[08:14] <chu> Just noticed in #ubuntu - MazetteBot (~MazetteBo@bastion4.d101.univ-nantes.fr) has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[08:14] <chu> Not sure if an IRC bot or anything though. Could just be me not knowing French.
[11:00] <Phanes> hey there.  more retaliation from ikonia
[11:00] <Phanes> i've got logs
[11:00] <ikonia> hello Phanes I'm just documenting why I've banned you
[11:01] <ikonia> I'll also do so here so it's logged
[11:01] <ikonia> then I'll step away and you can resolve it (or not) with another operator
[11:02] <Phanes> he 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] <Phanes> yes this needs resolved with another operator and you need to be removed
[11:02] <ikonia> Phanes: ubuntu is logged
[11:02] <ikonia> a.) I did not say he was using the wrong distro
[11:02] <Phanes> i have the logs
[11:02] <Phanes> you are lying
[11:03] <ikonia> b.) I had already fixed his problem a different way than you did (which was a great fix by the way)
[11:03] <Phanes> no you didn't
[11:03] <ikonia> c.) I had not "left" I was still active
[11:03] <Phanes> he was still having the issue
[11:03] <ikonia> yes, because he had no followed the instructions I'd given him
[11:03] <Phanes> the instructions you were giving were wrong and did not fix the issue
[11:03] <ikonia> however the reason I've just banned you
[11:03] <ikonia> is you are trying to use this false information as "leverage"
[11:03] <Phanes> twice in the last 24 hours you have misinformed users, one of which was while berating them for not following your broken instructions
[11:04] <ikonia> I'm going to paste what you sent me in a pm for the log if thats ok ?
[11:04] <Phanes> its not false information and this will become quite clear as soon as someone is intervening
[11:04] <Phanes> and at the end of this i want you to be removed
[11:04] <ikonia> is that ok ?
[11:04] <k1l> Phanes: 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] <ikonia> k1l: one moment please
[11:05] <ikonia> I'd like to get confirmation to paste the pm you've just sent me in reference to ubuntu
[11:05] <ikonia> Phanes: is that ok to paste that ?
[11:06] <Phanes> k1l, i agree with that but that's not what was being said
[11:06] <ikonia> Phanes: is it ok if I paste the pm you've sent me into the log
[11:06] <Phanes> ikonia, all of the pm's i've sent you for the last six months are here: http://dpaste.com/27DD7GX
[11:07] <k1l> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> blacklisting is -not- tolerated in this community and i want someone to remove this person
[11:07] <ikonia> Phanes: while that is not true totally as you've also used other nicknames, the key but I'm referncing is the last few lines
[11:07] <Phanes> k1l, 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 gnome
[11:08] <Phanes> or even lxde
[11:08] <Phanes> to say otherwise is misinforming a user
[11:08] <Phanes> i called it out in an appropriate tone
[11:08] <ikonia> where 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 me
[11:08] <ikonia> I'm in the process of documenting this fully,
[11:08] <Phanes> ikonia, no one is 'engineering' anything, you're just a bad op
[11:09] <Phanes> you give wrong advice to the users
[11:09] <Phanes> sometimes you're abusive to them
[11:09] <Phanes> and you blacklist people who you think would call you out on it
[11:09] <Phanes> and i've got better logs to prove this
[11:10] <Phanes> this is it.  how this goes from here is determined by how much character you display in owning up to it
[11:10] <ikonia> so 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] <ikonia> I'm not comfortable with ubuntu being used this way
[11:10] <Phanes> it's not false information
[11:10] <Phanes> do 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] <ikonia> I'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 threats
[11:11] <ikonia> Phanes: I deny that %100
[11:11] <Phanes> ok.  if i provide logs that directly refute that from the public #ubuntu channel, will you remove yourself as an operator?
[11:11] <ikonia> I will now step away and allow you to work this through with the others without interaction from me
[11:11] <ikonia> !logs
[11:13] <Phanes> ikonia, ?  will you be removing your ops status if those same logs prove what I am saying?
