1. IRC Controversy
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Aug 06, 2010
- 1845 views
it was he whose post i was replying to.
Please quote the post where I accused you of FUD.
Regarding any fud i may have produced: you're welcome. Same as when you kickbanned me from #euphoria and then blamed the bot and some one else. Yeas, long history, and it is neither getting shorter nor being addressed.
WHAT!! I have never, ever, banned you from anything. As you well know, you are the person I am entrusting control with the openEuphoria.com name and I've never had any doubts or worries about doing that. And that time you were kicked from #euphoria, I believe it was accidental due to some bad bot code.
Iamlost/jimcbrown kickbanned me from the irc channel, it was he whose post i was replying to. It was not accidental, and it wasn't the bot that did it.
useless
I feel it is important here to clairify exactly what happened here, specially considering how long ago it has been since these events happened.
On July 7, 2008, [TiggrBot] was removed from #euphoria due to the bot listing what Kat claims was a typo for "hello". At this point, automatic language enforcement was already supposed to have been disabled but I accidently reenabled this part of it when addressing a different issue. The result of this was that Tiggr ended up leaving the channel for good, despite my repeated enquires to Kat that Tiggr return. (The invitation to have TiggrBox return to the channel is still open.)
Much later, Kat changed to an ISP that used centurytel.net - which often was a rather unreliable ISP that had frequent connetion issues.
On June 14, 2009, in line with a general IRC policy that is described in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines#Other I experimented with some options to automatically deal with idle users (such as users whose computers are connected but who are physically asleep in their beds - a situation that happens often with me) who are having connection issues. At this time, Kat made clear that she was firmly against this. Since she was the only person at this time who had this sort of issue, I dropped this idea.
At that point, I decided to simply not apply that policy to Kat. No one had ever complained about it, so it simply wasn't a problem at that time.
On July 16, 2009, someone complained to me about Kat's client autojoining. Kat's refusal to consider any other solution aside from the /ignore command (a command that a person can use to censor or ignore text from other users on IRC) placed me in a difficult position. So I followed the policy to the letter.
After this, another solution was offered. Someone worked to set up an interface for Kat which would enable her to connect to the channel 24/7 but through a jumpbox that could transparently hide her connectivity issues. She never used this.
Kat instead stated that she'd never come back to the channel. I simply told her that she was always welcome back and left it at that. (Her post detailing her conversation with CoJaBo took place in that same channel today.) Likewise, her status as channel operator (which incidently includes the ability to remove bans, including bans set on herself) has remained intact this entire time.
I'm pretty sure you've brought this up every chance possible, but its out of context-
One thing I note is that there was a large interval of time between this happening and her first mention of this on the forum.
Another thing that I note is that a different user was temporarily kickbanned from #tiggrbox on March 3rd or 4th, 2010 due to ISP issues. (That is, for identical reasons.)
iamlost is absolutely careless at applying bans, making them ridiculously broad then leaving them indefinitely- no offense meant here, but I've complained about this several times before and yet it keeps happening. Last time I checked, most of the UK and anyone affiliated with the Apache project was banned.
This is entirely correct. I previously had an unrelated problem with a series of network trolls and did this in frustration. I later set up access for CoJaBo so he could fix this for me, which he did... but it may be time to ask him for more help.
2. Re: IRC Controversy
- Posted by useless Aug 06, 2010
- 1810 views
it was he whose post i was replying to.
Please quote the post where I accused you of FUD.
Jeeze, you people still have the same problem of following a thread not explicitly marked.
<< note no quote shading ensues in the preview mode.
Regarding any fud i may have produced: you're welcome. Same as when you kickbanned me from #euphoria and then blamed the bot and some one else. Yeas, long history, and it is neither getting shorter nor being addressed.
WHAT!! I have never, ever, banned you from anything. As you well know, you are the person I am entrusting control with the openEuphoria.com name and I've never had any doubts or worries about doing that. And that time you were kicked from #euphoria, I believe it was accidental due to some bad bot code.
Iamlost/jimcbrown kickbanned me from the irc channel, it was he whose post i was replying to. It was not accidental, and it wasn't the bot that did it.
useless
I feel it is important here to clairify exactly what happened here, specially considering how long ago it has been since these events happened.
On July 7, 2008, [TiggrBot] was removed from #euphoria due to the bot listing what Kat claims was a typo for "hello".
Tiggr has numerous "typos", most are meant to be humorous. Some actually are.
[quote jimcbrown] At this point, automatic language enforcement was already supposed to have been disabled but I accidently reenabled this part of it when addressing a different issue. The result of this was that Tiggr ended up leaving the channel for good, despite my repeated enquires to Kat that Tiggr return. (The invitation to have TiggrBox return to the channel is still open.)
