Talk:Code of conduct

From ArchWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Forum etiquette)
Jump to: navigation, search

Maybe make the section "correct" more clear

I'd like to see a clearer title for that section and add a little more on how users should effectively ask for help and report issues. ie they need to state the whole problem and what they have already tried as well as logs and error messages. how to report and ask smart questions are both great links.

Maybe "don't ask to ask" could also be added, as in, "can someone help me? My Arch install is broken!" type of messages.Meskarune (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the ask smart questions is such a great link to give people. It's good for understanding our culture but it's not good for smooth relations with people asking questions. However, I do think how to report should be added; it's concise and to the point without risking antagonizing the person with a question. MacGyver (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe would be a better link to use. It is shorter, nicer and clearer than ESR's doc. Meskarune (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading Smart Questions is a pretty good gauge of that willingness. Jasonwryan (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Explicit prohibition of discriminatory and abusive language

This is implied in the "Respect" section. We already enforce these things. Spelling it out will give reassurance to the underprivileged. Something like this (cribbed from archlinux-newbie's rules): "Bigotry, misogyny, antisemitism, racism, ableism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, acephobia, cissexism, fatphobia, sizeism, ageism, etc. are unacceptable and will face strict moderation." -- fsckd (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a really solid addition to me. Making it explicit that the Arch Community should be an open and welcoming place (by clearly disavowing and disallowing hate) cannot be a negative in my opinion. Halosghost (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
+1. If it gets added, it fits best as a new sentence after "..please avoid sarcastic and patronizing language." in Code of conduct#Do not flame in my opinion. To lead over there, the new sentence could start with "Statements with implied or direct references to bigotry, ...". --Indigo (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd simply mention the underlying principle:
"Statements with implied or direct references to discriminatory or contemptuous behaviour are unacceptable, and will face strict moderation"
Regarding the place to put it, it equally fits to Code_of_conduct#Respect_other_users. There's some repetition either way, but I guess that's a good thing in the context of this article. -- Alad (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the principle, but would go with what fsckd thinks is ok to achieve purpose. In my view it does not fit the Code of conduct#Respect other users subsection that well, because it would water down the "ad hominem" reference to a more plain/obvious subset of its meaning. --Indigo (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be clear what kind of discrimination is disallowed. Otherwise people will complain we discriminate against neo-nazis or MRAs. (Heck, have had people accuse us of discriminating against systemd trolls.) I'm still trying to think of right way to express what is meant by discrimination. -- fsckd (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I would be wary of a catalogue; it just encourages trolls to litigate and wallow in semantics. A statement of principle should be sufficient; something like: "Arch Linux is a respectful, inclusive community. Anti-social or offensive behaviour will not be tolerated." Jasonwryan (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Those both seem like good ideas to me. +1 Meskarune (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for my negligent lateness. Jason's suggestion is a good compromise and conveys the spirit of my proposal. I think it would be good to add. As for where in the CoC it should go, I'll leave that up to you folks. -- fsckd (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Updated. Closing Jasonwryan (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[url] and [img] after May’s CoC rebuild

At the start of this year I’ve suggested an addition to the forum CoC regarding posting images. The policy was to post also URLs (along with the [img]) and landed somewhere near policies on fullscreen screenshots. It seems that during the May’s CoC rebuild the two policies got mixed into a single sentence indicating to post only URLs with image size being the condition to trigger that:

Do not post full screen pictures; use links to the images instead, optionally with thumbnails
— Jasonwryan

This no longer makes sense in the context of the original premises, which were about readers’ convenience.

Should this be fixed or left as-is (keeping the use of [url] for big pictures only)? --Mpan (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)