[01:03] * Pici waits for the banlist to fill [01:09] the notices with the iframe are the spammerific ones, or newer spammerific ones? [01:12] its the new one where you click and it automatically sends even more spam i think, very annoying [01:13] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [01:14] Does the ban list have a limit? [01:15] I ask because I am seeing a lot of K-Lines and the floodbots are setting bans in the ip's. Doesn't the K-Line itself remove the requirement for a ban? [01:16] Someone may be doing a bunch of K-Lines for the sole purpose of filling up the ban list, then they can come back with a new IP and do what they want and not get banned [01:18] FloodBot4 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [01:18] FloodBot1 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [01:21] you should +r/+R one of them for moment [01:23] no ops around ? [01:23] No idea. I just noticed something suspicious so I'm reporting it [01:24] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [01:24] !ops | niko place a +r in #ubuntu [01:24] niko place a +r in #ubuntu: Help! Channel emergency! (ONLY use this trigger in emergencies) - elky, Madpilot, tritium, Nalioth, tonyyarusso, PriceChild, Amaranth, jrib, Myrtti, mneptok, Pici, Jack_Sparrow, jpds, bazhang, jussi01, Flannel or ikonia! [01:24] niko called the ops in #ubuntu-ops (niko place a +r in #ubuntu) [01:25] niko: Thanks for looking into it :) [01:26] niko: floodbot 3 removed the +r/+R [01:26] yes [01:27] if kline stop, i will not put it again [01:27] There has been quite a number of k-lines lately [01:28] ardchoille: k-lines wont fill the ban list [01:28] Someone may need to clean out the ban list soon [01:28] at least, i dont think they will [01:28] maco: Oh, ok, disregard then [01:28] i think the ban list is per channel [01:28] Well, the floodbots are banning the k-lined ip's [01:28] there is probably a timer on these [01:28] and i think the k-lines are because of the spam pm's with the link that opens a new connection that then spams out pm's [01:29] yeah floodbots cant perma-ban [01:29] I haven't seen an unbans for them [01:29] ah, ok [01:30] Ok, well I've reported it and will let you good folks take it from here. Thanks for listening. [01:36] Are there #KUbuntu ops here? [01:36] how i can help you ? they seems away [01:39] niko: it seems that #kubuntu is blocking irc traffic originating from the freenode system. Specifically, i'm logged in via webchat.freenode.net, & #KUbuntu won't let me log into htat channel. Who can correct that, by enabling freenode's own webchat into #kubuntu? [01:40] I just had a thought about the global message about the new sort of spam [01:40] rejohn: its definitely not blocking all of freenode webchat [01:40] rejohn: however, it could be that your ip is blocked in #kubuntu [01:41] With the high user number in #ubuntu, someone could technically come into #ubuntu and say something like "I need help with this error http://pastebin.blah/blah" and have that page also contain the spamming code. [01:41] wait for an operator of #kubuntu [01:41] rejohn: and using the webchat is not a way to ban-evade, believe it or not [01:41] niko: is this place to wait faoo#K? [01:41] i'm a #kubuntu op [01:41] maco: That is what I was going to pm you about [01:41] niko: or is there a better channel? [01:42] rejohn: discuss with maco, forget me :) [01:42] however i dont recall how to get an ip address out of the hostname that the webchat gives [01:42] to see if your ip is banned [01:42] genii, jussi01: either of you aroun? [01:42] This makes me not want to click on any url's that people post in order to get help with something [01:42] (i'm also about to try to eat dinner very quickly before a meeting) [01:43] maco: thanks, I'm awaiting your suggestions. [01:43] ardchoille: paste.ubuntu.com, pastebin.ca, and pastebin.com are ok :) [01:43] maco: Ah, good point [01:43] rejohn: were you banned in there at any point in the past? [01:44] oh hey its not an IP ban [01:44] it's just plain "rejohn is banned" [01:44] rejohn: talk to tsimpson, as he set your ban [01:44] maco: i've been banned once at least, from #kubuntu, by an idiot sysop (true), that might be the cause. [01:44] you are still banned [01:45] you'll need to talk to tsimpson, the "idiot sysop" as you called him, to get it listed [01:45] (i dont think calling him an idiot will earn you any points, however) [01:45] maco: so, can someone unban me, because, truly, whoever banned me was acting like an idiot. [01:45] er, unbanned, i mean [01:45] rejohn: nope. whomever banned you is the one who has to unban you [01:45] if you believe this op is out to get you, please see the appeals process [01:45] !appeals [01:45] If you disagree with a decision by an operator, please first pay #ubuntu-ops a visit. If you are still unhappy, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess for the steps you should take. If you feel the need to discuss the channel rules, please contact the ops on IRC or via the email address on the aforementioned page. [01:46] maco: i don't care the least