Much later, Kat changed to an ISP that used centurytel.net - which often was a rather unreliable ISP that had frequent connetion issues.
On June 14, 2009, in line with a general IRC policy that is described in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines#Other I experimented with some options to automatically deal with idle users (such as users whose computers are connected but who are physically asleep in their beds - a situation that happens often with me) who are having connection issues. At this time, Kat made clear that she was firmly against this. Since she was the only person at this time who had this sort of issue, I dropped this idea.
At that point, I decided to simply not apply that policy to Kat. No one had ever complained about it, so it simply wasn't a problem at that time.
On July 16, 2009, someone complained to me about Kat's client autojoining. Kat's refusal to consider any other solution aside from the /ignore command (a command that a person can use to censor or ignore text from other users on IRC) placed me in a difficult position. So I followed the policy to the letter.
After this, another solution was offered. Someone worked to set up an interface for Kat which would enable her to connect to the channel 24/7 but through a jumpbox that could transparently hide her connectivity issues. She never used this. [\quote] << note creole fails here too note creole fails here too Actually, i don't recall ever hearing of it working. I recall it didn't cache and i needed to use a *nix irc client, which would be problematic since i use no *nix computers. And i still need such a caching proxy, ideally compatable with any irc client.
<<
Kat instead stated that she'd never come back to the channel. I simply told her that she was always welcome back and left it at that. (Her post detailing her conversation with CoJaBo took place in that same channel today.)
Honestly, this sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying i lied about not coming back, or you don't want me there, or whatever. Could you be more clear?
Likewise, her status as channel operator (which incidently includes the ability to remove bans, including bans set on herself) has remained intact this entire time.
I'm pretty sure you've brought this up every chance possible, but its out of context-
One thing I note is that there was a large interval of time between this happening and her first mention of this on the forum.
Another thing that I note is that a different user was temporarily kickbanned from #tiggrbox on March 3rd or 4th, 2010 due to ISP issues. (That is, for identical reasons.)
It should be pointed out, i don't own that channel, and at the time i held no office there, i couldn't place or remove bans.
iamlost is absolutely careless at applying bans, making them ridiculously broad then leaving them indefinitely- no offense meant here, but I've complained about this several times before and yet it keeps happening. Last time I checked, most of the UK and anyone affiliated with the Apache project was banned.
This is entirely correct. I previously had an unrelated problem with a series of network trolls and did this in frustration. I later set up access for CoJaBo so he could fix this for me, which he did... but it may be time to ask him for more help.
3. Re: IRC Controversy
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Aug 06, 2010
- 1793 views
Tiggr has numerous "typos", most are meant to be humorous. Some actually are.
No disagreements here.
After this, another solution was offered. Someone worked to set up an interface for Kat which would enable her to connect to the channel 24/7 but through a jumpbox that could transparently hide her connectivity issues. She never used this.
Actually, i don't recall ever hearing of it working. I recall it didn't cache and i needed to use a *nix irc client, which would be problematic since i use no *nix computers. And i still need such a caching proxy, ideally compatable with any irc client.
I wasn't part of this so I can't comment on this person's efforts.
However, I'm sure these technical issues can be resolved. (E.g. use of JBouncer or a similiar system would allow you to continue using your own IRC client.)
Kat instead stated that she'd never come back to the channel. I simply told her that she was always welcome back and left it at that. (Her post detailing her conversation with CoJaBo took place in that same channel today.) Likewise, her status as channel operator (which incidently includes the ability to remove bans, including bans set on herself) has remained intact this entire time.
Honestly, this sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying i lied about not coming back, or you don't want me there, or whatever. Could you be more clear?
Your exact words were "i'll abide the decision and not show up as a join or part in the channel again."
After I gave the welcome, I don't recall getting a response back. I assumed you understood that there never was any such decision against you and that the welcome was accepted since you did return to the channel (which you are still welcome to be in, along with Tiggr).
Another thing that I note is that a different user was temporarily kickbanned from #tiggrbox on March 3rd or 4th, 2010 due to ISP issues. (That is, for identical reasons.)
It should be pointed out, i don't own that channel, and at the time i held no office there, i couldn't place or remove bans.
Noted. I will note that #tiggrbox, from this one example, seems to enforce similiar policies. At least, that this policy seems to be pretty universal.
it was he whose post i was replying to.
Please quote the post where I accused you of FUD.
Jeeze, you people still have the same problem of following a thread not explicitly marked.
