[aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?
TL;DR: We need to start denouncing and culling sociopathic behavior in the AUR and other parts of the Arch Linux community at large. The thread "Misuse of AUR (yaourt) comments" brings to light in the words of Dave Blair:
Det harassed me with out-of-date notifications too. He seems like a hustler. Not quite sure why anyone would want to hustle AUR packages, doesn't really make sense to me.
answering among previews emails in the conversation to what Ralf Maddorf said:
Reading Det's comments again, it's possible that I misunderstood those comments. However, maybe Skunnyk is sick of unflagging the package two times a day. I doubt that Skunnyk is "inactive", my guess is, that it makes no sense to unflag the package again and again.
To this I barged in and wrote:
No Ralf, you did not misunderstand Det. The guy is a Finnish sociopath hiding behind pseudonyms, that harasses people to grab their popular packages in AUR. I gave him the vuze package to shut him up. If you don't believe me check how many packages he maintains. In AUR3 he used to have more than 600.
AS an aside, William Di Luigi wrote:
These are ad-hominem attacks, I think this thread is being hijacked.
And I answered:
No, I am not hijacking the thread. I am simply confirming Dave Balir and Ralph Maddorf's suspicions that they are dealing with a sick individual.
And if you think I am throwing ad-hominem attacks is because you havenot receivied insulting emails from Det to your private mailbox. And, as I said, he uses pseudonyms to do his sociopathic deeds, for example nimetonmail@gmail.com that now nymshifted to nimetonmaili@gmail.com.
Just give me a moment and I'll open a new thread.
(Precisely this new thread) Now, in support to my assertions there are these answers: Ralph Maddorf:
In AUR 4 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=m&K=Det&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go
Maintainer Det: 105 packages found. Submitter Det: 63 packages found.
Dave Blair:
I'm glad it's not just me then.
But why would anyone want to hustle AUR packages? I don't get it. There are loads of orphans around, and maintaining a package can be a pain. It's not like you can make a living off it.
Now, after this long summary there is but one matter: This kind of behavior has to be stopped in its tracks. I gave a fair fight, part of which David Reisner had news as seen in <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42481>, but that was just the start of it. The harassment made me give "Det" the vuze package in a fit of disgust and rage (my fault, I know). Now, what do I know about this "Det" character? He is Finnish, because one of the Gmail email addresses he used to harass and insult me had a Google+ page with all text in Finnish (very immature content, btw). I can't find that page anymore, probably he deleted it, there is also nimetonmaili@gmail.com, where he identifies as "Daniel Davis"; he had the gall of gloating it is not his real name. So we can have an idea of what kind of sociopath is this individual. I let this pass for a long time, but I think it is the right time to ask the TUs *and* the devs to start a productive discussion about creating a code of conduct that allows us, the users contributing to the AUR, the forum and the IRC channels, to have a set of rules to be applied if people is disrespect to each other in the context of the community. Case in point, a long while ago, I witnessed some of the IRC channel regulars harass a girl in such a way that I thought the main harasser should be asked if he had ever been kissed. And we wonder why there are no women involved in Arch Linux, at least that I be aware of. I am sure that like Bill and Ted, we all want to be excellent to each other, but unfortunately the times are such that most idolize being violent and abusive to each other. We can't stop the decay of our civilization but we certainly can try to stop it in the Arch community. -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
Sorry for this off-topic side note, I want to clarify that the issue I tried to address is that some AUR users didn't read the comments and continued writing long comments with wrong assumptions. When pacman was upgraded, a dependency of yaourt needed to be compiled against the the new libalpm. Inexperienced users made wrong assumptions and continued to repeat the same wrong assumption, while it was more than once explained what actually happened. I consider it a "misuse" that the comments were used like a forum thread. I was less upset about the flagged package and I don't know who flagged the package. If I use yaourt to update, it displays comments in the terminal and it makes sense to have a few clear comments instead of long assumptions repeating again and again something that is wrong, while already was explained what actually happened. AUR commets shouldn't be used in a confusing, unclear way as askubuntu.com. Everybody could make a mistake, but a group of people doing the same mistake again and again is strange and requires education (not punishment).
