chuJust noticed in #ubuntu - MazetteBot (~MazetteBo@bastion4.d101.univ-nantes.fr) has quit (Remote host closed the connection)08:14
chuNot sure if an IRC bot or anything though. Could just be me not knowing French.08:14
Phaneshey there.  more retaliation from ikonia11:00
Phanesi've got logs11:00
ikoniahello Phanes I'm just documenting why I've banned you11:00
ikoniaI'll also do so here so it's logged11:01
ikoniathen I'll step away and you can resolve it (or not) with another operator11:01
Phaneshe was abusive to a user last night that was having trouble viewing pdf's, he misinformed the user saying that they were using the wrong distro version.  i came in last night and apologized for his behaviour and resolved the user's issue (decrypted the blank pass pdf's).  Then today was telling same user that using a lighter DE would not free up resources on an older system, had to correct it.  Result:  ban.11:02
Phanesyes this needs resolved with another operator and you need to be removed11:02
ikoniaPhanes: ubuntu is logged11:02
ikoniaa.) I did not say he was using the wrong distro11:02
Phanesi have the logs11:02
Phanesyou are lying11:02
ikoniab.) I had already fixed his problem a different way than you did (which was a great fix by the way)11:03
Phanesno you didn't11:03
ikoniac.) I had not "left" I was still active11:03
Phaneshe was still having the issue11:03
ikoniayes, because he had no followed the instructions I'd given him11:03
Phanesthe instructions you were giving were wrong and did not fix the issue11:03
ikoniahowever the reason I've just banned you11:03
ikoniais you are trying to use this false information as "leverage"11:03
Phanestwice in the last 24 hours you have misinformed users, one of which was while berating them for not following your broken instructions11:03
ikoniaI'm going to paste what you sent me in a pm for the log if thats ok ?11:04
Phanesits not false information and this will become quite clear as soon as someone is intervening11:04
Phanesand at the end of this i want you to be removed11:04
ikoniais that ok ?11:04
k1lPhanes: the discussion today was not if a more lightweight DE will free up resources but about that even with a lighter DE there still would be issues like video encoding making use of the cpu because the gpu doesnt support it. that was one of the main reasons, why even a lighter DE would not help since the issue is on other bottlenecks.11:04
ikoniak1l: one moment please11:04
ikoniaI'd like to get confirmation to paste the pm you've just sent me in reference to ubuntu11:05
ikoniaPhanes: is that ok to paste that ?11:05
Phanesk1l, i agree with that but that's not what was being said11:06
ikoniaPhanes: is it ok if I paste the pm you've sent me into the log11:06
Phanesikonia, all of the pm's i've sent you for the last six months are here: http://dpaste.com/27DD7GX11:06
k1lPhanes: i agree with the advices from several helpers in #ubuntu not to blindly install several different DEs, when its not going to help on the main issues.11:07
Phanesblacklisting is -not- tolerated in this community and i want someone to remove this person11:07
ikoniaPhanes: while that is not true totally as you've also used other nicknames, the key but I'm referncing is the last few lines11:07
Phanesk1l, there's nothing wrong with adding new de's to a machine, it doesn't break anything and a fluxbox is way less load than gnome11:07
Phanesor even lxde11:08
Phanesto say otherwise is misinforming a user11:08
Phanesi called it out in an appropriate tone11:08
ikoniawhere you appear to to suggest that "this is not going to work out" and "truce" where you seem to be trying to engineer situations in ubuntu that are not happening to get me to levarage against me11:08
ikoniaI'm in the process of documenting this fully,11:08
Phanesikonia, no one is 'engineering' anything, you're just a bad op11:08
Phanesyou give wrong advice to the users11:09
Phanessometimes you're abusive to them11:09
Phanesand you blacklist people who you think would call you out on it11:09
Phanesand i've got better logs to prove this11:09
Phanesthis is it.  how this goes from here is determined by how much character you display in owning up to it11:10
ikoniaso in this situation I've put a ban on you in this channel, (and I could be worng on this which is why I'll be happy to step away) as I believe you are using ubuntu to try to leverage a position where you are making threats to "do things" then raise false information and say "truce"11:10
ikoniaI'm not comfortable with ubuntu being used this way11:10
Phanesit's not false information11:10
Phanesdo you deny that you told the user last night that the reason he was not able to open pdfs was because he was on 16.10 and not 16.04?11:10
