[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 189

[NP Petronella]

Dear Hendrik,

Let me be clear: I did not impersonate anyone.

I changed email accounts after experiencing unusual activity on my previous Gmail account, including an unexpected unsubscribe and problems with messages on the same day I was particularly active on the list. I am not claiming to know who caused those issues, and I have not accused anyone without evidence. I simply stopped relying on an account I no longer trusted.

Your private message to the old address is not a neutral identity-verification process, and I am not required to use an unreliable mailbox to satisfy a test designed by another participant. If the co-chairs require formal verification, I am willing to cooperate with a neutral, privacy-respecting process applied equally to everyone.

What I will not accept is your attempt to turn personal suspicion into a verdict. You are not a court, and repeated references to “probabilities” do not prove impersonation, astroturfing, or bad faith.

Nor do newcomers have to behave as “humble guests” before established operators. Experience contributes evidence; it does not grant ownership of the PDP. An open process cannot invite participation and then allow familiar participants to decide who has sufficient status, affiliation, or “skin in the game” to be heard.

If you have concrete evidence of a breach, submit it to the co-chairs. Otherwise, please stop presenting speculation as fact and return to the policy discussion.

I will not engage further in private identity tests or accusations.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla


________________________________
From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 18:03:39
To: NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>; rpd-owner at afrinic.net <rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 189



On 23 Jul 2026, at 17:05, NP Petronella wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I honestly think there is a reasonable middle ground here.
>
> The list should not be allowed to become unusable. If an account is posting at automated volume, repeatedly sending the same message, or deliberately disrupting discussion, the co-chairs should address that conduct under clear rules.

I’ll substitute “account” with “group” -> astroturfing effects.

> Repeated arguments can be consolidated without excluding the people raising them. That protects the list while avoiding the much greater danger of turning moderation into a mechanism for deciding who qualifies as "the community."

yeah, the problem is when the astroturfers make it difficult and they don’t answer the questions honestly/truthfully/concisely, but using the tool to regurgitate a prose of useless large words to sounds important, that then is done in organized synchrony (like minutes from each other the exact same message, just differently worded from obvious AI tools) that is when the use of AI tools becomes a pain point, not a resolution assistance anymore.

> My position is therefore simple: moderate proven disruption, consolidate repetition, encourage concise engagement, and keep the forum open to new participants. Moderation should preserve participation, not narrow it according to familiarity, subscription date, or drafting method.

Yes simple, but the astroturfers the past 2weeks had been… tiring, instead of adding any real value other than objections for the sake of objections. Just refer to the answers on the six questions posed earlier today, and you will see how the use of automated AI tools caused for a knee jerk reaction, with people proudly and loudly claiming their RIGHTS instead of being humble new comers. They would’ve gained many more respect that way, than to cause cause the real operator’s neck hairs to raise and to continue to antagonizing them until the point where the co-chairs had to respond.


I actually are still awaiting a response on your email swap reason as in appeared that the previous email was an impersonation? Please respond to the direct email to the old email to confirm whether your “complaints” was about being moderated, or actual impersonation. At present, given the lack of confirmation to the contrary, I’m of the opinion that you did impersonate the real person by abusing their email.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/4fcec6ff/attachment-0001.html>