Requesting unban from irc channel

tsukasa1105 · Post by **tsukasa1105** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:38 am

man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself, if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.

man_in_shack sets ban on %tsukasa!*@*

I stuck an _ on the end of my name and wrote about 2 sentences trying to clarify my setup. This entire discussion was started by him asking me what my setup was, not me asking for help. Then he said I was evading ban and...

man_in_shack sets ban on *!*@75-111-131-122.tex.dyn.suddenlink.net

Here's the entire log if anyone is interested. http://pastebin.com/me0d6d1f

P.S. Twinview shows each monitor as having it's own resolution.

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:49 am

It was experienced vs noob. Pardon me for calling you noob tsukasa1105.

What you said was contradicting self making it very hard on the experienced person mind.

Twinview only operates if two screens are being used as one. When running 2 x11 servers on two different screens. Even if Twinview is enabled in X configuration it will not be used if the X11 server has 1 screen.

Its not like man_in_shack to ban people.

tsukasa1105 · Post by **tsukasa1105** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:00 am

Not that it matters, but i'm still pretty positive i'm running twinview. Looking at nvidia-config I realize now it's treating it as one giant spanned screen, but that wasn't obvious to me as it shows each monitor with it's own resolution in one part of the config and shows the actual X screen size in another.

Also, with twinview a fullscreen wine game doesnt stretch across both screens like Xinerama does. Since xinerama makes a giant screen and has this problem, and twinview doesn't, I assumed twinview was more intelligent then it is.

Anyways, can I get an unban?

Ben Klein · Post by **Ben Klein** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:40 am

-- Sun Mar 22 00:38:45 CDT 2009, tsukasa1105 said:

man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i
was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was
contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself,
if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.

man_in_shack here.

You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be
contradicting yourself. While I was going over what you said and
trying to work out the best way to respond, you parted and rejoined
with a nick that was not covered by the % ban. This is ban evasion,
and this is the reason why you were banned. I have a zero-tolerance
policy for any ban evader.

Also note, there is no such thing as a "casual conversation" in
#winehq (or if there is, it should be moved to #winehq-social).
#winehq is a support channel.

The ban is lifted, and I apologise for the length of time it took. I
had an event to attend and removed the ban as soon as I got back home.

Andrew Fenn · Post by **Andrew Fenn** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:52 am

Why did you ban/kick him in the first place instead of explain you
can't help him? I don't see any reason for this behaviour as it was
only you guys active in the channel at the time.

I've attached the log to this email for people not there. Do you
regularly ban people whose questions you can't answer or is this a
special case?

You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be contradicting yourself.

That's a poor excuse to kick someone from the channel. If you think
someone is wasting your time then just tell them you can't help them
and/or go to a different channel.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ben Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

-- Sun Mar 22 00:38:45 CDT 2009, tsukasa1105 said:
man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i
was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was
contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself,
if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.
man_in_shack here.

You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be
contradicting yourself. While I was going over what you said and
trying to work out the best way to respond, you parted and rejoined
with a nick that was not covered by the % ban. This is ban evasion,
and this is the reason why you were banned. I have a zero-tolerance
policy for any ban evader.

Also note, there is no such thing as a "casual conversation" in
#winehq (or if there is, it should be moved to #winehq-social).
#winehq is a support channel.

The ban is lifted, and I apologise for the length of time it took. I
had an event to attend and removed the ban as soon as I got back home.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wine.log
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1579 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.obj>

Andrew Fenn · Post by **Andrew Fenn** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:56 am

The log you have supplied does not include anywhere near the full conversation

I apologise for not including the full log as I didn't see it
necessary to my point. Please however do not assume there is some
malicious reason behind it as you suggested.

And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me rebut: YES IT DOES.