ikoniaI'm more than happy for the ban to be removed with my apologies on this if I'm wrong, however, I'd like someone else to look at your whole overall "campaign" and threats11:10
ikoniaPhanes: I deny that %10011:11
Phanesok.  if i provide logs that directly refute that from the public #ubuntu channel, will you remove yourself as an operator?11:11
ikoniaI will now step away and allow you to work this through with the others without interaction from me11:11
ubottuOfficial channel logs can be found at https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ . LoCo channels are now logged there too. Meetingology logs at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/11:11
Phanesikonia, ?  will you be removing your ops status if those same logs prove what I am saying?11:13
ikonianot at all11:13
ikoniapeople are human and wrong11:13
Phanesno, this is not wrong versus right, this is lying versus telling the truth11:14
Phanesthere is a code of conduct11:14
Phanesyou are violating it11:14
Phanesi want you out11:14
ikoniathere is a code of conduct and I do my best to stick to it11:14
ikoniaI appreciate you want me out11:14
Phanesyou are intentionally violating it and abusing your status to carry out a personal vendetta11:14
ubottuIf 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/IRC/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.11:14
ikoniawhich is why I think you are generating a situation, and keep sending me messages with threats and then "truce"11:14
Phanesall comms in the last six months: http://dpaste.com/27DD7GX11:15
ikoniaI'm more than happy to have this ban removed as I've said if I've overracted with my apologies, but your behaviour and constant "truce" messages leads me to believe ubuntu should not be used this way11:15
Phanesthat is also a lie11:15
Phanesno, you did engage in blacklisting in #lfs and now you're trying to move it to #ubuntu just as I told these guys you would11:15
k1lPhanes: i guess best is to make an appeal to the ircc. since its not the first time there are issues with you and the channel guidelines. the ircc is the community commitee running the irc channels.11:16
Phanesyou can't just wake up and go 'im going to remove this guy from all the places i have influence' and expect there to be no repurcussions11:16
Phanesyou are creating unnecessary rivalries and animosity and you are using the ubuntu community as a platform to do this11:16
Phanesand i want this guy removed11:16
ikoniaI am creating no rivalry11:16
Phanesyou sure as hell are11:16
Phanesthis is going to the irc sig council11:17
ikoniathats fine, I've already raised the issue with them11:17
Phanesand im not going to let up until either a new rule is in place to prevent people like you from doing this to other users or you are removed.  period.11:17
ikoniaas I said, this is the "building a case thing"11:17
ikoniaand "leverage"11:18
Phanesyes im building a case11:18
Phanesyou need out11:18
ikoniaI appreciate you do11:18
Phaneshow long is your blacklist ban in effect for?11:19
Phanesalso be aware that this will be a public issue eventually if it continues11:20
Phaneseveryone involved will be named11:21
chuI'm not getting involved here, but is that a threat? Isn't like a little childish if you expect to be taken seriously?11:23
k1lPhanes: please make an appeal to the ircc since that is the community council which is running all the ubuntu irc channels and settings the guidenlines and nominate the ops teams11:23
k1l!appeal | Phanes11:23
ubottuPhanes: 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/IRC/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.11:23
Phaneswhen you have operators who are engaging in behaviour like that and it's clear they're getting supported by other operators it pushes the scope beyond that of the sig's and makes it a public issues.  it's not a threat, it's just making you aware that this is a community issue.11:24
k1l#ubuntu and #ubuntu-ops is publicly logged at irclogs.ubuntu.com11:24
Phanesright, but, these types of actors need to be identified so that when future users are experiencing same they aren't forced to treat every time like it's an isolated event11:25
Phanesand aren't under mercy of a sig that lets them do it11:25
Phaneswhen you're making affiliations as an entity with notable conventions, this needs to be public record as this is also a part of your contribution to the open source community11:25
Phanessimply saying you're not doing something doesnt make that real11:26
k1lPhanes: if you have proofs for your accusations then talk to the irc community council. that is what the channel guidelines and code of conduct have as the process to deal with that.11:26