about "points", i care about progress & non idiotic behavior. [01:46] rejohn: let me be clear: i refuse to remove your ban as i did not set your ban. period. if you want your ban to be removed, take it up with the op who banned you (tsimpson). if you believe he is being unreasonable, you may file an appeal. [01:46] maco: then please now consider this my visit to #u-ops to get this corrected, [01:47] maco: I was already here, & spoke with several people when that ban occurred, the end of the conversation was basically "we made a mistake". I'd like to get unbanned, please. [01:47] please point to the logs on http://irclogs.ubuntu.com where a mistake was admitted [01:48] and then i'm sure someone will be happy to remove your ban [01:48] but right now, i have to get to a meeting [01:49] maco: the mistake was admitted during private msg com with me & two or 3 ubuntu ops, so probably nothing is in the log for this channel, but i'll check, [01:50] ANYONE (since maco has to leave) - Given that the !appeals says this is the place to, basically, get bans removed, is there someone here who can do that? [01:51] rejohn: one moment, let me take a look [01:53] Pici: it was likely on 2009.12.20 [01:55] rejohn: It was on the 18th. Do you remember why? [02:00] Pici: I'm back, any results? [02:04] Pici: i believe you can remove +r now [02:04] maco: Pici - is there a date indicated for the ban? [02:05] rejohn: It was on the 18th. Do you remember why? [02:05] niko: ty [02:06] Pici: yes, i'll tell you momentarily, let me look up the 18th log [02:14] Pici: Re ur question "why the ban": On that date, in #kubuntu, I made a relevant, on topic, helpful to the Kubuntu community post, & some person whose actions were at least ignorant, & perhaps idiotic, accused me of spamming. Spam it was definitely not. I came to this channel to try to resolve it, Someone from here asked if they could PM me, I said sure, we discussed it there with one other person from U-Ops, & the result was [02:15] Pici: niko maco tsimpson : Can anyone get that ban removed.? [02:20] Pici: niko maco tsimpson : Can anyone get that ban removed.? [02:20] rejohn: You discussed it in here? [02:21] Pici: to repeat what i just wrote, no, someone from here asked if they could pm me, we discussed it there with one other person. [02:22] Pici: will you please get that ban removed? [02:23] rejohn: The appeals process doesn't mean "hey, come here and we'll remove your ban", it means that we'll review your ban and if we think that your behavior has changed then it will be removed. [02:23] And you cannot have a private message with 3 people, which is why I asked if you had discussed it in this channel. [02:27] Pici: well, it's been a # of weeks, & my memory is that someone asked me if they could pm me, i said "sure", & we discussed things there. There was also someone else involved in the discussion at some point, perhaps just not in the pm, [02:27] Pici: do you have a log scan tool that can list all the dates since 2009.12.18 that i was in this channel? [02:28] Pici: So, what can you, or anyone, do now to get that ban removed? [02:29] rejohn: I've already looked at my logs, you came here asking for the senior ubuntu irc person and was not satisfied with any of the answers that you got. [02:30] rejohn: I understand why you may have thought that your announcement to #kubuntu was on-topic, but #kubuntu is not a discussion channel, it is for support only. [02:30] Pici: further, as my behavior was perfectly appropriate, & even moreso: was an assistance to the KUbuntu community, there is no valid reason that my behavior should have been different, nor should my behavior change. As a community member, someone abused _me_ by banning me improperly. [02:31] rejohn: Then I'm afraid I cannot help you at this time. If you wish to see this through further then you may send an email to the IRC Council, listed on the appeals page. [02:31] !appeals [02:31] If you disagree with a decision by an operator, please first pay #ubuntu-ops a visit. If you are still unhappy, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess for the steps you should take. If you feel the need to discuss the channel rules, please contact the ops on IRC or via the email address on the aforementioned page. [02:31] Pici: my announcemt was a form of support for KUbuntu community members, and thus pas 100% perfectly & properly on topic for that channel. i was abused by being banned. [02:35] Pici: Why do you state you cn't help me at this time? The channel topic says it is re operator abuse, which is my situation. Is this a discussion only, no action channel? [02:36] rejohn: Because you are under the impression that there was no wrongdoing on your part and the operator in question is the one who made the mistake. [02:37] Pici: who was "toiq" - tsimpson ? [02:37] rejohn: toiq? [02:37] "the operator in question" [02:37] Pici: who was "toiq" - tsimpson ? [02:37] rejohn: yes [02:38] Pici: so, tsimpson is logged into this channel, afai can see, but doesn't respond. Is there anyone else here who _can_ get this ban