The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

CarlD · 2014-11-25 13:56:36

For a community that apparently prides itself for having a "tell it like it is" culture, it's interesting to see so much obfuscation in response to the OP.

The mods here are often rude to and harsh with community members. I see nothing constructive that can result from calling anyone a "moron" for example, even if they are one. However, despite this they do expend a substantial amount of time and energy to help out the community. They can be arrogant at times, but this pales in comparison to (mostly) good intentions and valuable contributions.

However, the wiki is a nightmare to contribute to. I am not the only one to be chased away by the same seething mods due to being harrassed over any and every perceived infraction, however petty or outright pathetic in nature. Especially when outdated and/or poorly written articles are ignored in the process. Where they have been proven wrong, my experience has been arrogant defiance and even more animosity. Quite self-defeating.

A notable number of the Google+ community - including the mods - are outright vile. Not too long ago they even publically subjected an actual Arch dev to a torrent of abuse. He was patronised, threatened, sworn at, and lectured. This was supported by the mods, including one who joined in by threatening to boot him from the group. His crime? He said he liked an ncurses-based installer for Arch. Lucky for this distro he seemed to have the patience of a saint, else you would've lost a dev for that.

I am fine with the Arch community sometimes giving you lemons. This is much better than being enticed with a toffee-apple that turns out to be rotten to the core only after biting into it. But at least try to be as honest about your own shortcominga as you pride yourselves on being about others'.

Last edited by CarlD (2014-11-25 14:36:56)

karol · 2014-11-25 14:01:29

Any links?

CarlD · 2014-11-25 14:24:12

karol wrote:

Any links?

Yes.

Google+
Arch dev being abused: https://plus.google.com/112342248775237 … qtdzQDE2ft

I cannot access G+ pages from my current location, so cannot say if the offending comments have been removed or not. There is also another one where much the same individuals subjected another community member to much the same type of abuse. I can provide that one later if you like (very interesting when viewed in the context of this link).

Wiki
My original disussions with Lahwaacz have been deleted from his page. However a snippet can still be seen here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=286949

To put this in context, the Archwiki OB page was outdated, incomplete, and poorly written before I got to it. Yet despite writing what has become a decent OB resource, I was jumped all over constantly during the process. At the time I tried to remain polite before finally snapping. This snippet concerns a debate about a sub-package called "xfce4-about", which was erroneously removed for being "useless and inaccurate".

Last edited by CarlD (2014-11-25 14:26:22)

drcouzelis · 2014-11-25 15:35:27

CarlD wrote:

I see nothing constructive that can result from calling anyone a "moron" for example, even if they are one.

Only one person on the Arch Linux forums has implied that another user was a moron in the past twelve months and it was a moderator, so you must be talking about this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 6#p1476026 I participated in that thread too. It was really frustrating. Twenty-three posts of asking and re-asking the same questions and getting absolutely nowhere.

In my mind I usually "blame" those kinds of situations on people being non-native English speakers, but nowhere did the person asking for help ever say that they didn't understand what was posted or ask for help in another language. Because I have experience speaking with non-native English speakers and have lived in a non-English speaking country myself, in those situations I try to post using the most basic and simple English. Sadly, all of my comments and questions seemed to have been ignored.

But the way I see it, every post I make in an effort to help someone with a technical problem helps tune my brain a little bit more for those types of situations, which is relevent to my profession.

...by the way, in doing this search I've discovered that Arch Linux users really seem to like referring to themselves as morons.

EDIT:

CarlD wrote:

Arch dev being abused: https://plus.google.com/112342248775237 … qtdzQDE2ft

I didn't read through the whole thing, but the very first post says:

Daniel Isenmann wrote:

Maybe you are interested in an alternative way to install a pure Arch installation in a quick and easy way.

He is suggesting that installing Evo / Lution is the same as installing pure Arch Linux. That's something that is technically and subjectively taught to be incorrect on the Arch Linux forums.

...and also irrelevent to this discussion, because an Arch Linux developer is not a "newcomer".

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or disagreeable to your post. I think I'm just trying to write down another side of the story to the links you posted.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2014-11-25 15:50:41)

CarlD · 2014-11-25 16:07:32

@ drcouzelis:

Of course I can fully understand the frustation the mods and community members face on a daily basis. Had it myself. However, mods lead by example, and it seems silly to pretend that sort of thing doesn't happen. I suspect quite a few eyes have rolled while reading this thread. Saying that, I will admit that reading Jason's reponses in these sorts of situations is a somewhat guilty pleasure of mine.

