WG Chair Mailing List Decision
Colleagues, This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind svenk@xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was not done lightly, rather it was done to safeguard this community. We would ask the members not to forward any of their mails to the list, nor to include them in list discussions. This mailing list is a place to discuss network abuse (of all sorts, not just spam) amongst ISPs, LEAs, Governments, Enterprise Networks and any concerned Internet Citizens. It is not a place to insult, to decry, to repeatedly state the same point over and over or to discriminate against other members of the community based on their race, creed, gender or sexual preferences. If we cannot maintain a list upon which reasonable discussion can take place, then it leaves our community in a weakened state. Tobias and I discussed this matter with Hans Petter Holen, the RIPE Chair, and we have arrived at this course of action. The Co-Chairs are happy to answer reasonable questions off-list. Of course this is a community mailing list, so we are also happy for discussion to take place here. However, as with all discussions, we would ask that if people do wish for this, that it remain respectful and on topic. If required we can devote some time to discussion of this at RIPE74. Brian & Tobias Co-Chairs, RIPE AA-WG
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:05:19PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind svenk@xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was not done lightly, rather it was done to safeguard this community.
Safeguard it from what? Non-approved opinions? Please note that, as a notional member of said community, I was not asked whether I wanted to be "safeguarded". Thank you, Daddy, for looking out for my well-being but I'm old enough to look after that myself...
It is not a place to insult, to decry, to repeatedly state the same point over and over
While I agree, there are some others guilty of that, viz. the repeated accusation that ISPs (and the RIPE NCC) are criminals (or at least in league with such) etc. Seemingly, they have yet to be banned from this list.
or to discriminate against other members of the community based on their race, creed, gender or sexual preferences.
A quick browse (and thanks for making me have to do that)through the relevant contributions has not thrown up any obvious evidence of any such statements. If you have any that I might have missed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I think, an apology for what certainly reads like a gratuitious accusation is more than appropriate.
If we cannot maintain a list upon which reasonable discussion can take place, then it leaves our community in a weakened state.
Agreed. So, if censorship be it, please remove all the other trolls, including their sockpuppets, from this list. I suspect it will be a very quiet one after that and perhaps deservedly so. If nobody is to be allowed to ridicule or criticise the "other" side - and the contributor has a valid point, however annoyingly presented, it is not a "community" but a "cult". Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
Do name names. Who – according to you – is a sockpuppet here? Or a troll? All I see in this email is a series of stream of consciousness accusations but zero specifics. To be plain – I think many people on this list, you included, have zero background in abuse mitigation, and engaging in any sort of discussion with such people is, just possibly, a slightly less unproductive endless loop than engaging with Kamphuis would have been. But beyond that I see zero signs of collusion, as you seem to allege others have been saying. On 16/02/17, 6:40 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml]" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of aawg@c4inet.net> wrote: Agreed. So, if censorship be it, please remove all the other trolls, including their sockpuppets, from this list. I suspect it will be a very quiet one after that and perhaps deservedly so.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 06:55:40AM -0800, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Do name names. Who – according to you – is a sockpuppet here? Or a troll?
You know who you are. It's a matter of simple traffic analysis. If a message decrying the NCC and its members as a hive of villainy appears here, followed minutes later by an outburst of enthusiastic agreement, it's not a very far leap of logic to assume a claque or sockpuppetry. The (albeit circumstantial) evidence is archived for posterity.
To be plain – I think many people on this list, you included, have zero background in abuse mitigation,
And I thank fate for that.
and engaging in any sort of discussion with such people is, just possibly, a slightly less unproductive endless loop than engaging with Kamphuis would have been
"such people" as myself are the operators of the networks without which "such people" as yourself wouldn't exist. We have a stake in these discussions, like it or not. rgds, Sascha Luck
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:40:02 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:05:19PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind svenk@xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was not done lightly, rather it was done to safeguard this community. Safeguard it from what? Non-approved opinions? Please note that, as a notional member of said community, I was not asked whether I wanted to be "safeguarded". Thank you, Daddy, for looking out for my well-being but I'm old enough to look after that myself...