Hi On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Pedro A. López-Valencia <vorbote@gmail.com> wrote:
And I answered:
And if you think I am throwing ad-hominem attacks is because you havenot receivied insulting emails from Det to your private mailbox.
It's still ad-hominem, technically. To *not* be ad-hominem, you should target the specific behavior of the person, which, in that specific thread, was the "Inactive maintainers" comment. Yes, Det made that comment. However, Ralph misunderstood the meaning of the comment (he said so in the other thread). Thus, Det did nothing wrong as for the specific thread. Thus, if you attempt to "confirm the suspicion that we're dealing with a sick individual" you're throwing ad-hominem attacks.
Now, in support to my assertions there are these answers:
Ralph Maddorf:
In AUR 4
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=m&K=Det&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go
Maintainer Det: 105 packages found. Submitter Det: 63 packages found.
This doesn't really tell much, to be honest. I only see a very active maintainer who generously gives away his/her time (at no charge) to take care of package scripts.
Dave Blair:
I'm glad it's not just me then.
But why would anyone want to hustle AUR packages? I don't get it. There are loads of orphans around, and maintaining a package can be a pain. It's not like you can make a living off it.
I agree.
Now, after this long summary there is but one matter: This kind of behavior has to be stopped in its tracks. I gave a fair fight, part of which David Reisner had news as seen in <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42481>, but that was just the start of it. The harassment made me give "Det" the vuze package in a fit of disgust and rage (my fault, I know).
I have read the comments there, and honestly I felt that you just flipped out and rage quit when Det made some suggestions to improve the package. To prove this point, the user you were interacting with before Det (@josephgbr) clearly felt that you were being defensive. He left only fine and polite comments, and at some point you said something like "And before you say I'm moving the goalpost..", suggesting that @josephgbr might be trying to argue with you. At that point he/she said something like "Anyway, don't want to argue with you. Thanks a lot". And then came Det. So, from those comments I noticed that you were already a bit defensive (and maybe even angry?), and maybe that was the issue, not necessarily Det comments (which I didn't find aggressive, TBH). Also, of course, there was really no reason to disown the package. It's not obvious that a user who just made a suggestion might *want* or even *have time* to become the new maintainer. Let's say I make a suggestion for package X. If the maintainer of X doesn't have time to do the improvement and tries to "give me" the package I might very well refuse to take it.
Now, what do I know about this "Det" character? He is Finnish, because one of the Gmail email addresses he used to harass and insult me had a Google+ page with all text in Finnish (very immature content, btw). I can't find that page anymore, probably he deleted it, there is also nimetonmaili@gmail.com, where he identifies as "Daniel Davis"; he had the gall of gloating it is not his real name. So we can have an idea of what kind of sociopath is this individual.
Oh, come on now, so aren't these ad-hominem attacks?
I let this pass for a long time, but I think it is the right time to ask the TUs *and* the devs to start a productive discussion about creating a code of conduct that allows us, the users contributing to the AUR, the forum and the IRC channels, to have a set of rules to be applied if people is disrespect to each other in the context of the community.
I am completely in favor. -- William
El 12/02/2016 a las 3:28 p. m., William Di Luigi escribió:
Hi
Maintainer Det: 105 packages found. Submitter Det: 63 packages found. This doesn't really tell much, to be honest. I only see a very active
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Pedro A. López-Valencia <vorbote@gmail.com> wrote: maintainer who generously gives away his/her time (at no charge) to take care of package scripts.
I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge". Such policy doesn't work for any community. Meritocracy *must* come in hand with *peer-review*. Else, it is just a broth that breeds conflict and strife.
Also, of course, there was really no reason to disown the package. [Long disquisition about how I rage quit.]
