chapter & section numbers blinking red

Square252 · 2022-09-11 07:15:10

This is inappropriate und unprofessional. The admin responsible should be removed from the team to prevent wiki vandalism in the future.

seth · 2022-09-11 07:25:50

It might also be a field test to survey possible browser specific issues w/ the required css - and there're apparently multiple wiki admins involved in this.
I suggest we keep the pitchforks in the barns until the dust has settled.

jasonwryan · 2022-09-11 07:31:24

seth wrote:

I suggest we keep the pitchforks in the barns until the dust has settled.

This. All these call for volunteer staff to be stood down are both hyperbolic and unhelpful. Just take a breath before mashing the keyboard.

blargle-ragequit · 2022-09-11 07:39:33

Has any of the red blinking people have mentioned at least gone away already? Y'all know the html blink tag was made obsolete for safety reasons, right?

seth · 2022-09-11 07:43:35

That's where the bananas came in
(Yes, the seizure triggering blinking is gone - at least atm.)

sleeping · 2022-09-11 09:43:13

Can we use ???????????? instead of just ?? I feel like the section headings are still not clear enough.

Edit: emoji apparantly don't work on the forums, what a shame.

Last edited by sleeping (2022-09-11 09:43:56)

schard · 2022-09-11 11:33:27

dogknowsnx wrote:

The question remains: will banana arch installs qualify for official support?

You're asking the wrong question.
The actual question is whether systems without bananas will still be supported here as they obviously do not follow the current Wiki.

On a more serious note, I agree with Seth.
The Wiki admin team already has to deal with a bunch of upset users and, in my opinion, rightfully so.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Trilby · 2022-09-11 13:34:59

Certainly we should never attribute to malice that which Is adequately explained by stupidity*, but...

seth wrote:

It might also be a field test to survey possible browser specific issues w/ the required css

Given that there are countless more appropriate ways to conduct such a test, I struggle to see how this doesn't imply at least one of the following as a necessary conclusion: 1) those behind these changes are malicious, or 2) those behind these changes are incompetent. Neither one is acceptable especially given this one not a one-person screw up as noted:

seth wrote:

and there're apparently multiple wiki admins involved in this.

And so while I completely agree that we do not know which of the options above is true until the dust settles, does it matter? Would not either one of them justify the metaphorical "pitch forks"?

*note: a saying I've never much cared for; while logically sound, it seems much more generous to assume someone may have a reason to be malicious than it is to assume that they are stupid. So attributing such action to malice may result in an understanding of the motives behind the undesirable act.

Last edited by Trilby (2022-09-11 13:52:14)

seth · 2022-09-11 13:56:38

Thou shalt not turn an example into an explanation
We (I for one) don't know the actual motives for the particular action; whether they're good or bad or stupid. We'll see.

The thing with pitchforks is that in the end somebody gets stabbed and that's hard to undo.
"The hasty stroke goes of astray" and the mob is rarely a competent judge and as long as the impact of this messing around is merely a nuisance (the bananas have btw. been eaten, it seems) not necessary nor justified nor legitimized nor what I would choose to be.
For now

Trilby · 2022-09-11 14:00:02

seth wrote:

Thou shalt not turn an example into an explanation )

I proposed no explanation. I argued how the explanation was irrelevant, which if a valid argument would mean suggestions to "wait for the explanation" would have no merit. So repeating the advice to wait for an explanation is not relevant.

Volunteer staff should be respected, and they should be given leeway. They should not be given carte blanche to do anything at all and have it all excused under the guise of "we don't know their motivations" when the motivations would not be relevant. Somehow respect has turned into deification and the trite mantra now exists that "the volunteer staff work in mysterious ways."

Last edited by Trilby (2022-09-11 14:04:53)

itsTyrion · 2022-09-11 14:13:31

I don't agree with the tone of some replies, but I agree that tests like these should be done locally (Stylus browser extension maybe?) or a copy, not live. And the "ignore we'll get bored" isn't professional

seth · 2022-09-11 14:26:45

I proposed no explanation

Neither did I - that's the point.

Given that there are countless more appropriate ways to conduct such a test, I struggle to see how this doesn't imply at least one of the following as a necessary conclusion: 1) those behind these changes are malicious, or 2) those behind these changes are incompetent. Neither one is acceptable …

The premise of "countless more appropriate ways" hinges on the question whether "such a test" is indeed what's going on here (and then better alternatives would not only exist but are practically available)

They should not be given carte blanche to do anything at all and have it all excused under the guise of "we don't know their motivations"

No, but that doesn't imply the pitchforks.
It would most certainly be wise to explain the maneuver to re-assure that people aren't just playing fast and loose with one of the distros main reputations - and that will then inform anyones judgement.
"I don't know what's going on but I demand a beheading! Now!" is hardly any better than a knee-jerk public trial-and-error that we *might* have seen in the wiki.

So keep the pitchforks were they are, but be free to polish your scales in preparation.

Trilby · 2022-09-11 14:36:45

seth wrote:

... hinges on the question whether "such a test" is indeed what's going on here

That's not a question. It is a fact already in evidence provided by the wiki staff themselves.

Lack of certainty in some facts should not lead to a nihlistic view of knowing nothing for certain.

Last edited by Trilby (2022-09-11 14:37:55)

seth · 2022-09-11 15:40:11

Actually this is a case of "accidentally" breaking stuff, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=745587

let's break the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=741813 (this will either fix all issues or attract more complaining users with better ideas to fix it)

So the public attention here seems to have been the goal - questionable, but not unheard of:
https://lwn.net/Articles/354408/

Trilby · 2022-09-11 16:26:17

So your position is that one wiki maintainer told us this was a test, when it is in fact not. And then you go on to claim it was accidental ... yet in the very next sentence claim it was intentional and purposeful (for the purpose of getting public attention ... and isn't doing something deliberately obnoxious and disruptive for the purpose of getting public attention called trolling?) My general point is that I don't care whether it was accidental or inentional, neither one can be seen as acceptable.

This is just a cyclical goal-post shifting defense. If someone challenges the intentional action the defense is "it may not have been intentional"; and if the accidental action is challenged the defense is "it may have been on purpose". It's either one or the other, and either way it was inappropriate.

Last edited by Trilby (2022-09-11 16:28:11)

2ManyDogs · 2022-09-11 16:34:06

I think we're done here. Opinions have been expressed and the changes have been fixed. Further discussion seems pointless.

Closing.

Arch Linux

#26 2022-09-11 07:15:10

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#27 2022-09-11 07:25:50

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#28 2022-09-11 07:31:24

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#29 2022-09-11 07:39:33

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#30 2022-09-11 07:43:35

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#31 2022-09-11 09:43:13

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#32 2022-09-11 11:33:27

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#33 2022-09-11 13:34:59

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#34 2022-09-11 13:56:38

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#35 2022-09-11 14:00:02

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#36 2022-09-11 14:13:31

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#37 2022-09-11 14:26:45

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#38 2022-09-11 14:36:45

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#39 2022-09-11 15:40:11

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#40 2022-09-11 16:26:17

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

#41 2022-09-11 16:34:06

Re: chapter & section numbers blinking red

Board footer