In respect to the G+ thread, I will also admit that as I am aware of your contributions on this forum, I am very surprised by your response about it. It does however help substantiate my claim about the Arch community's lack of introspection. Irrespective of what Mr. Isenmann said, there was no excuse for the appalling behaviour that followed. Even if he wasn't a dev.

By the way, the AIF was only dropped due to lack of manpower to maintain it. Nothing to do with "incorrectness". This is a myth. I can find the official statement if you like, which asked if anyone would be willing to maintain it at the time. I won't comment about Evo as I am linked to that project.

Last edited by CarlD (2014-11-25 16:08:08)

jasonwryan · 2014-11-25 16:27:38

I don't see much in the way of obfuscation here; that implies a deliberate attempt to dissemble, which I think is an unfair slight on the contributors to the thread.

I also, after having spent quite a bit of time here now, very rarely see any of the staff act rudely (myself excepted). The one example you mention, is just that: a single example. Given the volume of posts the staff here make, I think it is well within the bounds of what you would expect of human beings interacting on the internet....

We all make mistakes. When the staff do, we expect people to report them and we act on those reports. The standards that are set and upheld here are as much the responsibility of the people playing as they are of those with the whistles.

This applies to the wiki as well. I can't comment on Google+ (or reddit, or anywhere else outside .archlinux.org), but I expect they have different standards.

CarlD · 2014-11-25 17:47:10

jasonwryan wrote:

I don't see much in the way of obfuscation here; that implies a deliberate attempt to dissemble, which I think is an unfair slight on the contributors to the thread.
I also, after having spent quite a bit of time here now, very rarely see any of the staff act rudely (myself excepted). The one example you mention, is just that: a single example. Given the volume of posts the staff here make, I think it is well within the bounds of what you would expect of human beings interacting on the internet....
We all make mistakes. When the staff do, we expect people to report them and we act on those reports. The standards that are set and upheld here are as much the responsibility of the people playing as they are of those with the whistles.
This applies to the wiki as well. I can't comment on Google+ (or reddit, or anywhere else outside .archlinux.org), but I expect they have different standards.

I used the term "obfusicate" as the contributors to this thread completely ignored / dismissed the very real (and notorious) instances of elitism, arrogance, and rudeness in the Arch community.

It is a shame that your harshness with others in particular seems to overshadow your contributions. I don't see what there is to gain from this, especially as where taken at face value, younger and less mature community members may be encouraged to ape this behaviour, albeit with even less restraint and without the intention of actually helping anyone. Treating others like crap just because they can.

I have also had sufficient life experience not to take rules and regulations of any kind at face value, either. Rare are the instances where those in power are held to account (at least without some kind of ulterior motive). Human nature. The Arch forums and wiki are no exception. Or apparently the Google+ community for that matter.

Like I said, I would rather be given a lemon than be tricked with a rotten toffee-apple. I am also aware that to err is human. I just don't see the point in in pretending the obvious issues in this community are a myth. Accept it as part of the Arch community's culture or stamp it out.

Last edited by CarlD (2014-11-25 17:47:46)

Scimmia · 2014-11-25 17:54:49

CarlD wrote:

Wiki
My original disussions with Lahwaacz have been deleted from his page. However a snippet can still be seen here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=286949
To put this in context, the Archwiki OB page was outdated, incomplete, and poorly written before I got to it. Yet despite writing what has become a decent OB resource, I was jumped all over constantly during the process. At the time I tried to remain polite before finally snapping. This snippet concerns a debate about a sub-package called "xfce4-about", which was erroneously removed for being "useless and inaccurate".

Reading your link, it appears you were adding bad info to the wiki. Of course the mod is going to revert.

Seriously, "sub-package"? Are you even running Arch?

CarlD · 2014-11-25 18:18:24

Scimmia wrote:

CarlD wrote:
Wiki
My original disussions with Lahwaacz have been deleted from his page. However a snippet can still be seen here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=286949
To put this in context, the Archwiki OB page was outdated, incomplete, and poorly written before I got to it. Yet despite writing what has become a decent OB resource, I was jumped all over constantly during the process. At the time I tried to remain polite before finally snapping. This snippet concerns a debate about a sub-package called "xfce4-about", which was erroneously removed for being "useless and inaccurate".
Reading your link, it appears you were adding bad info to the wiki. Of course the mod is going to revert.
Seriously, "sub-package"? Are you even running Arch?

I rest my case.

The term "sub-package" was taken directly from the fedora resource I linked to. Irrespective of the terminology used, xfce4-about is a dependency of libxfce4ui. Had this not been proven, then that particular edit of mine would not have been restored. I hope you don't deal with any Xfce-related bugs.