You would do it if you had already been harassed in private for the previous six months, maybe more. I don't recall those details because, who would? That's the kind of thing you simply forget (If you are a Christian, you'll know the application of "turning the other cheek"). I certainly thought at the time I let Vuze go "Fuck it, he can have it and the turd polishig dummy can deal with the psycho." I can only guess David Blair went through a similar experience; may you not be in our shoes.
Oh, come on now, so aren't these ad-hominem attacks?
I am only giving a matter-of-fact relation of my experience. If it makes you cringe... Again: May you not be bullied so. And if you are, may you live interesting times. :-)
I let this pass for a long time, but I think it is the right time to ask the TUs *and* the devs to start a productive discussion about creating a code of conduct that allows us, the users contributing to the AUR, the forum and the IRC channels, to have a set of rules to be applied if people is disrespectful to each other in the context of the community. I am completely in favor.
Let's hope so! -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge".
Nice strawman you got there. For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't really trying to mislead), I never said that nor I believe that.
You would do it if you had already been harassed in private for the previous six months, maybe more.
Why didn't you bring up the issue when the harassment was happening? I'm not asking in an aggressive manner, it's just that I think you should have done that (instead of attacking him/her after a lot of time has passed, and throwing ad-hominem accusations instead of actual harassment proof).
I don't recall those details because, who would? That's the kind of thing you simply forget (If you are a Christian, you'll know the application of "turning the other cheek"). I certainly thought at the time I let Vuze go "Fuck it, he can have it and the turd polishig dummy can deal with the psycho." I can only guess David Blair went through a similar experience; may you not be in our shoes.
I'm sorry that you felt that way, but the best thing you can do is recall exactly those details you forgot. From what I read, I don't see that Det did anything wrong. -- William
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge".
Nice strawman you got there.
For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't really trying to mislead), I never said that nor I believe that.
Fortunately this user seems to maintain 500+ packages less, assumed the 600+ wasn't a typo: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032004.html https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032006.html Assumed a maintainer should maintain more than 500 packages, a moderator/admin should automatically get informed, who then randomly checks a few packages, e.g. if the source code comes from an upstream server or from a suspect mirror. This should be done not to ensure that the PKGBUILDs are 100% secure, but just to ensure that it really is a single maintainer and not a suspect organisation providing packages.
El 12/02/2016 a las 5:46 p. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió:
Fortunately this user seems to maintain 500+ packages less, assumed the 600+ wasn't a typo: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032004.html https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032006.html Assumed a maintainer should maintain more than 500 packages, a moderator/admin should automatically get informed, who then randomly checks a few packages, e.g. if the source code comes from an upstream server or from a suspect mirror. This should be done not to ensure that the PKGBUILDs are 100% secure, but just to ensure that it really is a single maintainer and not a suspect organisation providing packages.
I say AUR3; presently we use AUR4. Those records are unfortunately not publicly available at this time. Unless you want to trawl the git archive at github. Yes. There is a need to vet users who maintain many packages in the AUR, you can only do so much. Some are very legitimate users that end up becoming TUs and even Devs, such as Felix Yan who I can vouch to be a very nice fellow in my brief interactions with him. Others... Oh, well. -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 23:46 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge".
Nice strawman you got there.
For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't really trying to mislead), I never said that nor I believe that.
Fortunately this user seems to maintain 500+ packages less, assumed the 600+ wasn't a typo:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032004 .html https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032006 .html
Assumed a maintainer should maintain more than 500 packages, a moderator/admin should automatically get informed, who then randomly checks a few packages, e.g. if the source code comes from an upstream server or from a suspect mirror. This should be done not to ensure that the PKGBUILDs are 100% secure, but just to ensure that it really is a single maintainer and not a suspect organisation providing packages.
OTOH a suspect organisation most likely would use several accounts and not just one account ;).
On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 23:46 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge".
Nice strawman you got there.