Phaneswell it's clearly not working is it11:27
k1lit is working11:27
PhanesFlannel, ping11:27
k1lbut there are several sides of the same issue. and maybe its not like you want it to look like when someone looks at the situation explained from both sides. that is why we have the IRCC.11:28
Phanesthe last meeting was Sep 9 201511:28
Phanesthis is made up PR stuff11:28
k1lthey dont talk on issues like this on their scheduled meetings.11:29
Phanesi'll give this a shot but i really think independent resolution through PSAs is the only solution if this is even able to happen where you guys can see it11:30
Phaneswhat is the engagement model for the IRCC11:30
FlannelPhanes: Hi.11:30
PhanesFlannel, scroll up -- exactly what I was worried would happen11:30
FlannelPhanes: I'm not going to read all of that right now, what were you worried about happening that did happen?11:31
PhanesFlannel, your pm lastlog with me should still have all of that without me rehashing, but as I said, he has now carried his blacklisting into #ubuntu11:31
PhanesFlannel, and he is using engineered lies after I correct him while he was misinforming a user11:32
FlannelPhanes: so, what you're saying is that you feel like you were banned in #ubuntu without justification11:32
Phaneswe had to go back in aftre he left for the night to apologize for his behaviour and give the correct advice11:32
Phanesi come in today and he's banned me from #ubuntu11:32
FlannelPhanes: I don't know all of the details, but is what I just summarized accurate?11:33
Phanessomeone needs to step in here11:34
FlannelPhanes: Answer my question, please.  I'm trying to understand what the issue at hand is.11:34
Phanescheck your last pm's please11:35
Phanesyou can't just act like we've not already discussed this before it even happened11:35
Phanesthat was like 2 days ago11:35
Phanesblacklisting is not tolerated11:36
FlannelI'm not acting like we haven't discussed anything.  I'm just asking you if "you feel that he's banned you in #ubuntu without justification" is an accurate statement.11:36
Phanesyes absolutely and i want you to intervene11:36
Phanesand then we need to take this to the irc sig as discussed11:36
* Phanes is visibly trying to work with you all amicably11:37
Flannelalright, well, I've worked through about half the relevant logs, but don't have time to go through the rest right now.11:46
Phanesevent with user, waited until he left to apologize for misinformation and and fixed the issue, 05:21: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/01/04/%23ubuntu.txt11:47
FlannelPhanes: You're welcome to stay here to see if anyone can resolve, but I did notice a couple of times you seemed keen on elevating this to the IRCC.  So if that's your intent, then trying to resolve it here might not be a good use of your time and you might want to just go ahead and do so.11:48
Phaneswhat i want is this kind of nonsense out of my way, and once that is done i want to drive it to the sig council to prevent it from happening to others11:48
FlannelPhanes: I did read that log, there was no misinformation.  Although I do appreciate you taking the time to walk the user through decrypting their PDFs.11:49
Phanesthe 16.04 to 16.10 is blatant misinformation11:49
Phanesthe user's issue was he was trying to open encrypteed pdf's that didn't autodecrypt with blank passwords11:49
Phaneswith *clients that don't do that11:49
Phanesthat's not a distro version issue, that's a working with basic files issue11:50
Phanesand the fact that his attitude was what was being apologized for remains11:50
Phanesdealing with frustrating users who sometimes can't follow instructions is part of the role that gets filled there11:50
FlannelPhanes: It's not misinformation as far as I can ascertain.  It was a part of a larger conversation with the user.  Yes, the fact that the PDFs were encrypted wasn't caught, but that's why we don't have only a single person providing support, because no one person can catch everything.11:52
Phanesbut that aside, let's say he was accurate (i disagree), this was not justification for a ban11:52
Phanesthe user's issue was 'i cant open pdfs'11:52
Phanesthis was because his client couldn't decrypt them11:53
Phanesthat's not a distro version issue11:53
Phanesthat's a pdf decryption issue11:53
Phaneswhich was fixed11:53
FlannelPhanes: I never said it was.  Which is why I wanted to make sure I understood the issue you would like to address today, which has nothing to do with a PDF or the quality of technical support.11:53
Phanesbut let's say he was just wrong -- that's fine, that aside, fixing an operator when they are wrong is not a ban-worthy thing11:53