removed? [02:38] tsimpson: are you online? [02:39] He has been idle for ~8 hours. [02:39] Pici: so, Is there anyone else here who _can_ get this ban removed? [02:42] rejohn: Unless tsimpson returns, your next step would be to email the IRCC [02:42] Pici: thanks for your help. [02:44] Awesome3000 called the ops in #ubuntu () [02:45] FloodBot2 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (exploit) [02:45] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (exploit) [02:45] FloodBot4 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (exploit) [02:45] FloodBot1 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (exploit) [02:52] Can I please be unbanned from ubuntu-offtopic [02:57] Pici: do you have a log scan tool that can list all the dates since 2009.12.18 that i was in this channel? [02:58] Is there a log scan tool that can list the dates someone was in a particular channel, such as #ubuntu, or #kubuntu? [03:06] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [03:15] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [03:20] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [03:41] ubottu [03:53] rejohn, #ubuntu and #kubuntu are both publicly logged at irclogs.ubuntu.com. our log scan tool tends to be grep on our local systems of our local logs, but you could very easily replicate this with the contents of irclogs.ubuntu.com [03:57] we do have the benefit of being able to customise what our local logs record, and so we have the ip/hostname as per raw irc specs [04:05] rejohn: i show no instances of the nick "rejohn" in this cahnnel since the original date of the ban (when you kept asking who the "senior" person is) and today. [04:06] ah, that's where i remember the nickname from [04:07] also for the interest of those here but not -irc: Help please: it seems that #kubuntu is blocking irc traffic originating from the freenode system. Specifically, i'm logged in via webchat.freenode.net, & #KUbuntu won't let me log into htat channel. Who can correct that, by enabling freenode's own webchat into #kubuntu? [04:21] elky: thanks for the info about the logs, & specifically of when i was in this channel. [04:25] rejohn: FWIW, i find your conduct in #kubuntu to be disruptive and against the channel policy, as well. #kubuntu is a support channel. it is not there for people to make announcements. [04:26] rejohn: and belittling an op using your key is not going to get you anywhere when asked to stop. [04:30] hi [04:30] i need to speak to a OP [04:32] mneptok: please provide me a url for the channel policy which your comment references, thank you. [04:35] 21:34 -!- Topic for #kubuntu: Official Kubuntu support | Kubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala released! | Download Kubuntu 9.10: http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu | KDE 4.3.4 in backports | KDE SC 4.4rc1 in the Kubuntu Beta PPA: [04:35] http://www.kubuntu.org/news/kde-sc-4.4-rc-1 |FAQ: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/FAQ | Pastes: http://paste.ubuntu.com | Chat in #kubuntu-offtopic | Guidelines: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/IurcGuidelines [04:35] !offtopic-kubuntu [04:35] !offtopic [04:35] #ubuntu is the Ubuntu support channel, for all Ubuntu-related support questions. Please use #ubuntu-offtopic for other topics. Thanks! [04:35] rejohn: there you go [04:35] @login [04:35] The operation succeeded. [04:37] mneptok: 1) thanks for that info. [04:38] mneptok: 2) Are you a volunteer for ubuntu, or are do you work for any Ubuntu or Cannonical related company? [04:38] i am curently a volunteer, and am an alumnus of Canonical. why? [04:38] cobra679: what do you require? [04:39] mneptok: just a moment, & i'll get you an answer. [04:41] mneptok: 3) Since _you_ brought the topic up (ie, this is not something _I'm_ bringing up, I'm responding to _your_ comment. Just to say that if you think this is offtopic, it is a response to _your_ comment.), [04:43] mneptok: 3ctd) Time doesn't permit me to provide much comment on the way that what ""you" find" relates to the actual, in place, information for operation of the KUbuntu channel, [04:44] rejohn, the purpose of #kubuntu is that of technical support. if you were using it for content of another nature then you were outside the scope and hence, offtopic [04:44] #kubuntu is a support channel. as stated in its /topic and as you were told by tsimpso n. it is for support issues only, and not for announcements. [04:44] there's no ambiguity there. [04:44] mneptok: 3ctd) So first I will comment that we should all be aware, here, of evolution, & how things, like software, sw communities, & sw cmts communication methodologies work, [04:44] and this is not "because mneptok wants". it's because that's what it was made for, years ago. [04:45] mneptok can you unban from ubuntu offtopic [04:45] cobra679: no. [04:45] it has not evolved *from* a support channel, but rather evolved *away* from a support+development channel. it is now *only* support. [04:46] y [04:46] mneptok: 3ctd) So, since I can't actually currently see for myself what