[11:13] <ikonia> not at all
[11:13] <ikonia> people are human and wrong
[11:14] <Phanes> no, this is not wrong versus right, this is lying versus telling the truth
[11:14] <Phanes> there is a code of conduct
[11:14] <Phanes> you are violating it
[11:14] <Phanes> i want you out
[11:14] <ikonia> there is a code of conduct and I do my best to stick to it
[11:14] <ikonia> I appreciate you want me out
[11:14] <Phanes> you are intentionally violating it and abusing your status to carry out a personal vendetta
[11:14] <k1l> !appeal
[11:14] <ikonia> which is why I think you are generating a situation, and keep sending me messages with threats and then "truce"
[11:15] <Phanes> all comms in the last six months: http://dpaste.com/27DD7GX
[11:15] <ikonia> I'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 way
[11:15] <Phanes> that is also a lie
[11:15] <Phanes> no, you did engage in blacklisting in #lfs and now you're trying to move it to #ubuntu just as I told these guys you would
[11:16] <k1l> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> you 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 repurcussions
[11:16] <Phanes> you are creating unnecessary rivalries and animosity and you are using the ubuntu community as a platform to do this
[11:16] <Phanes> and i want this guy removed
[11:16] <ikonia> I am creating no rivalry
[11:16] <Phanes> you sure as hell are
[11:17] <Phanes> this is going to the irc sig council
[11:17] <ikonia> thats fine, I've already raised the issue with them
[11:17] <Phanes> and 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] <ikonia> as I said, this is the "building a case thing"
[11:18] <ikonia> and "leverage"
[11:18] <Phanes> yes im building a case
[11:18] <Phanes> you need out
[11:18] <ikonia> I appreciate you do
[11:19] <Phanes> how long is your blacklist ban in effect for?
[11:20] <Phanes> also be aware that this will be a public issue eventually if it continues
[11:21] <Phanes> everyone involved will be named
[11:23] <chu> I'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] <k1l> Phanes: 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 teams
[11:23] <k1l> !appeal | Phanes
[11:24] <Phanes> when 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.com
[11:25] <Phanes> right, 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 event
[11:25] <Phanes> and aren't under mercy of a sig that lets them do it
[11:25] <Phanes> when 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 community
[11:26] <Phanes> simply saying you're not doing something doesnt make that real
[11:26] <k1l> Phanes: 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.
[11:27] <Phanes> well it's clearly not working is it
[11:27] <k1l> it is working
[11:27] <Phanes> Flannel, ping
[11:28] <k1l> but 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] <Phanes> the last meeting was Sep 9 2015
[11:28] <Phanes> this is made up PR stuff
[11:29] <k1l> they dont talk on issues like this on their scheduled meetings.
[11:30] <Phanes> i'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 it
[11:30] <Phanes> what is the engagement model for the IRCC
[11:30] <Flannel> Phanes: Hi.
[11:30] <Phanes> Flannel, scroll up -- exactly what I was worried would happen
[11:31] <Flannel> Phanes: I'm not going to read all of that right now, what were you worried about happening that did happen?
[11:31] <Phanes> Flannel, 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 #ubuntu
[11:32] <Phanes> Flannel, and he is using engineered lies after I correct him while he was misinforming a user
[11:32] <Flannel> Phanes: so, what you're saying is that you feel like you were banned in #ubuntu without justification
[11:32] <Phanes> we had to go back in aftre he left for the night to apologize for his behaviour and give the correct advice
[11:32] <Phanes> i come in today and he's banned me from #ubuntu
[11:33] <Flannel> Phanes: I don't know all of the details, but is what I just summarized accurate?
[11:34] <Phanes> someone needs to step in here
[11:34] <Flannel> Phanes: Answer my question, please.  I'm trying to understand what the issue at hand is.
[11:35] <Phanes> check your last pm's please
[11:35] <Phanes> you can't just act like we've not already discussed this before it even happened
[11:35] <Phanes> that was like 2 days ago
[11:36] <Phanes> blacklisting is not tolerated
[11:36] <Flannel> I'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] <Phanes> yes absolutely and i want you to intervene
[11:36] <Phanes> and then we need to take this to the irc sig as discussed
[11:37] <Flannel> Ok
[11:37]  * Phanes is visibly trying to work with you all amicably
[11:46] <Flannel> alright, well, I've worked through about half the relevant logs, but don't have time to go through the rest right now.
