[00:37] <tonyyarusso> @login
[00:37] <tonyyarusso> Still borked eh?
[00:38] <tonyyarusso> ts2, jussi: Is someone stabbing the bot soon?
[03:58] <mbeierl> anyone been informed of "hans_reiser" in #ubuntu pm'ing ?
[03:59] <mbeierl> the nick appears to repeat posts back to the originator in a pm
[04:01] <mbeierl> Can so
[04:01] <mbeierl> someone please kick that nick?
[04:07] <mbeierl> Hello?  anyone around, please?
[04:20] <DrkCodeman> bot is in #ubuntu spamming everyon it's name is hans_reiser
[04:20] <KFP> Hi there. There's a guy called "hans_reiser" in #ubuntu who sends unsolicited PM spam.
[04:21] <KFP> Also, the nick is a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser    (a Linux developer who's sitting in prison for murder).
[04:33] <tonyyarusso> KFP: Is it triggered on join, certain words, anything?  also DrkCodeman
[04:33] <KFP> tonyyarusso: Automatically responds in PM to anything said in channel.
[04:34] <tonyyarusso> Confirmed.  Thanks.
[04:35] <tonyyarusso> All gone.
[04:35] <KFP> Thanks. :)
[08:11] <popey> /9/9
[08:11] <popey> bah
[11:28] <pangolin> someone please explain to malv that his BS is not going to be tolerated
[11:28] <pangolin> thank you
[11:30] <topyli> i've had to remove him before, last time he was on about muslims. not sure if my comments got on bt, ubottu never confirmed
[11:31] <pangolin> he's a good candidate for permanent ban
[11:39] <malv> jussi wrongfully banned me
[11:39] <malv> for some reason
[11:40] <jussi> Im going to step back and let someone else talk here, as the complaint is against me.
[11:40] <malv> I would like another admin to supervise jussi in all future administrative decisions
[11:40] <jussi> if anyone has some time.
[11:40] <pangolin> time for frivolous complaints from known troll...nope.
[11:40] <malv> I would like a proper answer
[11:41] <pangolin> !appeals
[11:41] <malv> I am appealing
[11:41] <pangolin> ban won't be removed anytime soon. have a good night
[11:41] <malv> why not?
[11:41] <malv> where is my judicial hearing
[11:42] <topyli> malv: this is not a court. you're out of the channel, have a good time elsewhere
[11:42] <malv> no explanation?
[11:42] <topyli> your behavior is not compatible with our code of conduct
[11:43] <topyli> also, you don't seem to be learning from hints so you haven't improved it
[11:43] <malv> I would like to hold a vote to strip topyi of administrative privileges
[11:43] <Myrtti> what other explanation do you need than we don't need or want trolls in our channel. I just looked what you've said in #ubuntu-offtopic and I see nothing but flamebaiting
[11:43] <malv> i vote yay
[11:43] <Myrtti> malv: denied
[11:43] <malv> but topyli instigates
[11:43] <malv> very unbecoming of an admin
[11:43] <malv> he should be demoted to junior admin
[11:44] <pangolin> enough of that.
[11:45] <topyli> yeah. make that a week or two and we'll see. i don't have high hopes
[11:45] <pangolin> Some day I will quit the ops team/irc and I will try to remember to remove it. :P
[11:48] <topyli> office cleanup :)
[12:37] <Myrtti> charming
[13:15] <topyli> malv just invited me to #markshuttleworth
[13:15] <LjL> oh lordie
[13:15] <LjL> we're all picking on him in ##club
[13:15] <LjL> he's a racist cunt
[13:16] <pangolin> err
[13:16] <LjL> (and no i don't regret saying that on a logged channel, no)
[13:16] <topyli> and we're CoC-compliant :)
[13:16] <pangolin> I'll not remind you of the CoC in that case
[13:18] <LjL> i'm unlikely to care about offending people worth being offended when the CoC's application is cherry-picked, like you can badmouth pretty much everyone but CC members, and things like that
[13:19] <LjL> fix that, and i'll be more careful :)
[13:19] <pangolin> the new IRCC will fix it.
[13:19] <pangolin> with any luck
[13:20] <LjL> well yeah maybe, i'll make an effort to start afresh myself after they're elected
[13:20] <czajkowski> LjL: out of interst, why don't you now with the current IRCC?
[13:22] <LjL> czajkowski: oh nothing much against the individual members of the current IRCC, they're mostly good people, but somehow things have gotten out of their hands, and as it happens i suspect they're so frustrated with it all at this point, that they won't even attempt to set things straight anymore. i don't blame them. but i'm just not going to avoid calling things and people with their names
[13:22] <LjL> until standards are back to being applied consistently
[13:23] <pangolin> Shouldn't we be the ones applying those standards?