the KUbuntu topic is (Because I'm being blocked currently from seeing it), I will presume that what you wrote above is the actual channel message currently for @kubuntu, [04:46] cobra679: rather, i could. but i will not. your behavior was puerile and well within the limits of a bannable offense. [04:46] the channel list should show you the topics for all channels [04:49] /topic #kubuntu [04:50] mneptok: 3ctd) So, the key thing to note, relevenat to the current discussion topic, about that channel message, is that it totally fails to do the #2 important thing that such a message should do (for the a channel named "#kubuntu" for a major (GNU)Linux distro) (# 1 being saying the channel topic): provide a url to a _fuller description about what the channel is about_, [04:51] rejohn: the first three words in the /topic are "Official Kubuntu Support" [04:52] rejohn: you sent multiple lines of input that were not support related, and when asked to stop, and when told it was a support channel, you became argumentative, condescending, and defensive. [04:52] mneptok: 3ctd) Look at the url there provided: it is _not_ about the channel, it is merely about the sw. Now, given that I expect many people involved in #Kubuntu & Ubuntu are volunteers, I am not "nit picking",ie not trying to find minor problems & blow them up out of proportion, [04:53] rejohn: if it is such a major issue, why are you the first person in many, many months to not understand the idea of "it's a support channel?" [04:54] rejohn: IOW, the problem exists for you, not for the community as a whole. this means you need to modulate your behavior, and not that the community needs to take action. [04:57] mneptok: 3ctd) But, if someone here (you) desires _to raise as an issue that is _relevant__, the issue of how participants in the channel should behave with respect to the channel, then it is _truly important_ for such persons (you) to learn key things about the endeavor in which they are involving themselves, ie, in this case, proper communication of accepted behavior wrt communication in the #kubuntu channel, instead of doin [04:57] mneptok: 3ctd) [ctd] "operating by the assumption that people some mind reading skills" that humans _don't_ have. [04:58] rejohn: this is becoming a lecture. i don;t like lectures. when you are ready to have a conversation where you listen to what the other party says and react to it, rather than just bombard with your own opinion, feel free to get my attention. [04:58] * mneptok walks away [05:00] mneptok: Point: It is idiotic (or perhaps idiotic & uninformed/uneducated) to expect any casual user of some specific irc channel to know things about such channel when the channel ops have failed to communicate that info in the #1 manner they should do (ie, by putting a url for _the channel communication policies (not _only_ a url for the sw) _in the channel message_., [05:01] mneptok: 3end) I wish I had more time to try to uplift your consciousness on that, but life is short. [05:03] rejohn: When you join the channel, you are presented with both the scope of the channel, and the URL for more information regarding the expected behavior of the channel. [05:07] ugh [05:08] ok [05:09] thanks for your help mneptok [05:09] when can i come back ? [05:09] and ask again [05:11] 24-27 hours [05:12] cobra679: until then, please read ... [05:12] !guidelines [05:12] The guidelines for using the Ubuntu channels can be found here: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcGuidelines [05:12] !CoC [05:12] The Ubuntu Code of Conduct is a community etiquette document to which we ask all Ubuntu users to adhere, and can be found at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct/ . For information on how to electronically sign the CoC, see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SigningCodeofConduct . [05:12] cobra679: and that should be 24-72h [05:13] mneptok: So, before my connection dropped, I saw that your comment saying you wished to be output only on the conversationtopic you started with me. Fine enough. Your loss. [05:14] rejohn: your ban is not being lifted at this time. you have been informed of the appeals process, and you can /whois tsimpso n to determine when the op who set the ban is active, and re-/join this channel then. until then, please abide by our no-idling policy stated in this channel's /topic. thanks. [05:17] mneptok: actually, the freenode webchat service doesn't provide that info in the /whois response, as far as I can tell. I've already tried that, only says "is signed on", as closest thing to "active". [05:17] Anyone know when tsimpson might likely be back here? [05:18] rejohn: I'll hazard a guess that you could really speak to *any* operator. Not just tsimpson. But you'll actually have to have a conversation about the ban and your behavior. [05:24] Flannel: I was told by Pici that Pici couldn't help me, that I'd need to speak to tsimpson, but I'm fine with speaking to anyone who can get the improper ban removed. [05:26] rejohn: There is no improper ban to be removed. You were acting