Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12687 > unrolled thread

Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-03-22 22:10 +0100
    Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 01:00 +0100
      Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Martina Ferrari <tina@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 19:20 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-03-24 00:30 +0100
    Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 08:30 +0100
      Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Ingo Jürgensmann <ij@2022.bluespice.org> - 2022-03-23 09:10 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 10:10 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 14:00 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Ingo Jürgensmann <ij@2022.bluespice.org> - 2022-03-23 14:00 +0100
            Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 12:50 +0200
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 14:20 +0100
      Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2022-03-23 09:10 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2022-03-23 10:00 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Ingo Jürgensmann <ij@2022.bluespice.org> - 2022-03-23 12:40 +0100
            Re: Is Debian sending people away? Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 14:40 +0100
              Re: Is Debian sending people away? Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 15:10 +0100
            Is Debian sending people away? Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 15:10 +0100
              Re: Is Debian sending people away? Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2022-03-23 17:20 +0100
      Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2022-03-23 14:00 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 15:40 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 17:30 +0100
            Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 18:10 +0100
      Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2022-03-23 15:00 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 16:10 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 16:20 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Ulrike Uhlig <u@451f.org> - 2022-03-23 17:20 +0100
            Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2022-03-23 17:30 +0100
          Re: Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2022-03-24 10:20 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 16:20 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 21:30 +0100
        Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-03-23 21:40 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org> - 2022-03-23 23:30 +0100
            Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-03-24 00:50 +0100
          Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-03-24 02:10 +0100
    Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-03-23 08:30 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12715

On 2022-03-23 10 h 14, Dominik George wrote:
> While I agree that Jonathan has abused his powers and should not have removed anyone from planet on his own, your argumentation is toxic in itself.

We had this discussion a while ago when something similar happened on
Planet: every DD can remove a blog from Planet.

Rule 6 says [1]:

"Posts that are syndicated on Planet Debian that violate our community
standards may result in removal of the feed. When a feed is removed, the
committer must state the reason for removal, either in a commit message
or in the edited file (be mindful of the fact that the contents of
commit messages cannot be expunged later; it is best to avoid specific
details). If unsure, please contact the planet administrators instead of
re-adding a feed yourself."

There's no link between Jonathan being the current DPL ("has abused his
powers") and his ability to remove someone from Planet. Anyone of us
could've done so.

[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian#What_Can_I_Post_On_Planet

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12718

> There's no link between Jonathan being the current DPL ("has abused his
> powers")

I did not say "his powers as DPL".

-nik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12703

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > Can we delete him from planet?
> 
> Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!

I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit message.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Autotools hint: to do a zx-spectrum build on a pdp11 host, type:
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   ./configure --host=zx-spectrum --build=pdp11
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12708

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:51:10PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > > Can we delete him from planet?
> > 
> > Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
> 
> I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
> Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit message.

I'm not going to play commit ping pong, but why do you think it is
appropriate to continue to have someone on Planet Debian whom we have
banned from the project, and whose appeal for that ban was rejected?

Honestly, I was surprised to learn he still *was* on Planet. I don't
think it makes any sense at all to keep people on Planet Debian who we
threw out for cause.

-- 
     w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12710

I was also very very surprised to hear we allow members removed
because of their toxic behavior still allowed to use project resources
to amplify the very things that got them removed in the first place.

No idea why we wouldn't have removed the blog of anyone expelled from
planet.d.o as part of that action. It seems wholly inappropriate to
keep any expelled member of Debian's blog on the planet.


On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:02 AM Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:51:10PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > > > Can we delete him from planet?
> > >
> > > Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
> >
> > I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
> > Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit message.
>
> I'm not going to play commit ping pong, but why do you think it is
> appropriate to continue to have someone on Planet Debian whom we have
> banned from the project, and whose appeal for that ban was rejected?
>
> Honestly, I was surprised to learn he still *was* on Planet. I don't
> think it makes any sense at all to keep people on Planet Debian who we
> threw out for cause.
>
> --
>      w@uter.{be,co.za}
> wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
>


-- 
:wq

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12713

Hello,

On 23.03.22 15:44, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:51:10PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>>> Can we delete him from planet?
>>>
>>> Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
>>
>> I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
>> Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit message.
> 
> I'm not going to play commit ping pong, but why do you think it is
> appropriate to continue to have someone on Planet Debian whom we have
> banned from the project, and whose appeal for that ban was rejected?
> 
> Honestly, I was surprised to learn he still *was* on Planet. I don't
> think it makes any sense at all to keep people on Planet Debian who we
> threw out for cause.

