Closed keredson closed 8 years ago
keredson
commented
8 years ago I have only deleted your comments as I feel they are toxic.
comments in the form of "function x should do y instead of z because reason a" aren't toxic. they're just differences of opinion. for example, you deleted:
your motivation was clearly to suppress technical criticism.
brooksc
commented
8 years ago Hi folks, I'm new to Peewee - I just discovered it today and was thankful such a wonderful library was created I'll be using on a project. I thought I'd add my $0.02 if it helps.
I was concerned when I read the wikipedia article that referenced this dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peewee_ORM
I thought at the time though - one person has created most if not all of the library, so frankly - it's his project, his rules. github does allow you to fork and create your own version if you disagree - but I don't expect anyone should be able to impose their own rules or morals on someone else's project in particular since they've given so much.
@keredson I don't know the details of what you've cited, but perhaps it's time to move on? I don't think the wikipedia controversy is justified either given what's above.
keredson
commented
8 years ago @brooksc it's pretty simple. twice i reported what i thought to be a bug. (invalid SQL being generated, and first() not using limit 1) twice @coleifer said they weren't bugs. twice third parties argued that yes they were bugs (@blueset and @arikfr). (@blueset reported an identical bug just a few days later. @arikfr called the first() behavior "surprising" - i don't want to misrepresent) and twice @coleifer in the end agreed the code is better w/ a change. and all this was apparently enough to really piss him off at me. (i don't know him or have ever interacted with him before this)
all this was only just amusing to me, until @coleifer deleted my comment on @blueset's bug (which was just "i agree this is a bug and IMO should be reopened"), and then started blatantly lying about me behaving somehow toxic to the project, as if bug reporting wasn't normal behavior on GH. (i challenge anyone to find any example where that's even remotely true.) and then started randomly deleting other comments from days prior. (out of spite? to support his narrative? i have no clue. the selection seemed random.)
long story short, if me reporting two bugs to this project was all it took for him get so angry about so little, there is no way i'm the first. my intention with this issue is just to shine light on questionable behavior, to reduce the chances the next bug reporter goes through the same.
but don't worry. this isn't the hatfields and mccoys.
it's his project, his rules.
i agree to an extent. he rules whatever is finally put into the code. (i've never argued against that.) but to flatly ban someone from ever reporting a bug in the future is taking that too far. (and GH seems to agree w/ me, as they don't give project admins the ability to lifetime ban someone.)
It's just gotten weird to me at this point.
totally agree on that one!
keredson
commented
8 years ago btw @brooksc, for the record i love peewee and think @coleifer has done a great job building it. best python ORM out there IMO. (and i've praised it many times, even when reporting these little nit-noid bugs. tho every comment where i've praised it/him has been deleted! go figure that one out!)
arikfr
commented
8 years ago twice third parties argued that yes they were bugs (@blueset and @arikfr)
I never said it was a bug. It surprised me, that's all.
there is no way i'm the first
I follow Peewee for a long time now. I read every bug report, pull request, comment, etc. I never seen Charles react before like he has with you. Charles explained what bothered him with the issues you opened. You might not agree, but you shouldn't ignore that.
and GH seems to agree w/ me, as they don't give project admins the ability to lifetime ban someone
That's a bullshit argument. GitHub didn't implement many features, it doesn't mean it's a result of policy.
But regardless, even if something being "legal"/allowed doesn't mean it should be done.
keredson
commented
8 years ago @arikfr sorry if i misinterpreted your meaning. you're correct you said surprising behavior. i referenced you because i credited your comment with changing @coleifer's mind on it.
I never seen Charles react before like he has with you
if you truly follow every issue/pr, you know he was angry from the very first conversation (https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/pull/950), when he knew nothing of me but a username and a 4-word PR title. if you've never seen him like this before, i'd wager it's because people don't stick around after first contact much.
even if something being "legal"/allowed doesn't mean it should be done.
that is my argument on deleting everyday comments written by others!!!