inappropriately, and you almost certainly won't be let back in until you agree to not act in the same way in the future. [05:29] Flannel: I believe you are wrong. And further,I believe that _if_ you _are_ correct, you are only so by incorrect/improper process. [05:32] rejohn: We have a responsibility to our users. That responsibility is, in this case, to keep the support channels available for support. Advertising things, even when they're ubuntu related, isn't support, and as such, isn't allowed. [05:35] Flannel: But, really, likely on or about that day, someone(s) from here _did_ have a discussion with me, & the bottom line is I was told something like "perhaps mistakes were made (in banning you) [becasue every issue they inquired about, was not applicable]. Bottom line: I'd really like to find out who from ub-ops had that conversation with me, so the entire line of ubuntu-ops faulty reasoning doesn't have to be re-destructe [05:35] Flannel: & get the ban removed from operational activity. [05:36] Flannel: are you an employee of Cannonical/ubuntu etc, or are you in the community only as a volunteer? [05:38] rejohn: That day you came here, and wanted to speak to a "senior" operator, and then after you were given the answer ('no') you didn't pursue your question further. [05:39] rejohn: If you have no further questions or comments regarding your ban, please don't idle here. Feel free to come back in the future when you feel like you'll be able to move this issue forward. Thanks [05:39] Flannel: When is _now_, as I've already stated, [05:40] rejohn: You may claim that, but your actions haven't been supporting that idea. [05:41] Flannel: Are u able 2 determine who had the discussion w/me that day (referred 2 earlr in todays covmstn here)? [05:41] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [05:41] rejohn: I have the discussion from that day, yes. No one had a discussion that resembled your description. [05:42] Flannel: So, tell me who here is in a position 2 reolve the issue & remove the (iirc improper) ban. [05:43] rejohn: I am in a position to potentially resolve the issue. I've said this already. [05:43] Flannel: do you have the capability to grep the #ubuntu & #kubuntu logs for my nic & tell me what days I was in those channels, since Nov 2009? [05:44] rejohn: I do. Is it relevant? [05:45] Flannel: it is relevant: I'd like to use that as starting data to see if I can locate some info that indicates who (from ub-ops) I had the conversation with that I referenced earlier. [05:45] Flannel: would you mind finding that out? [05:46] rejohn: You're looking for this log: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/12/18/%23ubuntu-ops.html [05:51] Flannel: thanks, no, i'd already located that on my own, & read it, & it is not what I'm asking about. I asked if someone could grep the #ubuntu #kubuntu logs for my nic for Nov 2009 to today, & tell me what dates my nic is there. [05:54] Flannel: can you locate that? [05:56] rejohn: Whether or not someone told you that you were banned mistakenly is irrelevant. I'm telling you right now that you weren't. [05:58] rejohn: Whether or not someone told you that you were banned mistakenly is irrelevant. I'm telling you right now that you weren't. [05:59] Flannel: Although I'd greatly like having to take the time to redo the conversation, go ahead: please tell me what you think justifies any ban on me now. [06:01] rejohn: You still believe that your previous actions were justified, which means if we let you back in, you won't know any better than to create another disruption. I've already stated this. [06:04] Flannel: You state "disruption" as the sole justifying reason. Please stick to the discussing specifics, with url reference to the specific, relevant policy violated. Because I did nothing justifying a ban then, nor now, when I'm still banned improperly. [06:05] rejohn: You were being offtopic, that's not allowed. [06:06] Flannel: please quote anythng I said that you think wasn't allowed, & also a url to a relevant rule that stated (at that time) that such a statement was unallowed. [06:06] rejohn: "Don't be annoying" would be another, "Subject" part of 'language and subject', or we can go to the code of conduct: "Be considerate" "Be Respectful" [06:07] rejohn: Please come back in at least 48 hours. Read over the code of conduct, and the IRC guidelines in that time. Thanks. [06:07] Flannel: please stick to specifics, please. [06:07] rejohn: Have a nice evening. [06:09] Flannel: Check this out: 1) you said you could resolve the issue. 2) You fail to provide specifics. 