Forgive me for not knowing the specifics of IRC or what you did in the
first place but here is what I saw before you banned him for "ban
evasion"

man_in_shack sets ban on %tsukasa!*@*

tsukasa_ then dropped out the channel then joined back and says

<tsukasa_> real mature

tsukasa_ may have broken the channel rules but only after you reacted
in an inappropriate manner. If you had asked him to wait then he would
not have been banned and you or someone else in the channel would have
eventually answered his question.

Banning is not the standard way of making someone wait while you try
and understand their question to help them.

I'm happy you were able to resolve this however if his question was
answered rather then being banned for a situation you created, the
user would have left happy and satisfied rather then having to come to
the mailing list to get unbanned so he could try and get his question
answered a second time around.

Again it's great that you sorted this out, but my concern is that if
these situations continue to happen it is going to make the wine
community look bad. It was only a few weeks ago that someone else was
complaining on the mailing list that they were unfairly banned from
the channel.

Sorry if it looks like I am picking on you, my interests are in making
users see the good wine community and not be burned by bad judgements.
I'm glad you're helping out in the wine channel and I'm sure this is a
rare incident.

May I suggest in the future that if you want someone wait while you
figure out what they're doing you ask them to wait instead of
forcefully removing them from the channel. Doing such a thing means
others can not help you to answer the questions and also kills a
user's good mood. People can sometimes be difficult in describing
their problems however you must remember to try and stay positive and
work with them.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ben Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

2009/3/22 Andrew Fenn <[email protected]>:
Why did you ban/kick him in the first place instead of explain you
can't help him? I don't see any reason for this behaviour as it was
only you guys active in the channel at the time.

I've attached the log to this email for people not there. Do you
regularly ban people whose questions you can't answer or is this a
special case?
The log you have supplied does not include anywhere near the full
conversation, not that it's really relevant any more. If I didn't know
better, I'd say you've doctored it to make me look bad.

After closely re-reading what he said in the channel and on
wine-users, I know what he was doing - two X server instances, one
with Twinview and both displays active, the other with only one
display active - but I still don't understand why he was doing it, nor
was it particularly clear at the time. (He seemed to be saying he was
using an X server on display 1 and an X server on display 2 working
both with and without Twinview at the same time.)

That's a poor excuse to kick someone from the channel. If you think
someone is wasting your time then just tell them you can't help them
and/or go to a different channel.
I did NOT kick him for contradicting himself. I imposed what was
intended to be a temporary +q while I tried to work out what he was
doing from his contradictory information, and give him the best advice
from that. He didn't give me the chance to do this, and instead evaded
the +q, which warrants instant ban (though not permanent ban). He then
got kicked by the resident bot.

Let me put this in the simplest terms possible. He was banned for ban
evasion, not for any disagreement we had before that. The ban is now
lifted as it was never intended to be permanent. I have already
apologised for the length of time it took to lift the ban, as I had to
go out. What more could I have done?

And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me
rebut: YES IT DOES.

Ben Klein · Post by **Ben Klein** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:16 am

2009/3/22 Andrew Fenn <[email protected]>:

Why did you ban/kick him in the first place instead of explain you
can't help him? I don't see any reason for this behaviour as it was
only you guys active in the channel at the time.

I've attached the log to this email for people not there. Do you
regularly ban people whose questions you can't answer or is this a
special case?

The log you have supplied does not include anywhere near the full
conversation, not that it's really relevant any more. If I didn't know
better, I'd say you've doctored it to make me look bad.

After closely re-reading what he said in the channel and on
wine-users, I know what he was doing - two X server instances, one
with Twinview and both displays active, the other with only one
display active - but I still don't understand why he was doing it, nor
was it particularly clear at the time. (He seemed to be saying he was
using an X server on display 1 and an X server on display 2 working
both with and without Twinview at the same time.)

You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be contradicting yourself.
That's a poor excuse to kick someone from the channel. If you think
someone is wasting your time then just tell them you can't help them
and/or go to a different channel.