GitHub didn't implement many features, it doesn't mean it's a result of policy.
they do have a feature to report toxic/abusive behavior, which can result in banned accounts. @coleifer (or anyone else for that matter) is more than welcome to use it if they wish.
arikfr
commented
8 years ago they do have a feature to report abusive behavior, which can result in banned accounts. @coleifer (or anyone else for that matter) is more than welcome to use it if they wish.
There is a difference between abusive and unwelcomed behavior.
keredson
commented
8 years ago FWIW, @coleifer's and I had a productive (and long) email discussion about all this, and I believe have come to a reasonable mutual understanding. Important to me (re: my point that deleting someone else's comments is the nuclear option for a maintainer, that should be reserved for ASCII-art d*ck pics and the like, a group I resenting being lumped into), Charles offered this:
I should have handled this situation better. I reacted too strongly to what I perceived to be an "entitled" tone to your comments. Whether it was there or not, I should have handled it without getting high-and-mighty. I also regret that my frustration with some of your issues-that-weren't-issues led me to react unfavorably at first to some legit issues.
Which I thank him for. (I also conceded an apology - sounding entitled was never my intention, but text is unforgiving to intent/tone, and I'm definitely a very direct person. I should be more careful.)
There is the issue of the wikipedia entry, which has grown beyond either of us it would seem. I promised to @coleifer I'd comment here, saying publicly I'm retracting my complaint, and delete the section in question (referencing this retraction), which in theory should settle the matter and should not be reverted. I've no interest in it retarding the growth of Peewee, which is a project I really do like.
Anyway, water under bridge, hatchet successfully buried, etc. IMO. :100:
UPDATE 7/13: retracting this comment as coleifer's concession clearly wasn't genuine, as he's still openly censoring technical opinions he disagrees with: https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012
keredson
commented
8 years ago deleted as promised:
(cur | prev) 00:50, 24 June 2016 2601:2c5:100:5a70:d4:c804:316d:5e6c (talk) . . (5,565 bytes) (-653) . . (deleted complaint section. the original complaint has been retracted (by me). see https://github.com/keredson/peewee/issues/2#issuecomment-228227522) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)Derek, this is counter productive. Can you please move on?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Charles Leifer notifications@github.com wrote:
Can you please clarify how I've censored technical opinions?
The issue you're referring to has been fixed in master... I don't see how accepting a bug report and then fixing it qualifies as censorship.
[image: s1468475205 23] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/119974/16829233/86af825a-495c-11e6-8446-848e2807b4a3.png
I don't think it's quite right for you to have gone back to the Peewee ORM WikiPedia page and added an entire section about how I censor people who I disagree with. It's not right because in this particular case I did agree with the commenter, and then fixed the issue.
In addition, and I'm not sure why you did this, but you posted a link to the GitHub ticket on hackernews with the title Programmer banned from major open source project for calling bug “super weird”.
[image: s1468463704 12] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/119974/16829323/ff2d784a-495c-11e6-84fd-5950b45afbd2.png
[image: s1468463589 59] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/119974/16829331/08ca5224-495d-11e6-9a66-a10c9619f1c8.png
Why would you do that? What do you want to accomplish by posting these things on WikiPedia or HackerNews?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/keredson/peewee/issues/2#issuecomment-232563166, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AA8kX3PYXW81ZMM831RtiFE76j_Mkticks5qVc5ngaJpZM4I2Wjk .
keredson
commented
8 years ago Can you please clarify how I've censored technical opinions? The issue you're referring to has been fixed in master... I don't see how accepting a bug report and then fixing it qualifies as censorship.
that's not at all what happened. yesterday @neopunisher submitted an issue, you reasonably said "i disagree with this issue". @neopunisher (also reasonably) said he disagreed with your reasons why it's not an issue. that should have been then end if it, but for whatever reason his disagreement with your opinion bent your nose to the point of banning him. just like deleting comments you don't agree with, banning users you don't agree with is clear censorship and bullying of your own users.
why did i post this to HN? because you're behavior is counter-productive to the growth of peewee. i was hoping broader public exposure would lead to your embarrassment over the indefensibility of the ban, which would have two outcomes:
also an apology to @neopunisher would be warranted, but i'm not holding my breath.