Phanesneither is telling them about it11:54
Phanesthat's "hey, you were wrong about this, and kind of rude to the user, this is not working out"11:54
Phaneswhich is also not bannable11:54
Phanesbut apparently what is bannable is "i look bad around this guy because he's fixing things im not"11:55
Phanesso what i want someone to do after this ban is lifted is, tell me what issues im allowed to fix and what issues im not allowed to fix when im helping users11:55
Phanesits not about 'prior history'.  it's not about 'what i said in pm'.  it's about the fact that this guy does not like competing influence and you are each and every one of you inclined to make sure he does not have to become a better operator.11:56
ikoniain your pm11:57
Phaneslift my ban and address your misbehaving oper11:58
FlannelAlright, lets try to keep things factual.11:58
FlannelPhanes: excuse me?11:58
PhanesFlannel, sorry if it hurts to swallow, but the fact that i am even having to be having to address this instead of someone just being given the log and fixing the channel access list accordingly is justification for believing that.12:00
FlannelPhanes: No, that's not how this works at all.12:01
Phanesas a group you guys shouldn't have to be pressed like this to intervene during operator abuse issues12:01
Phanesin your case i appreciate that you're at least trying to be impartial and look at it objectively, but, that should be the norm not the exception12:01
FlannelPhanes: It is absolutely the norm.12:02
Phanesyet here we are12:02
FlannelDoing "the norm", yes.12:02
Phanesif i recall the last time we went through this i had to pretend i was bringing in a canonical audit to get someone to even review the ban before it was lifted12:03
FlannelPhanes: Operators are human, sometimes mistakes are made.  That's why we have an appeal process, to enable people to get a second opinion without it becoming a big production.12:03
Phanesyour appeal process does not result in action against operators12:03
FlannelYeah, actually, it does.  However, I am not going to debate the appeals process with you today.12:04
Phanesbecause of this, your operators are able to get away with behaviours that necessitate the unmet purpose of the sig12:04
Phanesif it were being met, this would not have gone so far12:04
Flannel"so far" is "the first step", you realize that, don't you?12:05
FlannelLook, at this point, I'm not comfortable resolving your ban today.12:05
Phanesno the first step is me raising it to your attention two days ago warning you things like this would happen12:05
Phanesand now here we are and you are still acting like this is normal and okay12:05
FlannelSo, please leave this channel and come back in at least 48 hours.  Then we can continue to discuss this #ubuntu ban, and hopefully resolve it.12:05
Phanesand you wonder why users won't work with the bans12:06
Phanesif the ban is set to 48 hours for a cool off ill honor that12:06
Phanesthat does not mean ill not want it addressed by sig as this operator is engaging in toxic behaviours and genuinely should not be exposed to the users12:07
FlannelPhanes: I think a 48 hour cooling off window would benefit everyone, yes.  Please rejoin here in at least 48 hours and we'll continue.12:07
Phanesso #ubuntu ban lifts in 48 hours?12:07
Phanesok, then i can not honor it12:07
FlannelYou rejoin here in 48+ hours to continue the resolution of your ban.12:07
FlannelI'm sorry, this is not a negotiation.12:07
Phanesit is, as you do not decide what my network configuration looks like and can not enforce the ban without some degree of cooperation, which I'd like to give but only in reasonable context12:08
FlannelI strongly advise you against evading your ban.  That usually reflects poorly on the ultimate outcome.12:09
Phanesit seems ill have to anyway based on the disposition of the operator team12:09
Phanesyou can't just put necks on boots12:10
FlannelAlright, as we have nothing else to discuss today, please part this channel.  I look forward to working with you again after 48 hours.12:10
Phanesi mean you can, but some people won't let that work because they disagree with the principle12:10
FlannelHave a nice day.12:10
Phanesok, just be aware, im back in #ubuntu12:10
Phanesi have no intention of causing trouble12:10
FlannelHave a nice day.12:10
Phanesyou too12:11
chuAnother threat though :(12:14
PhanesI've threatened no one outside of a warning that any relevant PSAs will identify by legal name, which is not a threat if no one is doing anything wrong.12:15
PhanesSimply calling something a threat doesn't make it so.  You're not the only party with policies.12:15
=== mwsb is now known as chu

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!