3) You are unspecific, & don't do what you say you will do, you are unreliable, & your unreliablity & false statement is all publically logged for everyone to see, by the ubuntu.com [06:10] rejohn: I said I was able to resolve the issue. That doesn't mean it would be resolved. It's resolution depends solely on you. [06:11] rejohn: I'm not sure how much more specific you need, I gave you a laundry list. [06:12] rejohn: But like I said, I'll be happy to discuss it again after 48 hours. Please take the time to become familiar with and internalize the channel guidelines so you'll understand why you were banned. [06:13] Flannel: so, if you wish to be a person of your word, then, no, the resolution depends at least half on (a reliable, truthful, honest) person representing the ubuntu-ops. If you wish that to be _your_ reputation, then don't say one thing (I could work to resolve it with you) then fail to provide any specifics, then further indicate you won't fulfill your word, & you, after I follow your sggestion to resolve it now, back out o [06:14] Flannel: So, if you wish to follow on your word/suggestion: retrace your abusive comment of "come back later" when you'd indicated I should take my time to try to resolve this with you now. [06:14] rejohn: Resolution generally requires conversation about the ban. When all you're going to do is deny the fact that your previous behavior is bannable, we are at an impasse. [06:16] Flannel: you have made a bald faced false statement about me, & your false statement is publically logged by ubuntu.com on the internet., [06:16] Flannel: your false statement is evident by reading merely todays log here. [06:19] Flannel: If you want to mend your reputation which you just publically damaged yourself, then let's proceed on getting this issue resolved. IIRC, You've made a (factually false) accusation to me (let me reread the log to get the correct quote), so start by doing job 1, the basics: quote anything I wrote that you think justifes a ban, & quote a url that indicates clearly that what I was was prohibited. [06:20] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [06:23] I see the spambots have changed their tactics [06:23] DCC... a bit more difficult to counter [06:26] Myrtti: They DCC a URL which causes you to become a DCC spambot [06:26] I have located part of the conversation to which I earlier referred: [06:26] [19:45] rejohn: My original position based ont he reports I recevied and witnessed is that you violated freenode policy, that was my mistake [06:27] Flannel: I know, I fought the attack earlier when they spammed the channel instead of users [06:27] Dominian: Are you here? [06:27] rejohn: freenode != Ubuntu, Ubuntu != freenode [06:28] ubuntu irc channels can have and do have rules that are tighter than freenode policy [06:28] Myrtti: please tell me something i don't know already. [06:28] so the statement that you have not violated freenode policy isn't up to discussion here [06:29] it's the violation of Ubuntu IRC guidelines [06:30] having said that, I need to shower, have doctors appointment in 90min [06:31] Myrtti: I'd love to continue this conversation with you at this time, (if you were able to get this ban removed), but I am past due to be asleep, & must leave in too short a time to conclude this conversation now. Thanks for your effort, I will have to try later to resolve this matter. [06:33] good morning [06:37] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [06:38] rejohn: please respect our no-idling policy (clearly stated in the channel /topic) [06:38] rejohn: failure to remove yourself may result in us removing you [06:41] mneptok: Do you know when tsimpson or Dominian will be around? [06:42] rejohn: I just woke up, but after reading some of the backlog here I am unwilling to remove the ban affecting you [06:42] tsimpson: have we spoken before? [06:42] rejohn: when you joined here last time, yes [06:43] tsimpson: please tell me a date & time, so I can look up our previous discussion. [06:44] rejohn: we talked in #kubuntu before you joined here [06:46] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [06:46] this was around Dec 18 02:34:53 UTC [06:47] but looking at my logs, you did a similar thing on Apr 19 23:42:44 UTC, about the so called "GLOBAL KUBUNTU MEETING" [06:50] tsimpson: what is your position in the ubottuops group? [06:51] I am a recent member of the IRC Council, but I can abstain from this issue if you'd rather [06:52] tsimpson: I am told that it was you that banned my nic from #kubuntu. Is that true? [06:52] it is [06:53] tsimpson: why? [06:53] because you posted offtopic comments [06:54] also because you refused to see it as off topic [06:56] rejohn: is there anything else I can help you with? [06:58] tsimpson: Would you mind showing me a url that indicates banable comments for the #ubuntu channel? [06:58] tsimpson: or, that says anyting about posting offtopic comments in the #ubuntu channel? [06:58] rejohn: you have been given that information already, the IRC Guidelines and Code of Conduct [06:59] tsimpson: I'm asking _you_ if you'd mind telling me that, because _you_ have told me it was _you_ that banned me [quite & totally without proper justification, i believe]. [07:00] tsimpson: Would you mind showing me a url that indicates banable comments for the #ubuntu channel? [07:00] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcGuidelines [07:01] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct [07:02] tsimpson: thank you. those two documents have many items in them. Will you please quote here