@brooksc we all did move on, until @coleifer started this all back up again yesterday. see https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012
neopunisher
commented
8 years ago @coleifer Ive got too much work to keep looking at this but I do want to point out it didn't seem like you intended to fix it, you gave a few reasons why you wouldn't want to then closed the issue (usually means there's not an intent to fix it)
Also what is this guilt by association of knowing @keredson? I get banned for the precrime of possibly being a dissident or something... I was just trying to make a bug report and the fact that the empty model will evaluate as truthy is not so much weird as gross and should really be considered an anti-pattern. I can think of all kinds of bugs that could be caused by this and having to check to see if the model i got is empty before every time I use it isn't reasonable. You even do the check and null out the records that are all nulls in the aggregate model (from what I can tell)
neopunisher
commented
8 years ago @nocivus I think it sets a bad president if every repository owner starts treating their projects with the same draconian banning practices as the apple app store. Open source is about building a community not attacking it when it tries to help. Its funny because when we found and decided to use peewee we were really excited, it has a nice api that's easy and clean and we start getting attacked when we make suggestions to improve the codebase (in reference to https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012)
noozo
commented
8 years ago @neopunisher I agree. I'm just saying that, in the end, it's his project not anyone else's. He is as free to ban/kick/kill/caress/
keredson
commented
8 years ago He is as free to ban/kick/kill/caress/ anyone as you are of creating your own project if you don't like it :)
@nocivus and i have a right to openly and honestly criticize it as poor/aggressive/silly/counter-productive project management.
keredson
commented
8 years ago @coleifer wow. so i criticize you for inappropriately overreacting to even mild criticism. and you respond by emailing half the people who work for my employer, including my boss? i feel i should be angry, but honestly the humor in the irony is overpowering it all.
p.s. emailing 1/2 my colleagues to say "(please do not share this with Derek Anderson or his colleagues)" is just icing on the cake. i feel i should be sending script ideas to the "silicon valley" TV show here. :)
keredson
commented
8 years ago the full "embarass" quote:
i was hoping broader public exposure would lead to your embarrassment over the indefensibility of the ban, which would have two outcomes:
- make you reconsider the issue (success! you now agree and peewee is better for it.)
- remove the ban on @neopunisher, who's never done squat to you except thumbs-down you once or twice. (still waiting on this one)
also, re:
"hey, this guy goes around deleting everybody's comments when he disagrees with them", or "if you say something is weird on his issue tracker, he'll ban you!"
i never said everybody. but other than that, yeah that totally sums up my entire complaint.
think of it this way. if donald trump says "outrageous statement X", and someone posts to reddit "donald trump said 'outrageous statement X'!", that someone isn't a bully, they're just a commenter. you banned @neopunisher for saying "super weird". QED. if you feel shame for that that's on you.
anyway, this has grown tedious. gnite.
keredson
commented
8 years ago I'm a husband, a father of a young child, a full-time software engineer, and most relevant to you, I'm someone who has an interest in open-source software, which I share freely and expend a lot of effort supporting, bugfixing, and improving.
Then we have a lot in common, and should get along swimmingly.
Look @coleifer I was quite satisfied with the result of our little truce 3 weeks ago. You acknowledged deleting other's comments was "reacting too strongly". I agreed to retract my criticism of your past behavior on the condition it stopped. I don't know why or when you banned me after that (we never talked, nor did I have any reason to comment on peewee until you banned @neopunisher, so I didn't even know until two days ago.) You've already expressed regret about banning @neopunisher, and offered to undo it if he emails you (which is weird, but whatever). So would you be interested in a second truce? Un-ban us both, agree to stop this ban/delete style of project management going forward, and I'll again retract my criticisms of your past actions.
To be clear, this is for business. We use peewee commercially (quite happily). We've never demanded you agree with us, or that you make code changes you don't agree with on our behalf. But to use an open source project commercially, when we're cut off from even discussing issues with 99% of the community, well that's an unacceptable business risk in my eyes. Hence my persistence in this matter.