[11:47] <Phanes> event 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.txt
[11:48] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> what 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 others
[11:49] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> the 16.04 to 16.10 is blatant misinformation
[11:49] <Phanes> the user's issue was he was trying to open encrypteed pdf's that didn't autodecrypt with blank passwords
[11:49] <Phanes> with *clients that don't do that
[11:50] <Phanes> that's not a distro version issue, that's a working with basic files issue
[11:50] <Phanes> and the fact that his attitude was what was being apologized for remains
[11:50] <Phanes> dealing with frustrating users who sometimes can't follow instructions is part of the role that gets filled there
[11:52] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> but that aside, let's say he was accurate (i disagree), this was not justification for a ban
[11:52] <Phanes> the user's issue was 'i cant open pdfs'
[11:53] <Phanes> this was because his client couldn't decrypt them
[11:53] <Phanes> that's not a distro version issue
[11:53] <Phanes> that's a pdf decryption issue
[11:53] <Phanes> which was fixed
[11:53] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> but let's say he was just wrong -- that's fine, that aside, fixing an operator when they are wrong is not a ban-worthy thing
[11:54] <Phanes> neither is telling them about it
[11:54] <Phanes> that's "hey, you were wrong about this, and kind of rude to the user, this is not working out"
[11:54] <Phanes> which is also not bannable
[11:55] <Phanes> but apparently what is bannable is "i look bad around this guy because he's fixing things im not"
[11:55] <Phanes> so 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 users
[11:56] <Phanes> its 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.
[11:57] <ikonia> in your pm
[11:58] <Phanes> lift my ban and address your misbehaving oper
[11:58] <Flannel> Alright, lets try to keep things factual.
[11:58] <Flannel> Phanes: excuse me?
[12:00] <Phanes> Flannel, 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.
[12:01] <Flannel> Phanes: No, that's not how this works at all.
[12:01] <Phanes> as a group you guys shouldn't have to be pressed like this to intervene during operator abuse issues
[12:01] <Phanes> in 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 exception
[12:02] <Flannel> Phanes: It is absolutely the norm.
[12:02] <Phanes> yet here we are
[12:02] <Flannel> Doing "the norm", yes.
[12:03] <Phanes> if 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 lifted
[12:03] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> your appeal process does not result in action against operators
[12:04] <Flannel> Yeah, actually, it does.  However, I am not going to debate the appeals process with you today.
[12:04] <Phanes> because of this, your operators are able to get away with behaviours that necessitate the unmet purpose of the sig
[12:04] <Phanes> if it were being met, this would not have gone so far
[12:05] <Flannel> "so far" is "the first step", you realize that, don't you?
[12:05] <Flannel> Look, at this point, I'm not comfortable resolving your ban today.
[12:05] <Phanes> no the first step is me raising it to your attention two days ago warning you things like this would happen
[12:05] <Phanes> and now here we are and you are still acting like this is normal and okay
[12:05] <Flannel> So, 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.
[12:06] <Phanes> and you wonder why users won't work with the bans
[12:06] <Phanes> if the ban is set to 48 hours for a cool off ill honor that
[12:07] <Phanes> that 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 users
[12:07] <Flannel> Phanes: 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] <Phanes> so #ubuntu ban lifts in 48 hours?
[12:07] <Flannel> No.
[12:07] <Phanes> ok, then i can not honor it
[12:07] <Flannel> You rejoin here in 48+ hours to continue the resolution of your ban.
[12:07] <Flannel> I'm sorry, this is not a negotiation.
[12:08] <Phanes> it 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 context
[12:09] <Flannel> I strongly advise you against evading your ban.  That usually reflects poorly on the ultimate outcome.
[12:09] <Phanes> it seems ill have to anyway based on the disposition of the operator team
[12:10] <Phanes> you can't just put necks on boots
[12:10] <Flannel> Alright, 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] <Phanes> i mean you can, but some people won't let that work because they disagree with the principle
[12:10] <Flannel> Have a nice day.
[12:10] <Phanes> ok, just be aware, im back in #ubuntu
[12:10] <Phanes> i have no intention of causing trouble
[12:10] <Flannel> Have a nice day.
[12:11] <Phanes> you too
[12:14] <chu> Another threat though :(
[12:15] <Phanes> I'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] <Phanes> Simply calling something a threat doesn't make it so.  You're not the only party with policies.