[13:23] <pangolin> you know, lead by example and all that
[13:23] <pangolin> NOTE: I am nowhere near perfect
[13:24] <czajkowski> LjL: have to say it's rather disapointing to see to be honest, I think as pangolin says people shoul lead by example. blatant dismissing of rule and standards till you get a new council sees a bit harsh
[13:24] <LjL> pangolin, learding by example involves, for instance, the courage and ability to discuss (for example) CC members' behavior just the same as we discuss other people's behavior in #ubuntu-ops-team
[13:25] <LjL> but when someone is called offtopic doing that, then the CoC is being turned upside down to who-knows-whose advantage
[13:25] <LjL> at that point i think it's worthless to just keep pretending things are alright, and try to fruitlessly "lead by example"
[13:25] <pangolin> LjL: I have no issue with discussing the behaviour of anybody in the community be it a CC member or not. but I do think we need to do it civilly
[13:26] <LjL> pangolin: are you aware of the incident i'm thinking about?
[13:26] <pangolin> vaguely recall something but not sure exactly no
[13:26] <LjL> pangolin: well i think it was a perfectly civil statement that was made
[13:26] <LjL> someone said they didn't like beuno's attitude
[13:26] <LjL> and the response was that this was offtopic for that channel
[13:27] <LjL> and CC members shouldn't be discussed
[13:27] <popey> [citation needed]
[13:27] <pangolin> oh, well in that case I think it was a misreading of intent
[13:27] <pangolin> I do remember now
[13:27] <LjL> popey: the citation is available to everyone who should be able to access it, i believe?
[13:27] <pangolin> the entire situation was mishandled in my opinion
[13:27] <pangolin> from the start...
[13:28] <LjL> pangolin: agreed
[13:28] <LjL> pangolin: and personally i don't even agree that beuno's attitude was bad
[13:28] <LjL> pangolin: i just disagree (strongly) with the fact it shouldn't be discussed
[13:28] <pangolin> So it is unfair to say beuno had an attitude
[13:29] <pangolin> well, maybe there are better places to discuss it
[13:29] <LjL> not really
[13:29] <pangolin> -irc comes to mind
[13:29] <pangolin> it really wasn't a ban resolution issue
[13:29] <LjL> eh, so?
[13:29] <LjL> -irc seems just terrible for that to me
[13:29] <pangolin> but the incident started in this channel so perhaps continuing it here would have been best
[13:30] <LjL> yeah, because that's what we always do with people who come in here
[13:30] <LjL> #Ubuntu-ops-team just exists for us to talk about cricket
[13:30] <pangolin> in any case, I don't think there are any unwritten rules about "discussing" CC members
[13:31] <popey> 13:28:33 <+LjL> pangolin: i just disagree (strongly) with the fact it shouldn't be discussed
[13:31] <popey> who said it was fact?
[13:31] <popey> who made it policy?
[13:31] <pangolin> when I read the scroll back, it all read very tense to me.
[13:31] <popey> as far as I see it was one person in the room who said 'i think' that we shouldn't talk about cc there
[13:35] <LjL> popey: well that's precisely a big part of the problem, policy being made up on the spot. and then, that same person went on to say here something to the effect that "fyi, they're talking about beuno's attitude in -ops-team"
[13:36] <LjL> which i found extremely childish. not like the CC don't have access to -ops-team logs anyway
[13:37] <popey> I don't see how policy was enacted by one person voicing an opinion.
[13:39] <topyli> LjL: no channel will change the team. as they say about national politics here, it's easy to change the goverment, but it's not trivial to change the people
[13:39] <LjL> popey: maybe it wasn't enacted, but nobody except the "original poster" and me voiced a contrary opinion.
[13:40] <LjL> topyli: you mean counciL?
[13:40] <topyli> s/channel/council'
[13:40] <topyli> yeah
[13:40] <popey> perhaps others didnt want to get involved in the uneasy confrontation between you guys
[13:40] <pangolin> ^
[13:40] <pangolin> like I said it all read like a very tense situation.
[13:41] <LjL> topyli: well i have a little glimpse of hope still, i hate to think things won't change because if that were definitely the case in general, i might as well remove myself from the planet
[13:42] <popey> I wouldn't be surprised if some people keep quiet for fear of upsetting you specifically LjL
[13:42] <topyli> overkill, there are lots of wonderful things on the planet outside irc :)
[13:42] <LjL> topyli: i said "in general"
[13:42] <popey> for fear that you might spit your dummy out and take your toybots with you.