the component therin for which you choose to ban my nic. [07:03] read the "Language and Subject" and "Don't be annoying" parts [07:03] also the "Be respectful" and "When we disagree, we consult others" parts of the code of conduct [07:06] tsimpson: I believe I was improperly & wrongly banned by (you indicate it was you, tsimpson). Will you please quote anything I did that you think justified a ban? [07:07] rejohn: if you believe that you were wrongly banned then you should follow the next step of the appeal process [07:07] !appeals [07:07] If you disagree with a decision by an operator, please first pay #ubuntu-ops a visit. If you are still unhappy, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess for the steps you should take. If you feel the need to discuss the channel rules, please contact the ops on IRC or via the email address on the aforementioned page. [07:08] tsimpson: I've been informed the _first_ step is to talk with _you_ (the person who self admits banning my nic), _here_. [07:08] tsimpson: so, I'm following the procedure as it has been explained to me so far, [07:09] tsimpson: since you banned me, I think you owe me a explanation: Moreover, not some kind of hand-wavy, generalization on, rules qouting only, but something that has these two exact pieces: [07:09] rejohn: you have completed the first step with no resolution [07:10] rejohn: I have explained it to you, and so have others [07:10] you disagree with our explanations, so you should continue with the next step [07:11] tsimpson: 1) a quote from me, & 2) a link from the urls that indicates that kind of statement is a bannable statement [I don't think it is possible to accomplish that, because I believe everything I wrote was unprohibited, & _furthermore_ was a _benefit_ to the KUbuntu community, who you, through your ban action, have robbed.] [07:13] rejohn: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/12/18/%23kubuntu.html#t02:34 [07:13] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [07:14] tsimpson: I believe you have failed to fulfill your responsibility to 1) me, & 2) the KUbuntu community, because you have _not_ provided a valid "explanation" -(which furthermore is irrelevant - it is not a hand wavey "explanation" that you owe me & the KUbuntu community, but 1) a quote from me, & 2) a url & qoute of some rules therein which, presumably, my quote violated)., [07:15] since we are going around in circles, I suggest you elevate the issue to IRC Council. [07:15] you have all of those, a quote from you (in the logs), the rules (IRC Guidelines and CoC) and the explanation (from here) [07:15] this discussion is clearly going nowhere [07:15] next step: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess [07:16] tsimpson: so, I am here trying to accomplish step _1_, find out from _you_ (who did the banning) exactly _why_ you think there was _any_ _proper_ _valid_ justification for doing so., [07:16] you have been told [07:16] tsimpson: until you do so, you are violating both me, _&_ the KUbuntu community., [07:16] so please continue with the next step in the appeals process [07:17] I am now refusing to continue with this, as I feel we are going nowhere [07:17] tsimpson: but, I am more than willing to cut you some slack, even though you've hurt me & the KUbuntu community both, if you are not a cannonical/ubuntu employee., [07:17] tsimpson: Do you work for Ubuntu or Cannonical, etc? [07:18] sorry for interrupting rejohn, but i don't think the discussion can progress any further here, as all measures possible here have already been taken. please move on as tsimpson suggest. thanks [07:20] topyli: are you a supervisor of tsimpson ? [07:20] the operators are colleagues here, no more nor less [07:23] rejohn, oh i am a member of the irc council. however, the council is not in session here === WireWulf is now known as GnuWulf [07:29] my brain hurts [07:32] rejohn: please respect our no-idling policy (clearly stated in the channel /topic) [07:32] rejohn: failure to remove yourself may result in us removing you [07:33] back [07:33] tsimpson: You might find that 1) it saves time for those higher up (in the appeals process), & 2) is the proper thing to do to respect the KUbuntu community, if you would, please, provide just two specific items here: 1) a _specific_ quote from me, & 2) a _specific_ banning-applicable rule that my quote violates. That really isn't much for me to ask. & if you _don't_ provide such, it looks as if you didn't _have_ any justifi [07:33] 00:17 <+tsimpson> I am now refusing to continue with this, as I feel we are going nowhere [07:33] the discussion is over in this channel at this time. [07:36] rejohn: http://paste.ubuntu.com/356432/ is that specific enough? [07:38] Flannel: thank you. You have done what tsimpson , sadly, failed to do., [07:38] rejohn: Except he didn't, since he gave you the same thing. Now please, you're done here. [07:41] Flannel: and, going by topyli 's comment, _You_ now have the opportunity to respect the community, where tsimpson wouldn't, by either providing a relevant url indicating what I wrote was prohibited (which Can't be done, I believe, because my comment _was_ _on topic_ & _relevant_ & _not prohibited_ for the #kubuntu channel), [07:42] thankee mneptok [07:42] np. i don;t mind being the "bad guy" in this case. [07:45] so, the Ubuntu-ops doubly disrespect the kubuntu community, & myself, by killing my #ubuntu-ops connection when I'm trying to get abuse resolved? [07:46] Shame on you. [07:50] mneptok: you're missing the ?