[arch-general] Procedure for getting informed about ban duration and reason

DR drdarkraven at gmail.com
Wed Jul 26 23:49:41 UTC 2017

On Jul 26, 2017 16:08, "Eli Schwartz" <eschwartz at archlinux.org> wrote:

On 07/26/2017 06:28 PM, mpan wrote:
>   I’m asking for an advice on how to proceed. I am *not* discussing
> the reasons or trying to rant.
>   The situation is:
>    — On July 25th at 3:10 UTC I have been banned on #archlinux-offtopic
>      with the reason „fuck you” and a warning „next time you trash talk
>      on the ops, I set it to a week”. I was sleeping at the time, so
>      I have discovered that just before 16 UTC.
>    — Since I was given no info on the ban duration and the reason seemed
>      strange, I’ve wanted to contact the op responsible for the ban. He
>      was absent, so I was advised to use phrik’s !later to send
>      a message. This is what I have done, asking for the reason and
>      the relevant logs with the context.
>    — The op has appeared. After waiting for a hour I’ve received
>      no response, so I have PM’d him with the same question.
>    — After another hour of waiting there was still no answer, but seeing
>      the op on #archlinux I’ve asked him about the issue. I was informed
>      that if I am going to ask about that, the ban will be prolonged and
>      then I was threatened with a “final warning”.
>   It’s July 27th ~22:30 UTC and I am neither unbanned, have no
> information on ban duration or the actual reason and being prohibited
> from querying that via IRC. What should I do next?

Step 1: Learn to use PGP/MIME in preference to inline PGP.

Step 2: Stop misrepresenting the public words spoken by both you and
"the op" in the channels in question.

Step 3: Recognize that the ops were chosen because they are trusted to
make the final judgment calls, the rest of the Arch Linux community
doesn't know, doesn't care. The appeals process is stated here:

And does not include picking a fight in public.


P.S. I am considering this "trying to rant", and "picking a fight in
public", due to the fact that you are in fact discussing the reasons
(which apparently include "you're an annoying nudnik who is bothering me
with questions I feel were already answered") rather than asking "what
is the appeals process if I feel an IRC op is being unfair to me".

No need to discuss the in-depth details of your case, or complain about
how your self-indicated reasonable response is being ignored out of hand.
Contrary to popular belief, prefacing a rant with "I am not trying to
rant", does not make it suddenly cease to be a rant.

What is going on here? I have no knowledge of what led to this. But seems
to me this email is just a description of events that have unfolded. I
don't see how is this a "rant".

Is anything he said untrue or twisted?

Eli Schwartz

More information about the arch-general mailing list