I'm pretty upset at this. I never accused you of FUD. You said:
Regarding any fud i may have produced: you're welcome. Same as when you kickbanned me from #euphoria and then blamed the bot and some one else. Yeas, long history, and it is neither getting shorter nor being addressed.
And you later said:
Iamlost/jimcbrown kickbanned me from the irc channel, it was he whose post i was replying to. It was not accidental, and it wasn't the bot that did it.
So I read that as if you were accusing me of accusing you of FUD.
If I have read this incorrectly and misunderstood, just tell me that I misunderstood.
If I am reading this correctly, then I must respond by saying that I never accused you of FUD on this or the parent thread. If I am mistaken, please quote the post and point it out to me!
4. Re: IRC Controversy
- Posted by useless Aug 06, 2010
- 1796 views
[quote jimcbrown]
Tiggr has numerous "typos", most are meant to be humorous. Some actually are.
No disagreements here.
After this, another solution was offered. Someone worked to set up an interface for Kat which would enable her to connect to the channel 24/7 but through a jumpbox that could transparently hide her connectivity issues. She never used this.
Actually, i don't recall ever hearing of it working. I recall it didn't cache and i needed to use a *nix irc client, which would be problematic since i use no *nix computers. And i still need such a caching proxy, ideally compatable with any irc client.
I wasn't part of this so I can't comment on this person's efforts.
However, I'm sure these technical issues can be resolved. (E.g. use of JBouncer or a similiar system would allow you to continue using your own IRC client.) <said>
and yet, it's never happened!
Kat instead stated that she'd never come back to the channel. I simply told her that she was always welcome back and left it at that. (Her post detailing her conversation with CoJaBo took place in that same channel today.) Likewise, her status as channel operator (which incidently includes the ability to remove bans, including bans set on herself) has remained intact this entire time.
Honestly, this sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying i lied about not coming back, or you don't want me there, or whatever. Could you be more clear?
<idiot creole aside, jimcbrown said:>
Your exact words were "i'll abide the decision and not show up as a join or part in the channel again." </said>
Good of you to search the logs to find the exact words.
<idiot creole aside, jimcbrown said:>
After I gave the welcome, I don't recall getting a response back. I assumed you understood that there never was any such decision against you and that the welcome was accepted since you did return to the channel (which you are still welcome to be in, along with Tiggr).
I'm pretty upset at this. I never accused you of FUD. You said:
</said>
Ok, you never accused me of .. wait, i never.. ok i was right the first time, you never accused me of FUD. you are no longer welcome to any FUD i produce.
useless
5. Re: IRC Controversy
- Posted by CoJaBo Aug 10, 2010
- 1663 views
This is entirely correct. I previously had an unrelated problem with a series of network trolls and did this in frustration. I later set up access for CoJaBo so he could fix this for me, which he did... but it may be time to ask him for more help.
Hasn't that access since been revoked? Or am I missing something?
Regardless, I've mentioned this several times- ban the user, if they continue ban-evading, bring it up to #freenode staff. Do NOT ban an entire ISP, country, IRC client, or cloak affiliation to deal with one member- I strongly suspect this may even be the goal of such trolling. You are playing right into their hand by denying legit users access. Do not ban any IP indefinitely either, as IPs are frequently reassigned to other people.
And do we really need to nest quotes indefinably? This is really confusing and pointless- most if not all forums strip all but the topmost level of quoted text, like I have to do manually every time. Nested tags are hellishly complicated to deal with.
6. Re: IRC Controversy
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Aug 10, 2010
- 1649 views
This is entirely correct. I previously had an unrelated problem with a series of network trolls and did this in frustration. I later set up access for CoJaBo so he could fix this for me, which he did... but it may be time to ask him for more help.
Hasn't that access since been revoked? Or am I missing something?
Correct. I don't think you're missing anything.
Regardless, I've mentioned this several times- ban the user, if they continue ban-evading, bring it up to #freenode staff. Do NOT ban an entire ISP, country, IRC client, or cloak affiliation to deal with one member- I strongly suspect this may even be the goal of such trolling. You are playing right into their hand by denying legit users access. Do not ban any IP indefinitely either, as IPs are frequently reassigned to other people.
Agreed. (While I feel that there might be short-duration temporary exceptions to this, that also helped lead to the problems you cited.)
And do we really need to nest quotes indefinably? This is really confusing and pointless- most if not all forums strip all but the topmost level of quoted text, like I have to do manually every time. Nested tags are hellishly complicated to deal with.
I don't mind the forum defaulting to do this, as long as there is an option for me to keep doing what I've been doing.