speak for yourself! I am still young and beautiful :)
It is not a place to insult, to decry, to repeatedly state the same point over and over While I agree, there are some others guilty of that, viz. the repeated accusation that ISPs (and the RIPE NCC) are criminals (or at least in league with such) etc. Seemingly, they have yet to be banned from this list. or to discriminate against other members of the community based on their race, creed, gender or sexual preferences. A quick browse (and thanks for making me have to do that)through the relevant contributions has not thrown up any obvious evidence of any such statements. If you have any that I might have missed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I think, an apology for what certainly reads like a gratuitious accusation is more than appropriate. If we cannot maintain a list upon which reasonable discussion can take place, then it leaves our community in a weakened state. Agreed. So, if censorship be it, please remove all the other trolls, including their sockpuppets, from this list. I suspect it will be a very quiet one after that and perhaps deservedly so. If nobody is to be allowed to ridicule or criticise the "other" side - and the contributor has a valid point, however annoyingly presented, it is not a "community" but a "cult". Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
mostly +1 buuut... well... i like being on a list with the ilk of Gert & Suresh & the dudes with seriosu abuse skillz :) - even if we are to be a cult :) please tell me about the alleged sockpuppet(s) - seriously (no trolling) i have sneaky suspicions, but, well, nothing concrete... For the rest, I am filled with FUD and each character typed results in an adjustment of tinfoil... - wondering what I am guilty of (cause I am always guilty of something - even if only of being ignorant of my own ignorance :) ) beFUDded ooh, if we are a cult, please do not kick me out... i have always wanted to be in a cult! - so are we a cult or no? Andre
Sascha, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote on 16/02/2017 14:40:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:05:19PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind svenk@xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was not done lightly, rather it was done to safeguard this community.
Safeguard it from what? Non-approved opinions? Please note that, as a notional member of said community, I was not asked whether I wanted to be "safeguarded". Thank you, Daddy, for looking out for my well-being but I'm old enough to look after that myself...
This isn't just about you. It's about making sure that the community comes across as welcoming to all of the various stakeholders. Tobias and I (as well as others, but the decision was ours) felt that Sven did not in any way contribute to the community or that welcome. Yes, we've had less than ideal conversations here before, but it never went to the level seen recently.
It is not a place to insult, to decry, to repeatedly state the same point over and over
While I agree, there are some others guilty of that, viz. the repeated accusation that ISPs (and the RIPE NCC) are criminals (or at least in league with such) etc. Seemingly, they have yet to be banned from this list.
We are not here to talk about other instances. This is about one instance. There does need to be further conversation about the AA-WG community and the list.
or to discriminate against other members of the community based on their race, creed, gender or sexual preferences.
A quick browse (and thanks for making me have to do that)through the relevant contributions has not thrown up any obvious evidence of any such statements. If you have any that I might have missed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I think, an apology for what certainly reads like a gratuitious accusation is more than appropriate.
There is quite a lot of material that did not make it to the list because of the good offices of the NCC. Tobias and I asked them to take interim moderation measures. The question after that was to accept all mails or put in a ban, due to the continued issues we went for a ban.
If we cannot maintain a list upon which reasonable discussion can take place, then it leaves our community in a weakened state.
Agreed. So, if censorship be it, please remove all the other trolls, including their sockpuppets, from this list. I suspect it will be a very quiet one after that and perhaps deservedly so.
If nobody is to be allowed to ridicule or criticise the "other" side - and the contributor has a valid point, however annoyingly presented, it is not a "community" but a "cult".
Ridiculing and criticising are two very, very different things. We have never suggested that founded and well argued criticism shouldn't be allowed. Repeated offensive behaviour is very different. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:45:54PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
We are not here to talk about other instances. This is about one instance. There does need to be further conversation about the AA-WG community and the list.
Agree.
There is quite a lot of material that did not make it to the list because of the good offices of the NCC. Tobias and I asked them to take interim moderation measures. The question after that was to accept all mails or put in a ban, due to the continued issues we went for a ban.
That is not what I call the spirit of openness and transparency. In fact, "based on seekrit information we have and you don't" is pretty much the antithesis of that.
Ridiculing and criticising are two very, very different things.
Criticising by ridiculing is in fact its very own art form - satire, particularly political satire. Punishing and/or censoring that is an attribute of a community or society that I do not very much care to live in (again!).
We have never suggested that founded and well argued criticism shouldn't be allowed. Repeated offensive behaviour is very different.
Something that is, alas, pretty much a feature of the entire list. rgds, Sascha Luck
Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
participants (4)
-
Brian Nisbet -
ox -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Suresh Ramasubramanian