For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't really trying to mislead), I never said that nor I believe that.
Fortunately this user seems to maintain 500+ packages less, assumed the 600+ wasn't a typo:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/03200 4.html https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/03200 6.html
Assumed a maintainer should maintain more than 500 packages, a moderator/admin should automatically get informed, who then randomly checks a few packages, e.g. if the source code comes from an upstream server or from a suspect mirror. This should be done not to ensure that the PKGBUILDs are 100% secure, but just to ensure that it really is a single maintainer and not a suspect organisation providing packages.
I don't see anything wrong with maintaining several hundred packages. If someone is willing to and has the time to do it, I say they should be able to without moderation. "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." This is an important statement to consider when using the AUR. If you see a package that violates the packaging standards, file it for deletion and allow a TU to take care of it since that's what they're here for. Mark Weiman
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:22:55 -0500, Mark Weiman wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with maintaining several hundred packages. If someone is willing to and has the time to do it, I say they should be able to without moderation.
Essentially this is my opinion too. Anyway, since this thread came into being by a thread I started and it came out that at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania and/or control mania and at least two other maintainers felt harassed by this maintainer, there maybe is the need to take a look at maintainers of very much PKGBUILDS. Again, not to ensure that the PKGBUILDS are secure, I hoped that I have already explained good enough that this isn't what I'm thinking of. It might be helpful for the sense of well-being of other maintainers, to at least ensure that there is no suspect organisation acting. I'm not a package maintainer, so "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." is addressed to me and other users and doesn't include the the sense of well-being of maintainers, who feel pressure by other, misbehaving maintainers. As a user I don't know if this is really an issue, or even true.
Hi On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania and/or control mania
It's important to note: this is just the opinion of Ralf and Pedro. There is no proof nor a statement (yet) that could even suggest that Det has a collecting mania or something like that. We should keep in mind that until proven guilty, Det is just a very generous maintainer. If he/she has the time to do all of that work for free, we should admire him/her.
and at least two other maintainers felt harassed by this maintainer
Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no proof of harassment yet. We just learnt that Det is Finnish and shared "immature things" on Google+ (as if that could have the slightest weight in an harassment accusation).
there maybe is the need to take a look at maintainers of very much PKGBUILDS. Again, not to ensure that the PKGBUILDS are secure, I hoped that I have already explained good enough that this isn't what I'm thinking of. It might be helpful for the sense of well-being of other maintainers, to at least ensure that there is no suspect organisation acting.
I agree with taking a look at packages (I would add a "Flag as compromised/virus" link, which has a similar effect to "Flag package out-of-date").
I'm not a package maintainer, so "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." is addressed to me and other users and doesn't include the the sense of well-being of maintainers, who feel pressure by other, misbehaving maintainers. As a user I don't know if this is really an issue, or even true.
I believe it would be a good thing to address (with a code of conduct) *the possibility* of having misbehaving maintainers pressuring other maintainers. It's important to note, however, that this "pressuring" hasn't ever happened, until someone proves it happened. -- William
Hi,
On 13.02.2016, at 11:09, William Di Luigi <williamdiluigi@gmail.com> wrote: It's important to note: this is just the opinion of Ralf and Pedro.
that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I don't know an evidence that Det does or does not. What I noticed is that users considered the comments as a discussion and support forum and I don't know how to value Det comments.
I agree with taking a look at packages (I would add a "Flag as compromised/virus" link, which has a similar effect to "Flag package out-of-date").
Less is more...
I believe it would be a good thing to address (with a code of conduct) *the possibility* of having misbehaving maintainers pressuring other maintainers. It's important to note, however, that this "pressuring" hasn't ever happened, until someone proves it happened.
....less is more.... ....I guess we should add a few notes to the guideline Wikis, we even don't need a CoC. Right now I don't have a good idea what exactly to add to the guideline Wikis. Regards, Ralf
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I don't know an evidence that Det does or does not. What I noticed is that users considered the comments as a discussion and support forum and I don't know how to value Det comments.
Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det?
I agree with taking a look at packages (I would add a "Flag as compromised/virus" link, which has a similar effect to "Flag package out-of-date").
Less is more...
Not always. I think adding a "flag as compromised" button could be useful in this case. The current "flag as out-of-date" already serves a "warning" function for the users, but it can be easily removed by a malicious maintainer. The "compromised/virus" flag I'm talking about should be removable only by a TU/dev. This also means that while a wrong out-of-date flag is not a big deal, a wrong compromised flag should yield harder consequences, in order to avoid abuse. -- William
El 13/02/2016 a las 9:25 a. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió:
....I guess we should add a few notes to the guideline Wikis, we even don't need a CoC. Right now I don't have a good idea what exactly to add to the guideline Wikis. Regards, Ralf
I agree, we don't need a CoC, but we do need some tools to communicate this kind of toxic behavior to the right people. In private if necessary. -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió:
Hi
and at least two other maintainers felt harassed by this maintainer Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: proof of harassment yet. We just learnt that Det is Finnish and shared "immature things" on Google+ (as if that could have the slightest weight in an harassment accusation).
WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is.... Sheesh! I made a description of character; the individual in question is a sociopath. By definition a liar that can be anything and make believe anything to anyone, to many at the same time. You are not productive nor giving anything new to the discussion. Your have attempted to derail the conversation in an attempt to play the "girl, you asked to be raped" first and then the "you casnt speaks the Engrish" second, throws a dark light on whatever your real intentions are; no matter how you dress them. -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
Hi,
On 13.02.2016, at 15:35, William Di Luigi <williamdiluigi@gmail.com> wrote: Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det?
I did, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
The "compromised/virus" flag I'm talking about should be removable only by a TU/dev. This also means that while a wrong out-of-date flag is not a big deal, a wrong compromised flag should yield harder consequences, in order to avoid abuse.
Maybe this isn't needed and asking for unintended wrong usage.
On 13.02.2016, at 18:43, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
El 13/02/2016 a las 9:25 a. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió: ....I guess we should add a few notes to the guideline Wikis, we even don't need a CoC. Right now I don't have a good idea what exactly to add to the guideline Wikis. Regards, Ralf
I agree, we don't need a CoC, but we do need some tools to communicate this kind of toxic behavior to the right people. In private if necessary.
Mediators reachable by email would be good. OT: Regarding what to add to the Wiki and my original thread, I wonder if my claim is correct, even if a package build from AUR suffers from a soname issue, then it's _not_ out of date, since users need to care on their own to rebuild an AUR package, assumed a lib from official repos gets update and the AUR package is build against this lib. I didn't read the current AUR guides and will do it later. Perhaps the guides need a summary, they might be too long.
On 13.02.2016, at 20:49, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió: Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no proof of harassment yet.
WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof?
I guess we shouldn't continue the discussion about this maintainer. Regards, Ralf
On 13/02/16 02:49 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió:
Hi
and at least two other maintainers felt harassed by this maintainer Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote: proof of harassment yet. We just learnt that Det is Finnish and shared "immature things" on Google+ (as if that could have the slightest weight in an harassment accusation). WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is.... Sheesh! He didn't say that it would be easy for you to establish public proof (that would indeed warrant a "sheesh"). He said that no matter how hard it is to prove harassment, the onus for doing so is on the victim. Which it should be. I'm sure all people in this discussion agree that the bullying you describe is completely unacceptable, but we simply cannot be banning users based on scenarios that are simply one person's word against another's. I made a description of character; the individual in question is a sociopath. By definition a liar that can be anything and make believe anything to anyone, to many at the same time.
You are not productive nor giving anything new to the discussion. Your have attempted to derail the conversation in an attempt to play the "girl, you asked to be raped" first and then the "you casnt speaks the Engrish" second, throws a dark light on whatever your real intentions are; no matter how you dress them.