Exactly. Thank you for pointing it out.

Banned from the project != emeritus ;
	ergo should not be able to use project resources, project
         outreach, be part of the project community.


On a sidenote, I would like to urge the people who did so in this thread 
to stop using the word "toxic" to describe that someone is being called 
out for bullying, abusive behavior, discriminatory, or 
(passive-)agressive remarks. This is victim reversal.

Take care,
Ulrike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12716

Ulrike Uhlig - 23.03.22, 17:02:14 CET:
> On a sidenote, I would like to urge the people who did so in this
> thread to stop using the word "toxic" to describe that someone is
> being called out for bullying, abusive behavior, discriminatory, or
> (passive-)agressive remarks. This is victim reversal.

This is disagreement.

You state, as a matter of fact, who is the offender and who is victim 
here.

Yet, beyond doubt, from what I see here, there is unresolved 
disagreement whether what you state as fact is actually factually true.

So what you share is a point of view. *One* side of the story.

Not a fact.

Calling a fact, what is not a fact, may in itself be abusive and may in 
itself make someone else a victim.

I more and more get the impression that all of this is much more about 
power, not about truth.

-- 
Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12732

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 08:02:56AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> May I remind you that I am NOT banned from the project, but "ONLY"
> demoted to DM!

Yes, indeed; my mistake.

> Since my emails are not delivered to d-p, I ask you to revert your
> statement on d-p, since it is a lie.

No, it is not. A lie implies malicious intent, which did not exist in this
context; I simply did not know what the actual situation was. I would like to
point you to §2 of the Code of Conduct, "Assume good faith", which it seems you
did not do here.

It was instead a mistake, which I have now corrected as you asked.

-- 
     w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12709

Hi Adam

On 2022/03/23 15:51, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>> Can we delete him from planet?
>> Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
 >
> I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
> Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit message.

I'm not going to engage in a commit war here. Instead, I'm calling on 
Planet admins to take what they consider appropriate action here.

Norbert has continued his poor behaviour after requests, warnings, being 
suspended, more requests, etc until he was kicked out of the project. If 
someone's behavior is bad enough to get kicked out of the project, their 
feed should really be removed from planet at that time too.

I would really like to make it through a week without having to read 
complaints about Norbert, and I'm not going to tolerate any further 
abuse from him towards either the project or its members.

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12720

On 16446 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote:

>> > Can we delete him from planet?
>> Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
> I went bold and reverted this removal; the detailed reason why and the
> Planet rules I believe Jonathan has breached are in the commit 
> message.

And you are wrong to have done so, and Jonathan was right to do the 
removal.

A Planet Admin (not me!) has reverted your commit, thankfully.

A simple reading of Planet Debian rules also shows why. Norbert violates
#5 (multiple times already by now) and Jonathan followed #6. If you
would have followed that too, you would have mailed Planet Admin.


And a note for the rest of the thread: Norbert was *not* "banned from
contributing or communicating with Debian", he got changed to Debian
Maintainer instead of Developer. Which is why he still was on Planet.
What he makes out of that is up to him.

--
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12721

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> > Can we delete him from planet?
>> 
>> Any DD can do that... oh wait that includes me... done!
>
> I went bold and reverted this removal;

If you think Jonathan got it wrong, try persuading enough of the rest of
us to your view, and then if you were to succeed, the change will be
trivial to revert.

FWIW I don't remember being glad to have read anything by Norbert for a
very long time, but I've probably trained myself to skip past his posts,
so I could probably pretend that he's harmless if I really tried.

However it seems pretty clear that his behaviour does hurt others, and I
do care about that, and I cannot see what benefit is supposed to somehow
offset that harm in order to justify him remaining on Planet.

I note that nobody in this discussion so far has tried to argue that
we'll somehow be poorer for being less exposed to his writings, but only
that some procedure might not have been followed properly.

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. the resort to an argument about procedure does seem very
reminiscent of the recently referenced wartime sabotage manual.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12723

On 2022-03-23 21:27, Philip Hands wrote:
> I note that nobody in this discussion so far has tried to argue that
> we'll somehow be poorer for being less exposed to his writings 

It's not fair to dismiss his frequent KDE and TeX reports like hat.

> but only that some procedure might not have been followed properly.

Observing processes and procedures is what gives us confidence in a fair
and just system. That's obviously important to many of us, otherwise we
wouldn't have so many discussions about and votes on them.