By the way, I wrote most of the Openbox article (amongst others). You can easily determine the truth of that for yourself. Would've contributed much more too, had I not encountered this kind of attitude. Like so many others.

Scimmia · 2014-11-25 18:25:09

CarlD wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
CarlD wrote:
Wiki
My original disussions with Lahwaacz have been deleted from his page. However a snippet can still be seen here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=286949
To put this in context, the Archwiki OB page was outdated, incomplete, and poorly written before I got to it. Yet despite writing what has become a decent OB resource, I was jumped all over constantly during the process. At the time I tried to remain polite before finally snapping. This snippet concerns a debate about a sub-package called "xfce4-about", which was erroneously removed for being "useless and inaccurate".
Reading your link, it appears you were adding bad info to the wiki. Of course the mod is going to revert.
Seriously, "sub-package"? Are you even running Arch?
I rest my case.
The term "sub-package" was taken directly from the fedora resource I linked to. Irrespective of the terminology used, xfce4-about is a dependency of libxfce4ui. Had this not been proven, then that particular edit of mine would not have been restored. I hope you don't deal with any Xfce-related bugs.
By the way, I wrote most of the Openbox article (amongst others). You can easily determine the truth of that for yourself. Would've contributed much more too, had I not encountered this kind of attitude. Like so many others.

You were adding terminology to the wiki that is simply nonsense in Arch. Any competent mod would have reverted it. There is no such thing as a sub-package and even now you are using bad terminology - xfce4-about is not a dependency of libxfce4ui. It is a part of the package, which is a huge difference. You can take all of this however you want, but putting Fedora information in the Arch wiki is a bad thing.

Last edited by Scimmia (2014-11-25 18:26:23)

drcouzelis · 2014-11-25 18:27:16

Scimmia wrote:

You were adding terminology to the wiki that is simply nonsense Arch. Any competent mod would have reverted it. There is no such thing as a sub-package and even now you are using bad terminology - xfce4-about is not a dependency of libxfce4ui. It is a part of the package, which is a huge difference. You can take all of this however you want, but putting Fedora information in the Arch wiki is a bad thing.

The main issue CarlD has with the wiki is not the changes or revisions to his edits, it's the attitude and comments that came with them.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2014-11-25 18:27:47)

Scimmia · 2014-11-25 18:34:56

drcouzelis wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
You were adding terminology to the wiki that is simply nonsense Arch. Any competent mod would have reverted it. There is no such thing as a sub-package and even now you are using bad terminology - xfce4-about is not a dependency of libxfce4ui. It is a part of the package, which is a huge difference. You can take all of this however you want, but putting Fedora information in the Arch wiki is a bad thing.
The main issue CarlD has with the wiki is not the changes or revisions to his edits, it's the attitude and comments that came with them.

Yes, I read the commit/revert messages and everything on Lahwaacz's talk page. It seems to me that if anyone disagrees with him, he considers it an attack.

CarlD · 2014-11-25 18:39:30

Scimmia wrote:

You were adding terminology to the wiki that is simply nonsense in Arch. Any competent mod would have reverted it. There is no such thing as a sub-package and even now you are using bad terminology - xfce4-about is not a dependency of libxfce4ui. It is a part of the package, which is a huge difference. You can take all of this however you want, but putting Fedora information in the Arch wiki is a bad thing.

What I was adding was a vastly improved Openbox article to your wiki. Having a completely out-dated and incomplete article was much more of a bad thing. The bottom line is that installing certain Xfce components in OB will result in an "About Xfce" menu entry, especially where using a menu generator. That was the information I intended to convey.

Any other user (or wiki mod) could've just corrected the terminology. Instead I got the very same reactionary and petty-minded responses I see here.

Feeling offended and angry? Now you know how the Arch community as a whole has made so many others feel.

Scimmia · 2014-11-25 18:44:34

CarlD wrote:

Any other user (or wiki mod) could've just corrected the terminology. Instead I got the very same reactionary and petty-minded responses I see here.

Assuming the mod could read your mind and know what you were trying to convey. It wasn't obvious.

CarlD wrote:

Feeling offended and angry? Now you know how the Arch community as a whole has made so many others feel.

Not at all. I have a much thicker skin than that. I can't imagine going through life getting offended and angry over something like that.

czubek · 2014-11-25 19:25:00

I am not adept at Linux and I admit I am intimidated by these forums. When I get adventurous and try to provide help to someone I soon realize it was misguided. Except for simple questions, I avoid asking for help and instead rely on the wikis. Some are great, (Beginner's Guide), and some are mind numbing. I like Arch but I believe I will always be on the outside looking in.

