Talk:Code of conduct

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 15:13, 13 November 2018 by Alad (talk | contribs) (typo)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Change category

To Category:Arch community. --Larivact (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] -- Alad (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Common sense

I don't understand the first point, what would you think of "If you choose to use the Archlinux distribution, you are welcome and you are encouraged to adhere to Arch Linux principles." ? -- Kewl (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My preference is for "embrace" - which has a positive connotation, as opposed to "adhere" which is slightly less so. Jasonwryan (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes

I was appalled that once again, maintainers made unwarranted changes to cosysop pages they have no place in editing. Neither User:Kewl or User:Svito are staff (in particular, neither forum or IRC mods), yet made the following changes in meaning:

  • advice on computer product recommendations to advice on computer products in general. Anything classifies as a general computer product, including Arch itself. Hence the added recommendations.
  • actively discouraged was changed to strongly discouraged. "strongly" is vague, actively implies administrative action, which is indeed the action taken on spam.

The page has been reverted to [2]. In line with User_talk:Larivact#DeveloperWiki, I've revoked the cosysop right for both maintainers during the period of 2 weeks from now on. Should any of you pull this kind of stuff again, it won't be pretty. -- Alad (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks? My changes were only inserting spaces that do not change how page is rendered at all and using available wikilinks inside sections instead of using section headers. I even started my own draft page so if I would plan to any actual string changes I would make it to draft not real thing. -- Svito (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, with the sudden 15 changes to the article I didn't inspect the authors closely enough. Reverted your cosysop removal. -- Alad (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you have only 2 objections, I will revert again and fix those two separately. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I unintentionally changed the meaning and understand the demotion, this will not happen again. Apologies to User:Svito for involving you, unintentionally as well, into this. -- Kewl (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Since Alad apparently took a day off today, let me say a few words as well. Objectively, there were 12 good and 2 bad edits, which certainly don't deserve such punishment. Hence, I would like that to be understood as an individual failure to apply common sense and not as a coordinated or approved action of the administration team. I will restore your "cosysop" right now and on behalf of the whole administration team I would like to sincerely apologize to you and Svito for this treatment. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't take the day off, I just don't have access to my email until tomorrow. After being 3 years on the team, I would have expected more than a single day of reponse time before this was taken public - be as it may.
Maybe my actions were overly forceful, and I certainly won't deny taking responsibility for them. That said, I am unsure how you expect to "apply common sense", when we have yet another event (in a long series) where wiki maintainers fail to respect ArchWiki:Contributing#The_3_fundamental_rules. As an administrator, I never recall setting such an example to users, or other members of the maintenance team.
It's especially painful when it was me who lowered the protection levels of this article to cosysop, after defending the idea to other staff members. Clearly this is an idea I've come to regret, so unless anyone objects before tomorrow 13:00 CET, I will revert my decision. -- Alad (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
We should discuss the details about page protection levels in private first. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, let's discuss in private before reverting any protection levels, as there seems to be disagreement on the definition of article rewrite and therefore what actions violate that rule. -- Kynikos (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If (especially string or content) changes are discussed on the discussion page first, as is happening now, I'm fine with keeping the cosysop protection level.
Thanks Lahwaacz and Jasonwryan for your words. I know this page is sensitive and had no intention to impose any other meaning than the one expressed by the original writers. Then, I unintentionally went too far in my interpretation and will certainly not touch any sensitive content without prior discussion and approval in the future, irrespective of my rights. I am a "junior" maintainer and don't have the legitimacy of any of you, I am getting a lot from Arch and do my best to give back with the time and the competencies I currently have.
This is certainly not an enjoyable experience for Alad, Svito nor I, we all have better things to do. Then, this is irrelevant, Arch is bigger than us and Alad should continue to play his role and be strict, and I should continue my maintenance work within the rules. This is not a court of justice and the energy we would put into trying to be fair would be time we don't spend on improving Arch. I still appreciate the message from the administrative team and Alad's openness, and take this opportunity to thank you all for the massive unpaid task performed all year long, this is what ensures the amazing quality of the wiki! -- Kewl (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Lahwaacz has already spoken on behalf of the adminstration team above, however while I'm here (to reply above) I want to add my big thanks to Kewl, Svito and all our tireless maintainers. We all made mistakes at the beginning (and keep making them :P), but the wiki is still alive because we've always covered and corrected each other, like the big team that we should be, and that's how the wiki system was designed to work in the first place. -- Kynikos (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to close this discussion with the following. Despite previous events, User:Kewl has no history in disregarding the 3 fundamental rules that I know of, indeed even reminding other users they should be respected. [3] User:Svito has also much improved in this regard, which I'm very glad to see.
As such, my response to immediately strip User:Kewl and User:Svito of their rights was not measured, and I apologize for taking it. The actions of other maintainers should not influence such decisions, not here, or in general.
Let's see this as a reminder to not take rash decisions, and improve the communication in our team even further. -- Alad (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

List of proposed amendments

I am submitting below some minor points I have noticed going through the page for review by User:Alad or other staff:

  • Change 50Kb into 50 kB: the internationally recommended unit symbol for the kilobyte is kB
  • If the staff in any of the fora feel that into considers that: staff is a collective noun and singular is generally used in US English. It involves the judgement of the staff rather than the feeling. Using plural can be appropriate in some circumstances (one can find debates around this topic in forums).
  • This type of content is much better suited to a blog or other personal web space and are considered into is
  • True freedom in this community is to cultivate benevolence toward others and harmonize our attitude with the Arch Way by bringing only benefit to our peers into true freedom in this community is to cultivate benevolence toward others and to harmonize our attitude with the Arch Way by bringing only benefits to our peers

-- Kewl (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this review. If these are the changes you've made, they should be applied again now - please check that. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed: these are good. Thanks. Jasonwryan (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)