= [07:50] oh, you fixed it :) [07:52] tsimpson: that won't work :( [07:52] er, never mind [07:53] I just took off the session part from the other ban [07:53] thanks :) [07:54] i'm not sure why we don't ban _all_ proxies that use the hex/IP format ( your ban only stops "blessed" sources ) === _Dave2_ is now known as Dave2 [08:08] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [08:17] llutz called the ops in #ubuntu (gast) [08:23] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [08:33] that was pure sillyness, where these lecturers come? [08:49] In #ubuntu-offtopic, rww said: !no, ff35 is Firefox 3.5 Final is available for Jaunty by installing the packages firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.5-gnome-support | More information: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion | FF3.5 is called Shiretoko in your UI: http://is.gd/1reB3 [08:52] !ff35 [08:52] Firefox 3.5 Final is available for Jaunty by installing the package firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.5-gnome-support | FF3.5 is referred to as Shiretoko in your UI, see http://is.gd/1reB3 for an explanation | Hardy & Intrepid: http://is.gd/1jkNY [08:54] !no, ff35 is Firefox 3.5 Final is available for Jaunty by installing the packages firefox-3.5 and firefox-3.5-gnome-support | More information: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion | FF3.5 is called Shiretoko in your UI: http://is.gd/1reB3 [08:54] I'll remember that jussi01 [08:54] !ff35 > rww [08:57] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [09:45] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [10:12] Just a quick curiousity question, who, in the last month or so has looked at/read the IRC guidelines/operator guidelines? and who has subscribed to the pages for changes? [10:13] jussi01: Not likely one of us. [10:13] jpds: why not? [10:14] jussi01: You can see who's subscribed on the page's Info page. === WireWulf is now known as GnuWullf [10:17] ie. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcGuidelines?action=info&general=1 [10:19] IRSeekBot (in #ubuntu) is a bot. I'm guessing. [10:20] 3_3 [10:20] yes [10:20] kinja-sheep: yes, it is, and its allowed to be there. [10:20] jussi01: Oh okay. I'm just wondering since I know there are two bots, but IRSeekBot is a new nickname to me. [10:21] Later. ;o [10:21] kinja-sheep: yeah, its basically just a logbot same as ubuntulog, but to a different page [10:21] Somebody's personal bot? [10:22] Anyway, just wanted to let you guys know. [10:41] jussi01: I am already subscribed to it [10:41] and yes, I read it recently :) [10:45] * jussi01 would like to encourage people to review on a semi regular basis, and subscripe to the page for changes. it is important that we keep them in mind when we are dealing with people who break them. [10:56] review what? [10:56] either i've lost some lines of backlog (bip gave me one) or you've missed adding context it in your enthusiasm [11:02] elky: the ops and user irc guidelines [11:16] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [11:37] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [11:39] this is getting tiresomme [11:48] FloodBot3 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (clone flood) [11:49] banlist is filling up fast majority seem to be klined [11:49] hold on... [11:49] http://ubuntu.pastebin.com/f665d18c0 [11:51] crap [11:51] * Myrtti facepalms [11:51] now I can't grep k-lines from the channel :-( [11:52] /lastlog -file klines.log -QUITS "K-lined" [11:54] the top one of mine is phix. remove at your peril [11:55] second one iirc needs a good stern talking to still [11:55] * elky bt's the last [11:56] 137 by the floodbots [11:56] elky: what I'm worried is the floodbot ones that have actually been k-lined [11:56] they're on the list redundantly [11:57] the floodbot stuff shouldn't last past a week [11:57] at least, that's how i thought the code worked [11:57] if we wait for a week, the banlist might fill up several times over [11:58] with the current recurrance of the attacks [12:00] wait, these are all that recent? [12:00] some are. I'm checking them over [12:01] whhat channel is best for questions about Ubuntu (not just support)? [12:01] remove anything older than a week. the majority are probably to do with the ctcp flooding that was happening [12:01] gnomefreak: what kind of questions? [12:01] I've started checking from Floodbot1. If someone else wants to do Floodbot2 etc. go ahead. I'm adding a comment of the ones that are not this "http standard iframe" autobans [12:01] gnomefreak, that really depends on what kid of "not just support" [12:01]