CarlD · 2014-11-25 19:59:51

Scimmia wrote:

CarlD wrote:
Any other user (or wiki mod) could've just corrected the terminology. Instead I got the very same reactionary and petty-minded responses I see here.
Assuming the mod could read your mind and know what you were trying to convey. It wasn't obvious.

Here is what I wrote on the Openbox article, word-for-word. It is still there for you to read:

Thunar is the native file manager for Xfce, and if installing be aware that some Xfce-related dependencies will also be installed, including exo (set default applications) and xfce4-about (provide information about the Xfce deskop environment). The menu entries for these may consequently have to be hidden.

I do not see what is hard to understand about that.

Not at all. I have a much thicker skin than that. I can't imagine going through life getting offended and angry over something like that.

Your actions do not match your words, my friend. All you have contributed so far is a pedantic criticism of my use of terminology (ignoring the fact I took the time to give something back), as well as the unfounded accusation that I feel "attacked" should people disagree with me. My comments on the Wiki are completely to the contrary where not involving Lahwaacz (e.g. rEFInd and Gummiboot).

And it hasn't gone un-noticed that you've completely ignored the points I was making in this thread.

jasonwryan · 2014-11-25 20:20:00

That's sufficient, CarlD: you might want to consider that continuing to escalate an issue by using pejorative language is not the most successful strategy for engaging with others.

Please don't use this thread to continue to grind your own axe...

satanselbow · 2014-11-25 20:39:41

czubek wrote:

I am not adept at Linux and I admit I am intimidated by these forums. When I get adventurous and try to provide help to someone I soon realize it was misguided. Except for simple questions, I avoid asking for help and instead rely on the wikis. Some are great, (Beginner's Guide), and some are mind numbing. I like Arch but I believe I will always be on the outside looking in.

With the greatest respect Czubek - many of your posts are apologetic or self deprecating from the outset (apologies for the minor profile stalking activity ).

The "moron" post, in my opinion and in a thread I had contributed a thinly veiled assist, was well justified and should not be taken out of context. If the user felt they were being treated aggressively or unfairly then they obviously had not been taking onboard any of the information - or dare I say "advice" - that was being offered.

I personally feel that the boards here treat newcomers fairly but with a healthy scepticism. If specific, distro-agnostic information is freely available elsewhere or on the wiki then it is not unreasonable for another user/moderator to point the original poster to that information. If the same poster repeatedly posts similarly framed questions then it is not unreasonable for the mods to lose patience.

I, for one, trust the boards here more than other distribution's boards. Many of the "Everyman" distributions, who are a lot more - shall we say - tolerant, have far more active boards with a (I guess) larger pool of the userbase contributing "possible" solutions which range from the sublime to the ridiculous. While this may appear to demonstrate a more "friendly" culture within the board it more often than not results in the blind leading the blind, which in turn may result in the quest for the true resolution to your particular query being a drawn out exercise in futility. I find this rarely happens on the Arch boards.

Arch (and it's forum) is very honest about what it is and what it is about and quite happily tells the world so.

Everyone on these boards was a newcomer at some point - the quality of those that stayed speaks for itself

*** ASIDE ***

I just noticed the date I actually joined the forum - 06/2011. I had been misusing Arch (whilst distro-hopping, as you do) since 2009... read into that what you will... I like to think I was earning my stripes

Last edited by satanselbow (2014-11-25 20:47:23)

alphaniner · 2014-11-25 21:10:38

@CarlD

I may be missing something, but based on the revision history of the Openbox page I don't see any basis for your claim that you were "jumped all over constantly during the process" etc.

Last edited by alphaniner (2014-11-25 21:11:07)

CarlD · 2014-11-25 21:39:10

alphaniner wrote:

@CarlD
I may be missing something, but based on the revision history of the Openbox page I don't see any basis for your claim that you were "jumped all over constantly during the process" etc.

Jason requested above that I do not continue with this thread.

jasonwryan · 2014-11-25 21:40:25

CarlD wrote:

alphaniner wrote:
@CarlD
I may be missing something, but based on the revision history of the Openbox page I don't see any basis for your claim that you were "jumped all over constantly during the process" etc.
Jason requested above that I do not continue with this thread.

Thank you.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2014-11-25 22:59:42

If I may: I also contributed to the "moron thread" and the OP was not called a moron:

Trilby wrote:

I can't tell if you are a troll or just a complete moron.

The OP subsequently opened other threads and provided us with an answer to Trilby's question:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=189994
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=190087
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=190091

FWIW, I'm a total n00b and I think the community here is excellent.
The quality on display here is rampant.

