Talk:Code of conduct

From ArchWiki
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 https://askubuntu.com/help/how-to-ask 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)

Add note that Arch on WSL is not supported

Under section entitled "Arch Linux distribution support *only*" we might should clarify that Arch Linux on Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is not considered an Arch Linux installation and therefore note supported at all (threads deleted on the topic, "bugs" closed immediately, etc.). See [1], [2], and Talk:Install on WSL. -- Rdeckard (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I more than dislike to add "exceptions" to the Code to cover up for problematic elsewhere. Any topic that cannot be supported in the community channels has no place on the wiki - this was one of the reasons for moving most of the Category:ARM architecture articles to archlinuxarm.org. Note that we provide no exception clause for latter category, either. -- Alad (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually saying the opposite - don't make an exception for WSL, but make it explicit that Arch on WSL is not Arch Linux. I realize that we don't want to have to list every single OS or distro that is not supported; however, there is some confusion among users that Arch on WSL is Arch. -- Rdeckard (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
So are all mentions of AUR packages and helpers getting removed? I disagree with Alad's position, a community maintained wiki has room for community projects and knowledge beyond what is officially supported. As for adding this wording, I figure it falls under "Issues with, and requesting support for, derivate distributions, or operating systems other than Arch Linux are prohibited." WSL is clearly still Windows. —This unsigned comment is by Scimmia (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Hardly a fair comparison. Discussing and asking help for AUR packages and helpers is tolerated in most community channels, apart from the bug tracker. Talking about WSL results in downright hostile reactions and a "delete on sight" policy. I agree with the rest, in that there's no need to add a special clause when things are already covered by a general one. -- Alad (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread. I agree that the current policy includes other operating systems, which would then include installing on a Windows subsystem. -- Rdeckard (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Naked pings

I think it would be a good idea to suggest not pinging someone without subject:

https://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/02/20/naked-pings/

What do you think? -- Svito (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much Code_of_conduct#No_power-posting.2Fempty_posts but for IRC -- Alad (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We can consider pushing this rule upstream to freenode channel guidelines, if they find it useful. -- Svito (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed for 3rd party installers

Arch Linux distribution support *only* should at the very least use or instead of , and to note that any of these factors already constitutes it as not supported:

These distributions often use different packages, package versions, repositories or make custom system configurations silently

It may be worth restating directly that 3rd party installers are not supported as well as derivative distributions:

Arch-based distributions and unofficial Arch Linux installers have their own support forums; their users should be actively encouraged to seek support there.

Thoughts? -- Svito (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole "Arch Linux installers" thing is nonsense, it should not be used on this page. There is one and only one live system capable of installing Arch Linux. If they use different live system for installation, they are not installing Arch, regardless of what the 3rd party developers claim. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for triggering you ;) Maybe instead of using Arch-based distributions term we just state that only installations supported are installations using official installation media and using Installation guide process? That would eliminate both Arch-based distributions and different 3rd-party installers (that can be used by cloning their repo from github on official live system). -- Svito (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
What about Archboot and TalkingArch? Those are valid exceptions that we'd have to list should we add such a clause. Or at least link to a page like Category:Getting and installing Arch. Not sure this approach would bring much benefit in practice. -- Alad (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Even worse, it's not like that everything in Category:Getting and installing Arch is supported. E.g. Arch Linux VPS is mostly "you're on your own"... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
How about separating category content into Installation methods article and point out their support status? I don't like how it is both category and general article.
I am sure bringing clarity to CoC section will benefit anyone who does not want to explain over and over and argue what is supported and what is not in Arch Linux community, be it forums, IRC or wiki.
We can't reasonably blacklist 3rd-party installers without admitting they do exist or install something that resembles Arch(but is not Arch). I learned about the one and only proper Arch Linux installation way from our vocal self-protecting community, not because I have read this section which requires familiarity with implication - it is reasonable to assume some may need to look up the word, let alone apply this concept while reading.
Maybe this is too much effort for no gain and I'm concerned with idiots. But I try to be optimistic in between depressions ;) -- Svito (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Whenever someone registers on the forums you get a big warning box (and nothing else) that only Arch and no installers, Manajaro, Antergos whatever are supported. People still file dozens of requests for Debian, Hannah Montanna Linux and TempleOS on the forums on a daily basis. As such, I don't see how making the code of conduct more complicated would improve anything on this regard.
I strongly dislike some support status page for installation methods. That implies that fully unsupported methods like random user scripts or Microsoft's WSL have a legitimate place on this wiki -- without requiring any further discussion why they should, as long as they have some "unsupported" status on an hypothetical installation methods page. -- Alad (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to complicate CoC, FWIW having better Installation methods(alternatively Arch Linux installation) page would give us extra space to explain what is considered Arch Linux installation(s) and what is not without complicating Arch Linux or obscuring it in talk pages. Never mind this. I should do my homework here and display what I mean beforehand. -- Svito (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that we actually have a page listing Arch-based distributions which lists many of that projects that are considered "installers". -- Rdeckard (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)