I did NOT kick him for contradicting himself. I imposed what was
intended to be a temporary +q while I tried to work out what he was
doing from his contradictory information, and give him the best advice
from that. He didn't give me the chance to do this, and instead evaded
the +q, which warrants instant ban (though not permanent ban). He then
got kicked by the resident bot.

Let me put this in the simplest terms possible. He was banned for ban
evasion, not for any disagreement we had before that. The ban is now
lifted as it was never intended to be permanent. I have already
apologised for the length of time it took to lift the ban, as I had to
go out. What more could I have done?

And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me
rebut: YES IT DOES.

Ben Klein · Post by **Ben Klein** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:16 am

2009/3/23 Andrew Fenn <[email protected]>:

And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me rebut: YES IT DOES.
Forgive me for not knowing the specifics of IRC or what you did in the
first place but here is what I saw before you banned him for "ban
evasion"

man_in_shack sets ban on %tsukasa!*@*
tsukasa_ then dropped out the channel then joined back and says

<tsukasa_> real mature

The % ban prevents the user from talking but does not prevent them
from reading what other people say or joining the channel. By changing
nicks, he was evading the % ban.

tsukasa_ may have broken the channel rules but only after you reacted
in an inappropriate manner. If you had asked him to wait then he would
not have been banned and you or someone else in the channel would have
eventually answered his question.

I don't believe my actions were inappropriate. This sort of thing has
happened before and there have been no complaints from the users
involved or any of the other channel ops.

Banning is not the standard way of making someone wait while you try
and understand their question to help them.

A % ban on Freenode is a standard way to prevent a user from talking,
in this case to prevent greater confusion on the part of people trying
to help him (i.e. me) so that they could review the situation in
complete detail. He did not give me this chance.

I'm happy you were able to resolve this however if his question was
answered rather then being banned for a situation you created,

Question could not be answered due to self-contradiction.

the user would have left happy and satisfied rather then having to come
to the mailing list to get unbanned so he could try and get his question
answered a second time around.

"I WAZ BANNED UNFAIRLY PLZ LIFT IT". Don't take his word for it
without reviewing the full facts on both sides.

May I suggest in the future that if you want someone wait while you
figure out what they're doing you ask them to wait instead of
forcefully removing them from the channel.

How many times do I have to say this? I did not NOT remove him from
the channel; he left and rejoined, and was consequentially banned for
evading the % ban. This was perfectly justified, regardless of whether
the original % ban was justified or not. Ban evasion is *always* a
bannable offence.

If the user had a little thing called "patience", which I might add I
have though you are stretching it, we wouldn't be having this
conversation. In fact, we shouldn't be having this conversation
anyway. I was the one who banned him, so he should have addressed his
problem with me. Instead, he went straight to the mailing list. If he
has no patience with me, why should I have patience with him?

Doing such a thing means others can not help you to answer the
questions and also kills a user's good mood. People can sometimes
be difficult in describing their problems however you must remember
to try and stay positive and work with them.

It's *very* difficult to help people who (at least appear to)
completely contradict themselves. Twinview and separate X screens are
normally mutually exclusive.

David Gerard · Post by **David Gerard** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:45 am

2009/3/22 tsukasa1105 <[email protected]>:

man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself, if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.

IRC is basically off-topic here. It has nothing to do with getting
software working under Wine, and really - nobody here to find out
about that cares.

Could "I've been banned from IRC" threads be killed?

- d.

myromance123 · Post by **myromance123** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:47 am

I agree with David Gerard.

austin987 · Post by **austin987** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:34 am

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:44 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:

2009/3/22 tsukasa1105 <[email protected]>:

man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself, if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.
IRC is basically off-topic here. It has nothing to do with getting
software working under Wine, and really - nobody here to find out
about that cares.

Could "I've been banned from IRC" threads be killed?

If that's the case, then how would users get unbanned from IRC?

Both are related to wine help, it's perfectly on topic.

--
-Austin