No comment.
El 13/02/2016 a las 3:12 p. m., Connor Behan escribió:
WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is.... Sheesh! He didn't say that it would be easy for you to establish public proof (that would indeed warrant a "sheesh"). He said that no matter how hard it is to prove harassment, the onus for doing so is on the victim. Which it should be. I'm sure all people in this discussion agree that the bullying you describe is completely unacceptable, but we simply cannot be banning users based on scenarios that are simply one person's word against another's.
What you say is true Connor and your comment is *very constructive*. I simply deleted the emails at the time , because I do not like gloating on bad blood therefore I can't provide that evidence anymore; but be assured it built up for at least 6 months before I finally threw the towel in disgust. I had to play whack-a-mole with the guy blocking accounts from where he would send me personal insults and attacks. As long as we have your attention. Can you bring the matter in the private lists? There is a real need for some sort of reporting channel that is not a project in Flyspray but more private. And as Ralf Mardorf already said, a CoC is not needed. I frankly believe a CoC would be completely counterproductive.
No comment.
He! I apologize for the tone, but I can't help being Zen when the student needs a whacking. -- Pedro A. López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/ Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. -Ronald Reagan
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:12 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <vorbote@outlook.com> wrote:
WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof?
I didn't ask for proof. I just stated the facts. The facts, again, are that you can't make accusations without proof. Whether you will provide such proof or not it's not my concern, you shouldn't feel that we're asking for proof (I sure am not).
What you say is true Connor and your comment is *very constructive*. I simply deleted the emails at the time , because I do not like gloating on bad blood therefore I can't provide that evidence anymore; but be assured it built up for at least 6 months before I finally threw the towel in disgust. I had to play whack-a-mole with the guy blocking accounts from where he would send me personal insults and attacks.
Those are exactly the kind of things that a code of conduct should help avoid (it doesn't matter whether they really happened), that's why I'm in favor of establishing one. I hope it's clear that I'm *not* saying those things didn't happen: I just said we have no proof of it.
Your have attempted to derail the conversation in an attempt to play the "girl, you asked to be raped" first
Huh? Please be specific.
and then the "you casnt speaks the Engrish" second
Huh? I don't speak good english myself, why would I ever do that.
throws a dark light on whatever your real intentions are; no matter how you dress them.
Illuminati confirmed? -- William
On 13/02/16 04:12 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
El 13/02/2016 a las 3:12 p. m., Connor Behan escribió:
WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is.... Sheesh! He didn't say that it would be easy for you to establish public proof (that would indeed warrant a "sheesh"). He said that no matter how hard it is to prove harassment, the onus for doing so is on the victim. Which it should be. I'm sure all people in this discussion agree that the bullying you describe is completely unacceptable, but we simply cannot be banning users based on scenarios that are simply one person's word against another's. What you say is true Connor and your comment is *very constructive*. I simply deleted the emails at the time , because I do not like gloating on bad blood therefore I can't provide that evidence anymore; but be assured it built up for at least 6 months before I finally threw the towel in disgust. I had to play whack-a-mole with the guy blocking accounts from where he would send me personal insults and attacks.
As long as we have your attention. Can you bring the matter in the private lists? There is a real need for some sort of reporting channel that is not a project in Flyspray but more private. And as Ralf Mardorf already said, a CoC is not needed. I frankly believe a CoC would be completely counterproductive. Thanks.
I asked about this in #archlinux-tu and the one reply so far said it would be best to start things off with a request to aur-general which doesn't name names. The first TU to see it could then follow up off-list and learn the details. If that's uncomfortable for some, maybe just pick an email from the TU list [1] to contact. Of the "active" TUs, some are more active than others and a look through the mailing list archives can help narrow it down. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users
participants (6)
-
Connor Behan
-
Mark Weiman
-
P. A. López-Valencia
-
Pedro A. López-Valencia
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
William Di Luigi