of whether they are fixed or not. I
>> think he should be stopped before he keeps doing damage.
> I think this needs to be evaluated from a bug triage procedure point
> of view.
>
> When a report is filed against an old release and not yet fixed, but
> the report hasn't been updated with comments indicating the issue is
> either fixed or still existent in the future releases, I would mark as
> "Incomplete" with a canned comment similar to "The reported release
> for this bug is now past End of Life, and is no longer supported for
> that release.  It is unclear if this bug still exists or not, so I am
> marking the bug as Incomplete.  If this issue is still confirmed in a
> currently-supported release of Ubuntu, then please make a comment to
> that effect, and set the bug status to New."
>
> I am not going to look through all your bugs, but the typical triage
> procedure *is* to Close or Invalid or Incomplete (or Won't Fix for
> series-targeted task items) EOL-release bugs.  Back a couple years
> after Karmic went End of Life, I went through and, with the API, mass
> closed at least 70 bugs still targeted to the Karmic release.
>
> They are not being abusive, nor are they being an 'idiot'.  They're
> being annoying, perhaps, but they are not entirely wrong with
> EOL-release bugs.
>> I have seen half a dozen bugs which I had reported myself ages ago,
>> closed in the last few days by this guy. So I have re-checked some of
>> those issues, and every single one of them still exists unfixed.
>>
>> I believe closing bugs without verifying them, just because they are
>> old and haven't been acted upon, is a demential and harmful conduct.
>> Bugs shouldn't be closed unless it is verified that they are fixed or
>> invalid.
> That's not the task of everyone - ideally, yes, everyone would test,
> but it's not a requirement in all cases, especially when going through
> and just targeting EOL-release issues in mass.
>
> As I stated before, I mass-close bugs at times when it's an EOL
> release - and make a canned comment saying "Mark this as 'New' if it
> still happens in a later release, and make a comment as such".  I also
> make a note that it is an automated mass-close executed by the API, or
> such, and therefore they know I'm doing it as a mass-task. 
>
> While that may not apply here, it still is valid to make note that you
> can always make a comment without being rude that the issue still
> exists, and ask for the bug to be reopened.  Or, you can file a new
> bug if the bug is *really* old, so we get updated apport information, etc.
>> Even worse, after I have wasted my time re-checking the issues
>> (something he should have done before closing them in the first place)
>> and verifying that they still exist in the current version of Ubuntu,
>> and hence have re-opened the issues, he insists in closing them.
>> Apparently he thinks I (or whoever reported the issue originally)
>> should file a new identical bug report, which seems to me a ridiculous
>> waste of time.
> See my comment earlier.
>> Have a look at this:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/747197
>> and other issues recently closed by dino99 and/or commented by teo1978
>> (whcih is me).
>>
>> In the case of the abovementioned issue, dino99 in his last comment
>> includes a link to some unrelated stuff which I don't know if he
>> thinks has some relation with the issue itself (which he must not have
>> read, because it doesn't) or with his threat to "act". It looks like
>> he's mentally ill or something.
>>
>> P.S.: I suggest that you don't waste your time replying to this
>> message because I am not going to look at the messages in this mailing
>> list and hence am very unlikely to read any reply.
> How fortunate "Reply All" exists, so it goes directly to you in
> addition to the mailing list.
>
> Because, while everything I said above still applies, you said
> something on the bug you linked that I may consider against the Ubuntu
> Code of Conduct - to quote from your comment on Bug 747197: "Is dino99
> a bot or a retarded person?"  The Code of Conduct [1] states in it two
> big issues of which you didn't do here:  Be Considerate, Be
> Respectful.  You didn't do that, and went on the offensive, and were
> VERY rude with using swear words, etc.  Don't do that - it's not in
> line with the Code of Conduct, and that is a very big no-no.
>
> In the off chance you don't want to read everything, the points are as
> follows:
>
>  1. I don't see abuse here - they're not idiotic, they're just trying
>     to clean up old ancient bugs that are against EOL releases, and
>     haven't yet been marked as being affecting a later release.
>
>  2. This doesn't mean the user is an 'idiot' or being abusive.  That's
>     your opinion because they're your bugs - that isn't a valid
>     opinion overall.
>
>  3. You were fairly rude, in a way against the Code of Conduct.  Try
>     and be courteous to people in the future.  Your email also echoes
>     these violations of the Code of Conduct, by calling the user an
>     "idiot" here in the subject line.
>
>
> ------
> Thomas Ward
> LP: ~teward
> Ubuntu Server Team Member
> Ubuntu Bug Squad and Bug Control Member
>