I find your off-handed dismissal ("only") of this extremely ignorant and
disrespectful to those of us to whom this is important, to the point of
being offensive.

[Note that I'm not speaking for or against any action taken here, as
that is completely irrelevant to my point.]

> P.S. the resort to an argument about procedure does seem very
> reminiscent of the recently referenced wartime sabotage manual.

This is such a toxic comment.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why people value
procedures regarding punitive measures -- see above -- and not only do
you take a jab at those people, you actually have the gall to insinuate
that this might be an act of deliberate sabotage.

Your conduct blatantly and obviously violates the "be respectful" and
"assume good faith" rules of our community, and it's entirely upsetting
to see your confidence in believing that you are actually championing
these principles with your message, when in fact you are demonstrating
utter disregard for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12726

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org> wrote on 23/03/2022 at 23:17:04+0100:

> On 2022-03-23 21:27, Philip Hands wrote:
>> I note that nobody in this discussion so far has tried to argue that
>> we'll somehow be poorer for being less exposed to his writings 
>
> It's not fair to dismiss his frequent KDE and TeX reports like hat.
>
>> but only that some procedure might not have been followed properly.
>
> Observing processes and procedures is what gives us confidence in a fair
> and just system. That's obviously important to many of us, otherwise we
> wouldn't have so many discussions about and votes on them.
>
> I find your off-handed dismissal ("only") of this extremely ignorant and
> disrespectful to those of us to whom this is important, to the point of
> being offensive.
>
> [Note that I'm not speaking for or against any action taken here, as
> that is completely irrelevant to my point.]
>
>> P.S. the resort to an argument about procedure does seem very
>> reminiscent of the recently referenced wartime sabotage manual.
>
> This is such a toxic comment.
>
> There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why people value
> procedures regarding punitive measures -- see above -- and not only do
> you take a jab at those people, you actually have the gall to insinuate
> that this might be an act of deliberate sabotage.
>
> Your conduct blatantly and obviously violates the "be respectful" and
> "assume good faith" rules of our community, and it's entirely upsetting
> to see your confidence in believing that you are actually championing
> these principles with your message, when in fact you are demonstrating
> utter disregard for them.

Please, all, chill out.

-- 
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12727

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:32 PM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> I note that nobody in this discussion so far has tried to argue that
> we'll somehow be poorer for being less exposed to his writings, but only
> that some procedure might not have been followed properly.

That is because both sides are abusing the rules to push their desired
results instead of trusting a process to arrive at an unknown outcome.

Please look at it differently for a minute. Everyone understands that
the removal question is about our attitudes to the post, or maybe just
one line in it.

Everyone also agrees that some decision is needed.

The true alternatives in this case, however—and any other, really—are
to either accept, or to make a change. The rabbis call them the "good"
impulse and the "evil" impulse. [1] While those names are flashy, they
are inaccurate. Instead, they should be called the "accepting"
inclination and the "world-changing" inclination.

All your Git actions in Planet today fall into the "changing"
category, with an "evil" score of 1 for those opposing removal, and 2
for those favoring it. That ping-pong will continue until some of you
learn to "accept" and to stop pushing your agenda.

On the removal question, there is actually a gray area. For example,
someone could have said: "Let's give the poster ten points and let's
take one away today."

Personally, I like lenient governments.

Here is some more wisdom of the ages for you: On average, men are more
"changing" [2] and women are more "accepting." [3] "Without the Evil
Desire, no man would build a house, take a wife, or beget children."
[4]

Also, true evil is not merely about how strong our "evil" impulse is.
It is also about whether we abuse the good resources we were given. On
average, people with more of the "changing" impulse also abuse their
resources more often.

A knife can cut a potato or a throat. Please let's cut some more
potatoes tomorrow. Thank you!

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara
[2] "Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine,"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/putin-special-military-operation-russia-ukraine-update_n_6216f648e4b06e1cc589c7c3
[3] "The act of saying NO workshop,"
https://curlybracket.net/assets/files/the-act-of-no-workshop-rc3-2021.pdf
[4] Bereisheet Rabbah 9:7, compiled 3rd-5th century,
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/2384?lang=bi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12690

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In his latest post, Norbert wrote:

Please note that I am a total outsider, so take this for what it's
worth.

In my opinion it seems better to let it be. Granted, Norbert's
behaviour comes across as resenful, which isn't very constructive,
but trying to respond in kind risks making things worse rather
than better.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web