Anyway, let me know if interested. (Either here, or privately like last time, it doesn't matter.)
arikfr
commented
8 years ago I really hope Charles does not un-ban you.
You should be really ashamed of your last message.
You're using commercialy the work Charles provides for free and then you have the nerve to come in demands about how he manages his project?! WTF?!
arikfr
commented
8 years ago Oh and btw:
and GH seems to agree w/ me, as they don't give project admins the ability to lifetime ban someone.
Apparently they don't agree with you...
keredson
commented
8 years ago so @arikfr you disagree w/ me. i don't particularly like it, but i promise simply disagreeing with me will never lead me to:
if i did this, you'd be perturbed. (and rightfully so. anyone would be.)
Apparently they don't agree with you...
well this is my first time dealing w/ it. clearly i'm ignorant of the intricacies. :)
listen, i can understand @coleifer's current annoyance w/ me. no one likes being called out, even if the call-out is 100% factual. but i called him out after he did these things, not before, so that can't be the reason he did them. and not to put too fine a point on it, the internet seems to agree. of the 50-ish people reacting to https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012, >90% indicate the ban was an overreaction. (and let's be honest, if it was the other way around, @coleifer's wouldn't give $0.02 about it/me, much less be so angry, arguing so vehemently here in this really tiny/obscure corner of the internet.)
janus1337
commented
8 years ago Shame on you, Derek.
I've been watching the peewee project for a long time and, Derek, your actions appall me.
I understand why @coleifer banned you and while some of his comments to you were unnecessarily harsh, the way you've been inciting "mob justice" is a disproportionate response, and is furthermore no way to treat the person whose hard work you are even now taking advantage of. The person you are trying to publicly humiliate just fixed a bug reported by someone at your company, and you merged his fixes and still criticize him. Shame on you!
keredson
commented
8 years ago @janus1337 what you're calling mob justice i call a minor instance of the streisand effect. if @coleifer never banned @neopunisher for calling the bug "super weird", a HN link saying "developer banned for calling bug 'super weird'" would have had no effect and virtually no one would have ever known of any of it. (who peruses closed peewee bugs?!) i have no ability to humiliate anyone other than call attention to their own actions.
FWIW, i'm thankful @coleifer changed his mind on https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012 after the wider scrutiny. but @coleifer's original disagreement with @neopunisher (on that issue, or any other) was never part of this complaint. it was his decision to ban him over a trifling comment.
keredson
commented
8 years ago @janus1337 rereading, i missed this part of your comment:
is a disproportionate response
that's a reasonable concern. (and the root of my complaint) but this isn't the first problem our team has had along these lines, as this thread shows. i spent many hours trying the convince charles the last time (so many emails/threads/etc), and was quite happy when we made peace. to see it happen again to someone else (who charles didn't know was connected to me, as evidenced by his "ban" comment starting out with "I don't know who you are"), confirmed our suspicion this was at least a semi-common event, not specific to me. and to then discover i'd been banned as well, with zero contact since we made said peace, well it convinced me charles hadn't been truthful during that peace-making or whatever you may call it. (meaning all that time was a total waste, and would likely be again if i tried again more privately expressing my concern.) hence the stronger response this time. (and likely the next, if happens again with anyone else, assuming i happen to witness it, as i do feel quite strongly it's an abuse and clearly against open source as a principle.)
anyway, i still love peewee, as i've said many times. (and nltk for that matter, which we also use, and i've been a personal user of for nearly a decade now.) i do hope if i'm ever in the position of filling a bug report or enhancement idea there, we'd be able to respectfully disagree without me getting banned, and all still be peachy-keen in the world.
EDIT 7/18: nevermind that last paragraph. at first glance i thought @janus1337 was the maintainer of nltk, but i see now i was mistaken. he (or she, not clear) has no publicly viewable repos or commits, and just had it starred on the profile. (nltk is still a great program tho!)
janus1337
commented
8 years ago Derek, as I said, I've followed peewee for quite a while and Charles has been an exemplary maintainer in every way. You seem very upset, far beyond what is appropriate. It is embarrassing for you. I feel sorry for the other developers you work with.
