[maemo-community] Banned from maemo.org - someone went ape shit nuts?!

[From: twilight312 at gmail.com]

On pon 12 lis 2012 16:20:25 CET, Ilya Skriblovsky <ilyaskriblovsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Just want to add some fresh opinion to this horrible flame. It's "fresh"
> because I don't really know the background: I don't know why Estel was
> banned and why it is so opposite to the Council.
> (Though I'm subscribed to this list, I'm rare reading it further subject
> line because starting with Community Awards discussion in June, 95% of
> mails here are full of flame and lacking of any constructive).
> 
> But this situation seems very ugly to me. Screenshot with blurred IP
> addresses is certainly not an evidence at all. If screenshot was with
> exact IP match as Mohammad said, then I miss the point for blurring
> other IPs. If all blurred IPs are the same and same with Estel's, please
> publish original screenshot. If they differ — please remove the ban,
> admit your mistake and stop this shame.
> 
> (By the way, even if all IPs are the same, it is not 100% evidence of
> identity of these accounts since if mentioned Polish network provides
> variable IP addresses, it's not a wonder if several IPs will accidentally
> match somewhen. Deep login history research is the only way to be 100%
> sure.)
> 
> Yours,
> Mitrandir

Thank you for fresh, clear, and sane opinion. I also think, that we all need to take deep breath, state basic principles, and reconstruct what happened. So, point 1, about basic principles:


On pon 12 lis 2012 16:27:11 CET, Ilya Skriblovsky <ilyaskriblovsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> And of course saying that "attitude and wording" of email with
> complaining to ban can justify this ban in any way — This is certainly
> immoral and shows the lack of will to solve the incident. Answer to the
> facts first and after cause will be clear, then say all you want about
> wording.
> 
> Presumption of innocence is the holy thing, really.
> 
> Yours,
> Mitrandir

I think it's clear to any civilized person, and no one will try to disagree with you, here. Hurting innocents, for "higher case", then justifying it afterwards, is lack of civil responsibility, one of worst examples. It should be fought with fire in both small things (like here), and big ones - the latter seed from the former, and finally, result in great catastrophes.

Thus...

On pon 12 lis 2012 16:39:29 CET, Andre Klapper <andre_klapper at gmx.net> wrote:
 
> Thanks for a fresh opinion, but I have become unwilling as it's simply
> enough at some point. 
> Lots of previous talk, simply check the mailing list archives.
> 
> andre
> -- 
> Andre Klapper | Bugmaster
> http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

...doesn't sound like good excuse.

On pon 12 lis 2012 17:16:14 CET, Marcin Mielniczuk <marmistrz at linux.pl> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just wondering, as I couldn't be up to date lately: why has been Estel
> banned? (a link or so is enough)
> --
> Marcin

I have been banned due to, exactly, this post:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1287822&postcount=48

Yes, seriously. For our unbeliveably fair and neutral moderator, chemist, it was enough for ban. What is more spicy, this exact same case was reviewed earlier, by moderator sjgadsby, and he just warned every participant (including me), to not continue. His recommendations were followed to the single line - yet, after 4-5 days, chemist decided, that he need to show his presence and how important he is, issuing ban. Of course, he haven't punished anyone else arguing there - I said, that his neutrality is legendar, didn't I?

While it was clearly unfair, I have *never* mentioned it in public. I have created account to contact administrators about mentioned doubts, and I have denied (in polite message) Woody's lie (done on purpose) about my disappearing being my attempt to scam people, that pre-ordered replacement bodies for N900. This sole reaction - in defense of collaborative project - was cause of extending ban to 6 December 2012.

On pon 12 lis 2012 18:19:26 CET, chemist <chemist at dostortugas.org> wrote:

> Hey Folks,
> 
> It was me who banned JCDenton and aquamarine aswell

Great job, chemist! You have banned someone out of blue sky (aquamarine) and we would never know about it, if your madness wouldn't result in banning JCDenton! Let's light a candle for aquamarine, as - whoever she/he was - it's probably lost to Community, with all her/his potential.

Furthermore, you seem to be quite proud of banning innocent people for "higher cause", just because it seemed to you, that they may be me?

Maybe you have banned someone else "for me", too? C'mon, share your great deeds with us.
 
> I did not follow the IP after that till someone pointed at JCDenton
> considering   to be Estel, checked the IP again and voila another account
> shows... seems Estel did use a not working fake mail account and was
> forced to open another. JCDenton got a "One-Touch-Ban and Clean" click
> which is only possible with accounts not posted much and newly created
> (to ban Spambots).

bullshit - Letsee was new account, yet, single post from there was left in place. You have banned JCDenton using post removal, due to plain laziness.

Not to mention, that your "theory" proved to be wrong, as it was assumed on sole NAT IP of provider, which is very risky way of banning people, and every beginning admin/moderator know that.

Now, Mr. Failman, instead of excusing JCDenton, you're again proud of yourself!
 
> For the screenshot Reggie made available: I think he missed to blur the
> top. He has a strict policy when it comes to securing or sharing privat
> data. I can assure you that 'yes' it was a search for a single IP and
> they matched Estel JCDenton Letsee and aquamarine while in the picture
> JCDenton has no more posts as I deleted them so no match for posts.

Nice story. Still no idea, how you can share with us such lack of responsibility, skills, and just plain brainless actions, without burning from shame.

So, basically, you just confirmed your guilt, without any reegrets?


> Estel, I sent a warning out to you at least twice. There are rules and
> if you are not up to playing by them you may leave or get banned. Your
> choice.

Frankly - I see it as personal offense, when you suggest I might be breaking your pathetic "rules" to take part in so corrupted, decomposed, and pathetic forum as TMO. It was wrong from the start, and now, it become decomposing swamp, plagued by brainless, egomaniac mods, that didn't care for hurting innocent people, if it boost own ego enough.

After what you have done, by banning at least two innocent people (maybe more, who knows), just because you "though" they may be me, you're not only complete ZERO as a moderator. You're zero as member of community, too. Be gone, in all shame possible.

/Estel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20121112/23d9af38/attachment.htm>