> I've never said your previous work was bad / > harmful, nor did I disagree with previous PM's > decisions. More than so I did not judge any > PM. But you're associating your work with > PM's and I don't think that's right. It was the > requests that are your work, not PMs > decisions, and their decisions shouldn't make > your work worse/better.
If you assert that my requests are all irrelevant and ill-conceived, then logic necessarily dictate that the Package Maintainers who have accepted those in the past are stupid or negligent, which is an implication I find insulting and untrue. And also this is evidence of your own negligence instead when lodging your ill-conceived framing complaint against me. You have accused me of automatically filing mindless requests made by scripts: > I'm against using some self-written scripts to > mass-file requests to certain packages just > based on their traits, like keywords, names, or > whatever. You have also insinuated that I file requests without consideration: > every request, no matter they're for orphan, > merge, or deletion, need to be thought carefully > and sent with details associated closely with it. > And blindly filing them just adds burden to PMs > as this leaves research to be done to PMs. Regarding my requests asserting a mistaken statement: > The direct reason I want to post this is reading following requests: > PRQ#51267[1], PRQ#51269[2], PRQ#51270[3] and PRQ#51271[4], > these affects armcl-opencl[5], arm-linux -gnueabihf-armcl-neon[6], > aarch64-linux-gnu-armcl-opencl+neon[7] and > aarch64-linux-gnu-armcl-neon[8] accordingly. You should have responded to at least one of the individual deletion request you have objection with instead of using this one point of mistake to add to your framing me on aur-general and furthering your baseless accusation that I am mass filing automated requests made via scripts. I would have amended my mistake quickly. I do listen to relevant feedback and learn from them, and from my mistakes as well. > I don't want this thread to drag more people in, > but since you mentioned them: I agree they are > good AUR users and they have a good history > of good requests. But similar does not mean > same, especially with this quantity and you end > up with a template-like requesting style. Just > as I'm writing this you closed PRQ#51285 and > filed PRQ#51286 to the same package. You are now trying to hold against me my revocation of my own request because I realized a mistake, whereas previously you accused me of filing mindless script request. These are mutually contradictory to each other. But again, I see that you just want to push me into a corner while not taking any responsibility for your exaggerated blaming response in front of all AUR staff and core community members. > Yes, and why are good-faith members like you > have framed me instead as mentioned in the > previous point? I have simply pointed out that behind your insinuatons are baseless bad-faith assertions. Is defending my innocence framing you? > I don't want this to be > heated but you seem to want this to end right > away with one side involved getting banned or > driven out, instead of letting it go through > thorough discussion in the thread. This is not > how discussion should go. I'm sorry, what banning? Why are you again implying untrue things about me? It was you who implied that I am some kind of bot whose requests are just a non-useful burden on PM's. Which, if believed to be true, would lead to my banning from this platform, thanks to your hostile action. This behavioral pattern you are following is called criticism deflection and blame shifting / mirroring. Instead of taking responsibility for accusing me falsely, now you are painting an alternative reality picture about the victim (me) being actually the abuser. The fact is, for already closed requests of mine, the ones that I didn't revoke, has so far had ~99% acceptance ratio. Like I said, when filing requests, I add relevant information that should aid the maintainer in understanding the issues, and in case of ARM packages, I copy-pasted a few statements and links that are relevant to the case (pointing to the Arch rule against non-x86_64 compatible packages, and also links to ArchLinuxARM.org forum resources on submitting packages there). So in essence, you are blaming me for trying to be helpful, and framing that behavior as evidence of spam. Such communication of yours is intended to flame up the community against me, to drive me out. It is definitely not a way to work with a fellow community member. I don't hold my experience in the AUR community in very high regard already, based on earlier unfair attacks that I've suffered. I am just too lazy for now to move on to some other community, and I still enjoy the hands-on, no unnecessary hyper-bureaucracy approach here. But right now I really wish I'd left this toxicity behind. Yours, Marcell On 15 November 2023 16:14:55 GMT+01:00, 7Ji <pugokus...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please don't frame me with baseless accusations > >> In followup to that, @7Ji has mass-filed 40+ deletion requests of their >own, for other ARM-only packages, and for some other package that are not >necessarily ARM only (and @muflone has rejected a few of them because of >this). So who is the one who just blindly copy-pastes requests? It's >definitely not me. > >My whole account just has 11 PRQs, 2 of which are merge, and 9 of them are >deletion, all filed against my own packages, all accepted. None of them is >"not necessarily ARM only (and @muflone has rejected". I don't want to make >this heated but you're framing me instead. I don't think this helps with >your point. > >Especially, as my deletion requests are against my own submitted packages, >those are submitter + maintainer's requests, different from a user's >request against another user's package. > >> @7Ji has responded to one of my deletion request at a point when I only >submitted a few ARM-related ones. In my response, I provided further links >to back up my claim that ARM-only packages are not in accordance with >guidelines. I also provided a link to precedent, i.e. one of the deletion >request threads pertaining to an ARM-only package, which included >@muflone's reasoning for dropping said ARM-only package. > >To make up to the previous point, that was not my package. I replied to >that as I was a recently invited co-maintainer for patches I provided to >that package. It's also that package's maintainer who mass filed deletion >requests to all their packages. > >> Those who assert that most of my requests are illegitimate are >discrediting @muflone most of all, because he is the one who has treated >the supermajority of my requests. He has so far accepted, by my rough >guesstimate, at least 98% or more among those. Are you saying that he is >doing questionable and erratic work? I myself do not see that view >justified at all. > >I've never said your previous work was bad / harmful, nor did I disagree >with previous PM's decisions. More than so I did not judge any PM. But >you're associating your work with PM's and I don't think that's right. It >was the requests that are your work, not PMs decisions, and their decisions >shouldn't make your work worse/better. > >> Many of my requests follow similar, considered reasoning for similar >cases that are covered by filings from more veteran and well-respected AUR >community members like @a821 and @FabioLolix. > >I don't want this thread to drag more people in, but since you mentioned >them: I agree they are good AUR users and they have a good history of good >requests. But similar does not mean same, especially with this quantity and >you end up with a template-like requesting style. Just as I'm writing this >you closed PRQ#51285 and filed PRQ#51286 to the same package. > >> I think also that fair treatment is a necessity when one is accused and >framed, and such attacks should be called out rather than being tolerated >or outright condoned. If AUR staff gives in to such, that would just >alienate good-faith members like me. > >Yes, and why are good-faith members like you have framed me instead as >mentioned in the previous point? Please, I don't want this to be heated but >you seem to want this to end right away with one side involved getting >banned or driven out, instead of letting it go through thorough discussion >in the thread. This is not how discussion should go. > >Yours, 7Ji
