Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
All, This conversation is not in any way useful to the community at this point and it is definitely not in the spirit of the Code of Conduct. The request was made in regards to a contact. The initial discussion was about whether Hetzner's processes were valid or not, that is fine. However we've gone well past that and I would ask both of you to please step away from the conversation. This is not a question of who said what or the relative merits of same, it's a case of a thread that should please cease. And I would caution everyone on the list to please, as always, consider their responses and whether they *need* to respond to any post here. And if you do need to respond, which you may well, that's great, but if you do, do so in a respectful manner. Thank you, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ac Sent: Thursday 25 April 2019 11:08 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 02:42:35 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
I have just been reviewing the RIPE Code of Conduct for mailing lists, and specifically these sections:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-cod e-of-conduct
RIPE community members should not spam mailing lists, post others' personal information, register multiple accounts to avoid moderation or mislead participants, impersonate others, or make threats. Overt marketing or promotional activities are discouraged.
Chairs are responsible for facilitating and moderating the RIPE community's discussions. At times they may direct an individual to cease a certain type of behaviour. Chairs have the authority to moderate or ban disruptive community members if they decide this is necessary.
I'd just like to ask you if you are in agreement with the above quoted
Yes, I am in complete agreement with the above.
That said, you, on the other hand are clearly not.
Whether I am wearing underwear or not hardly has anything to do with this abuse list and your discussing my underwear is also hardly proper.
And, you, requesting a non-role contact at Hetzner, is clearly an indication of the bully you are.
That you are also an ignorant bully is now common cause.
Andre
In message <DB7PR06MB56435FBFAB55AD9FC7611829943D0@DB7PR06MB5643.eurprd06.prod. outlook.com>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
This conversation is not in any way useful to the community at this point and it is definitely not in the spirit of the Code of Conduct.
Point of order Mr. Chairman! I am now, quite reluctantly, obliged to ask if you also are in agreement with the specific passages of the RIPE Code of Conduct that I posted here yesterday, in particular the part about "misleading participants" and/or "impersonating others". I am further obliged to ask you if you would agree that your role as Chairman gives you not only the right but also the responsibility to insure that these offenses against the Working Group are not allowed to go on, ad infinitum, unchallenged and with no active response from the Chair. I am reminded of a story which I have now heard, repeatedly and from multiple reliable sources, of the time when the notorious bulk emailer Scott Richter somehow managed to finagle his way into one particular MAAWG meeting, whereupon he allegedly (mostly) hung out at the bar and attempted to strike up conversations with several of the MAAWG participants, all in a covert effort to advance his own personal/commercial pro-abuse agenda. As the story goes, eventually someone in the know recognized him, understood implicitly that he was there not in support of the goals of MAAWG, but for some other counter-purpose entirely, after which, as I understand it, he was appropriately ejected and instructed not to come back. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to ask if you agree that that it is not only within your authority, but also within your responsibility to likewise eject from the AAWG mailing list anyone who can likewise be shown to have been "misleading participants", "impersonating others", or basically playing for the other (anti-anti-abuse) team., all in clear violation of the RIPE Code of Conduct. Or is it your intent to turn a blind eye to such matters, and to simply stand by and allow this WG to degenerate, via the slow and subtle infiltration of quasi-anonymous bulk mail industry sock puppets, into the anti-anti-abuse working group? To be clear, I *do* raise this question as a point of order, and I believe that the question must rightly take precedence over all other discussions. The reason is simple. I *do* believe that there exists clear and compelling evidence that at least one of the participants here is and has been here, -covertly- and with intentional deception, representing the commercial interests of the bulk emailing industry. I futher believe that there exists clear evidence that the person in question is not only playing for the other team, but also that she has been consistantly and routinely disruptive here, posting pointless tirades and allegations about alleged "abuses" by various multinational corporations, none of which, even if true, either does have or would have any bearing whatsoever on the work of this Working Group, and none of which, even if true, would ever be anything that the Working Group could even possibly do anything about. In short, it is my contention that this Working Group and this mailing list have been covertly infiltrated, via multiple ruses employing multiple clear and deliberate deceptions, in violation of the RIPE CoC, and that this was all done with the clear and apparent motivation to thwart, derail, and obstruct any and all meaningful debate here, especially as it may relate to matters that -are- actually relevant to the WG's work. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to summarily eject the member in question from the mailing list with clear instructions not to return and not to try to do so via the ruse of yet additional sock puppet fradulent identities. I ask you to do so in accordance with your clear authority and responsibility under the RIPE Code of Conduct, which is, I think, not at all ambiguous on this point. You cannot, I think, merely stand by and allow arbitrary actors with hidden agendas and fradulent identities to infiltrate and repeatedly disrupt and thwart this Working Group, or this mailing list, whether via repeated off-topic rantings or via other artificial means. To do so would be a serious abrogation of your responsibilities as Chair of this WG, and one which I and others might reasonably feel duty bound to bring to the attention of other and higher RIPE authorities. I await the Chair's response and the Chair's appropriate action. Regards, rfg
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:41:20 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote: <snip senseless rant around here>
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to summarily eject the member in question from the mailing list with clear instructions not to return and not to try to do so via the ruse of yet additional sock puppet fradulent identities. I ask you to do so in accordance with your clear authority and responsibility under the RIPE Code of Conduct, which is, I think, not at all ambiguous on this point. You cannot, I think, merely stand by and allow arbitrary actors with hidden agendas and fradulent identities to infiltrate and repeatedly disrupt and thwart this Working Group, or this mailing list, whether via repeated off-topic rantings or via other artificial means. To do so would be a serious abrogation of your responsibilities as Chair of this WG, and one which I and others might reasonably feel duty bound to bring to the attention of other and higher RIPE authorities.
I await the Chair's response and the Chair's appropriate action.
So, if you do not get your way, me being ejected, then you are threatening the Chair? All in the same post. You are indeed an arrogant and ignorant bully. And, you are the disruption. You have carefully crafted an identity over a decade or more, yet, even after looking carefully, I cannot see that you are pushing packets in RIPE. I also cannot see you anywhere among my own colleagues and I therefore do not understand what you are doing in this WG, except to cause disruption, division and spread FUD. Your behavior even in this thread: 1. You post on a website (links included in your original post) clearly states that Hetzner cannot investigate without you agreeing that they send the email headers to the service provider You claim that this idea is the worst idea since "This is probably the best European idea since the one about invading Russia in Winter." 2. When I point out that you are technically incorrect or ignorant - as the Hetzner response is completely true, ethical and correct and YOU are wrong You start attacking me, with us now here where you are threatening that if I am not ejected from this WG you " I and others might reasonably feel duty bound to bring to the attention of other and higher RIPE authorities." Your disruptive, arrogant and bully behavior is cause for you to be ejected from this WG Andre
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to summarily eject the member in question So, if you do not get your way, me being ejected, then you are threatening the Chair?
ok children. this is a waste of other people's bandwidth. if you want to carry on in private, go for it. but stop pissing in the commons. randy
participants (4)
-
ac -
Brian Nisbet -
Randy Bush -
Ronald F. Guilmette