Hi all, Leaving aside the technical dispute for a moment, the accounts Cinnamon, Xfce, i3WM, and Hyprland are obviously sockpuppets that have been used for nothing but spamming deletion requests. These accounts should be swiftly blocked. Their deletion requests [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] should be disregarded and closed.
I think that zero tolerance should be afforded to users who obviously create sockpuppets so they can file multiple deletion requests. Not only is sockpuppetry in violation of the CoC [1] [2], I also think such accounts should be blocked swiftly to protect AUR staff and to deter other users from doing the same. According to aur-requests [3], there are currently eight pending deletion requests for wechat. Among those eight deletion PRQs, five PRQs were filed within two to four minutes of each other [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], using AUR accounts all created on the same day (2024-12-26), at a time when the dispute in the package comments section was already ongoing. **This pattern cannot be explained by coincidence.** One and the same actor, or group of actors, must have used those five accounts (Cinnamon, davy0710, Xfce, i3WM, and Hyprland) as sockpuppets so they can file multiple requests. Only one of those five has been blocked or deleted. I suggest that the four remaining accounts involved (Cinnamon, Xfce, i3WM, and Hyprland) be blocked indefinitely and that their five deletion requests [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] be disregarded and closed. For the remaining three deletion requests [4] [5] [11], I’d prefer to err on the side of caution. Those three accounts could be active users, who may have filed their deletion requests in (semi-)good faith, even though their timing seems a little unfortunate. Just for reference, here’s the exact timeline of the eight deletion requests: - On Dec. 31, 2024, 12:42 a.m., AUR user unn, a four-months-old account, possibly a genuinely active user, files PRQ#68185 [4]. - Six minutes later, AUR user zhaojian, a seven-days-old account, which may or may not be a sockpuppet, files PRQ#68186 [5]. (OP has stated that zhaojian has also filed abusive out-of-date notifications but I can’t confirm that independently so I’d rather err on the side of caution.) - About five hours after that, AUR user Cinnamon, one of a number of accounts with a similar pattern, files PRQ#68192 [6]. The account Cinnamon is definitely a sockpuppet. - Three minutes later, AUR user davy0710, definitely a sockpuppet, files PRQ#68193 [7]. The account no longer exists. - Another three minutes later, AUR user Xfce, definitely a sockpuppet, files PRQ#68194 [8]. - Four minutes later, AUR user i3WM, definitely a sockpuppet, files PRQ#68195 [9]. - Two minutes later, AUR user Hyprland, definitely a sockpuppet, files PRQ#68196 [10]. - About three hours after that, AUR user Keep-Silence files PRQ#68199 [11]. The account is five-weeks-old, maintains a single package, and has commented on other packages as well. This account may be a genuine user. [1]: https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/#spamadvertisingsolicitation [2]: https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/#sockpuppetry [3]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/latest [4]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/SHXYY5KDCQLTWV6FFF3UCTEUC6SAH4KX/ [5]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/5ZLHMFNHJWUP4HQZH6ZHGWQLLVBAZKIP/ [6]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/XF3CMCQQRRTKHBOMJBDA75JVMNHKLMOG/ [7]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/R4RUM6YYFT5XKLAATTWTHKAQLJZTSGKQ/ [8]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/2UP7Y2USKVNAF4IWB7R6TKSLFSUDFQTT/ [9]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/MOTEOZJEZUC2BU6OZCCAXEK353FVOUSX/ [10]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/NUQKWV4BZDGQDBOVY7SV6TROO7M5PWZQ/ Regards Claudia (aka Auerhuhn) On 31.12.24 7:18 AM, Kimiblock Moe wrote:
Hi, Recently after the merge of wechat-bin, numerous hostile actions has been taken by some users. I’d request some actions taken against them. The users are listed as follows: etoyz: Hostile and bad language in AUR comment[a] intentionally misleading other users to disregard the fact that dependencies should better be complete and wechat (formally wechat-uos-bwrap) is partially duplicated by wechat-universal-bwrap. He then suspiciously changes the Chinese ArchWiki[b] and destroyed the wiki’s context. In his questionable merge request, he ignored the fact that universal bwrap lacks dbus proxy and call it “more reasonably”. gnome: Harassment to the maintainers and their relatives[c]. davy0508: Harassment in a comment[d]. unn: Toxic words in PRQ#68185. zhaojian: Trolling by filing fake out of date notifications. Cinnamon, gnomewaylandibus, Xfce, i3WM: Files request with fake reasons, one even started claiming the wechat only works on KDE. These are not the complete list of hostile users. I hope this situation can be resolved by package maintainers. [a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004355 <https:// aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004355> [b]: https://wiki.archlinuxcn.org/wzh/index.php?title=微信 &diff=next&oldid=29289 <https://wiki.archlinuxcn.org/wzh/index.php? title=%E5%BE%AE%E4%BF%A1&diff=next&oldid=29289> [c]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004526 <https:// aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004526> [d]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004523 <https:// aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat#comment-1004523> -- Sincerely, Kimiblock