TheSaint · 2014-11-26 08:08:14

Some times certain arguments are very flammable. For some reason there should be a policy to limit such kind of discussions. In particular from who just joined in. My opinion votes these newcomers to ask only for technical questions.
One may judge this as a dictatorship, but it could be a superficial view.

davidm · 2014-11-26 15:36:41

czubek wrote:

I am not adept at Linux and I admit I am intimidated by these forums. When I get adventurous and try to provide help to someone I soon realize it was misguided. Except for simple questions, I avoid asking for help and instead rely on the wikis. Some are great, (Beginner's Guide), and some are mind numbing. I like Arch but I believe I will always be on the outside looking in.

This is kind of what I have observed and feared was happening. I wrote about it here in another forum post. I wasn't specifically talking about any one member (in fact overall I think lahwaacz was decent and not malicious at all and he fixed the formating of my contribution to the Wiki for me which was nice) but rather how it all might feel to a new user from their POV. It's very easy to take things in a way which was not necessarily intended. However it might seem one thing I keep in mind is that they are also volunteer contributors and it is very doubtful that anyone is actually acting maliciously.

I consider that Arch might benefit from a 'User Advocate' or 'Ombudsman' position. This would be someone who acts as a go between for the users and administrative / developer staff. If users are having problems they would be able to go to this person and have their complaints addressed by them in some way amicable to both parties. If admins/developers are having a problem with a user they likewise would be able to contact the 'User Advocate' and ask them to speak with them in an attempt to minimize any ill feelings or misunderstandings. The benefit for the developers/admin staff would be that they are more freed to do their jobs without having to deal with all the politics (which 90% of them probably hate). There are a few admins/mods here who seem in my opinion to have the patience and attitude to do such a job already should they be crazy enough to want such a responsibility.

Last edited by davidm (2014-11-26 15:43:47)

Trilby · 2014-11-26 15:49:02

I like the spirit of that idea, I just don't see how it would be practical. It just adds a middleman. Would users not comfortable being approached by a dev/admin be more comfortable with an obmudsman? If the obmudsman has any authority at all, they would be viewed like the admins - then we'd need an omombudsman to communicate between the ombudsman and the user. And then another layer would be needed, and another ...

Instead we should just all learn to communicate better. And I do mean we. I am a very direct, and often abrupt person - or I can be a downright arse. That's how I work - and I appreciate it when others work that way with me. I doubt anyone enjoys the process of being corrected, but I do enjoy the end result: I can be better at whatever I am doing. Now not everyone works like me, and not everyone will benefit from a direct approach. But if I was a "regular" user and was approached by an obmudsman rather than the admin who had a concern with my behavior I'd leave that community immediately and never return.

No single approach will be perfect for everyone. But we can strive to be decent and respectful to everyone. We can also have standards of conduct that are required of everyone - mods/admins/new-users. Just a day or two ago I was sternly chided by a member here for comments I made in a thread. He was completely right to do so. I modified my post and appologized for my hasty generalization. We all work together to make this the community we want. Mods/admins simply have the permissions to do stuff with the website that may be needed from time to time. I think a good reminder for us mods/admins is if we are taking an administrative action that would not be same one done by nearly any member of the community, then we are doing our job wrong. The community creates the rules. Mod/admins just have the special links on the forum to implement them.

Last edited by Trilby (2014-11-26 15:51:53)

Arch Linux

#26 2014-11-25 13:56:36

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#27 2014-11-25 14:01:29

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#28 2014-11-25 14:24:12

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#29 2014-11-25 15:35:27

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#30 2014-11-25 16:07:32

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#31 2014-11-25 16:27:38

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#32 2014-11-25 17:47:10

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#33 2014-11-25 17:54:49

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#34 2014-11-25 18:18:24

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#35 2014-11-25 18:25:09

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#36 2014-11-25 18:27:16

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#37 2014-11-25 18:34:56

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#38 2014-11-25 18:39:30

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#39 2014-11-25 18:44:34

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#40 2014-11-25 19:25:00

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#41 2014-11-25 19:59:51

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#42 2014-11-25 20:20:00

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#43 2014-11-25 20:39:41

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#44 2014-11-25 21:10:38

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#45 2014-11-25 21:39:10

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#46 2014-11-25 21:40:25

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#47 2014-11-25 22:59:42

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#48 2014-11-26 08:08:14

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#49 2014-11-26 15:36:41

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

#50 2014-11-26 15:49:02

Re: The Arch Communities Mentality to Newcomers

Board footer