[13:42] <LjL> popey: aren't you busy writing a replacement yet?
[13:42]  * jrib is not sure what is happening but must go
[13:43] <popey> LjL: nicely sidestepped
[13:43] <LjL> let me put it this way
[13:43] <pangolin> stop!
[13:43] <LjL> calling a racist cunt with his name is un-CoC
[13:43] <LjL> [14:42:12] <+popey> for fear that you might spit your dummy out and take your toybots with you. <- isn't
[13:43] <LjL> is that correct?
[13:44] <popey> I was speculating reasons why people might not want to engage with you. Is that un-coc?
[13:44] <popey> *shrug*
[13:44] <czajkowski> LjL: seriously if you can't watch your language in here how do we expect users to not swear in toehr channels
[13:44] <topyli> afaik LjL has clearly stated that the bots will stay, pending replacement or LjL's decision to liberate them
[13:45] <LjL> czajkowski: this is not a channel for public consumption
[13:45] <LjL> czajkowski: i'll watch my language entirely when someone is here to appeal something or other
[13:45] <Myrtti> and yet we know the logs are regularly read by the public
[13:45] <LjL> Myrtti: that's their choice
[13:49] <pangolin> it was your choice to follow the community guidelines when you became a ubuntu member
[13:49] <topyli> well anyone who does read the logs should be allowed to expect to find stuff that's fit for ubuntu channels
[13:50] <LjL> and is respectful, and is on-topic
[13:50] <LjL> but that's mostly ignored
[13:50] <LjL> instead, even czajkowski focuses on my language, not my lack of respect
[13:50] <LjL> "language" isn't even in the CoC, it's just an emanation by the IRC team
[13:50] <pangolin> the use of foul language is a lack of respect IMO
[13:51] <pangolin> We are better than that.
[13:51] <pangolin> I know you are better than that. Please remember it.
[13:52] <topyli> LjL: if you call people 'cunts', i don't really have to focus or one or the other
[13:53] <LjL> topyli: you don't have to, but you do. i think between the two issues you can see with that - the foul language, and the lack of respect - one is directly a CoC violation, the other isn't.
[13:53] <pangolin> one is caused by the other, so it is.
[13:54] <LjL> pangolin: what do you mean? that if i said "a racist <derogatory-but-not-foul-word>" it would have been ok?
[13:54] <pangolin> no
[13:54] <topyli> you don't have to say anything personal about any user here
[13:55] <topyli> we can ban the guy from our channels, but we don't need to attack him personally, especially in public where people will learn from our example
[13:56] <LjL> topyli: i actually agree with that. i just won't care until i'm sure i *can*, instead, discuss this kind of things civilly in the appropriate place, be it here or -ops-team. when i'm told i can't, and nobody corrects this affirmation, the CoC stops being relevant because a regime cannot be "respectful"
[13:58] <pangolin> One persons opinion is not policy, you know this. why are you continuing to use that as a point of contention?
[13:59] <topyli> LjL: your behavior is not supposed to be contingent on how you happen to feel today. i might as well remove you until you *can* be sure your manners are fit for ubuntu channels
[14:01] <topyli> that works too
[14:02] <topyli> 26
[14:02] <topyli> yay
[14:36] <Tm_T> blargh
[15:07] <Corey> Yuck, drama.
[15:09] <Tm_T> Corey: you prefer comedy?
[15:09] <Corey> Tm_T: I prefer we comport ourselves like professionals.  :-(
[15:11] <Tm_T> so do I, to be honest
[17:29] <Myrtti> interesting
[17:43] <mneptok> i've been called worse.
[17:50] <mneptok> !ram
[18:53] <Corey> Is there a semi-sane way to update the certificates in Lucid?  The cert in question works in Debian Squeeze.
 Please remove release 11.10 from ubuntu website !
[20:20] <oCean> ha ha
[20:21] <Corey> oCean: Urm.. did he have a reason?
[20:22] <oCean> I'm awaiting the rant about unity etc
[20:23] <pangolin> website updated 11.10 has been replaced with latest Mint iso
[20:23] <oCean> :)
[20:28] <Myrtti> pangolin: thohoho
[21:19] <popey> 29112 alan      20   0 2713m 1.6g  42m R   93 21.7 857:40.46 firefox
[21:19] <popey> oops
[21:27] <Myrtti> necreo_: hi
[21:27] <Myrtti> DrkCodeman: hello there
[21:27]  * mneptok begins sawing the floor under their chairs
[21:51] <elky> only 1.6 resident? also i have PM from perfm?