Also, you seem very much like a mind reader because you always are able to tell exactly what Charles thinks. Either he banned your colleague because he knew you were colleagues, or he did so because he has an extreme sensitivity to the word "weird". In the thousand+ issues he's handled maintaining peewee, you'd expect to see a lot more bans if the latter were the case.
keredson
commented
8 years ago your well reasoned argument has convinced me. thanks for the diagnosis.
EDIT
the above was in reply the the previous version of @janus1337's comment, which was much shorter and called me sick/mental.
reply to second version:
i don't know his reasoning. charles (not i) claimed it was due to the connection with me (after the HN attention). and perhaps we haven't seen more deletes/bans because GH doesn't show you deletes/bans, and probably most people just stop using the project rather than make a stink like i have. of course it would be hard to find evidence on his own repo when we know he likes to delete it!
arikfr
commented
8 years ago of the 50-ish people reacting to coleifer#1012, >90% indicate the ban was an overreaction.
50 random people, that don't know the context or have any interest in peewee, decided it's an overreaction, so fucking what? And btw, this is not a democracy.
FWIW, i'm thankful @coleifer changed his mind on coleifer#1012 after the wider scrutiny.
No, that's a complete lie. He didn't change his mind because of the "wider scrutiny" -- he agreed there was an issue and on further discussion mentioned he will fix it in the way Carter suggested. This was long before your HN post and other actions.
@keredson your ability to take things out of context or just twist facts is amazing. Consider a career in politics.
arikfr
commented
8 years ago To be clear, this is for business. We use peewee commercially (quite happily). We've never demanded you agree with us, or that you make code changes you don't agree with on our behalf. But to use an open source project commercially, when we're cut off from even discussing issues with 99% of the community, well that's an unacceptable business risk in my eyes. Hence my persistence in this matter.
Do you really think your persistence in this matter will result in anything favorable for your business? Do you really think at this point Charles will be open to hear your opinions or help you with any future issues?
From a business perspective, the right thing to do is to evaluate whether you can keep using peewee without Charles' support. If you can - great, keep using. If not - consider switching to a different ORM.
But trying to force someone to do voluntary work is not the way to go.
keredson
commented
8 years ago 50 random people, that don't know the context or have any interest in peewee
what context? his his "ban" comment starting out with "I don't know who you are". he didn't figure out the connection to me until later.
the right thing to do is to evaluate whether you can keep using peewee without Charles' support
thanks for the concern, but we're OK. we already had an internal fix (https://github.com/keredson/peewee/commit/ce2cbed46d6ce7c162e79aca4e3979a009b73cbf) i believe before charles had his change of heart. i merged his because it's easier to maintain our fork that way, and i assume he knows his code base better than i do, and i'm not territorial over code.
But trying to force someone to do voluntary work is not the way to go.
never happened. it's hard to take you seriously when you keep making that claim.
No, that's a complete lie. He didn't change his mind because of the "wider scrutiny"
check your timeline. he closed it "won't fix" before the ban. he banned because carter disagreed w/ the close. he re-opened it well after the HN post and the 50-ish comments/reactions stemming from the HN post.
and now i see he's gone scorched earth, deleting all 50-ish people's comments/reactions on https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012. (and the multitude of his posts here, and evidence of that timeline) everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there is no arguing the fact here that charles clearly reacts to criticism by deleting/banning/suppressing/silencing when he can.
look, @arikfr @janus1337 i get that charles is your friend, or at least a multi-year colleague, and the desire to want to defend him. but just because you've never had a problem with him, or personally seen him ban/delete people to silence even mundane criticism before i made a stink about it here doesn't mean it doesn't happen. just like a white guy telling a "black live's matter" protester "well the cops have always treated me well", charles not abusing everyone is no defense against his obviously overhanded tactics to those of us who have minor technical disagreements with him, but aren't in his exalted inner ring as you are.
also, re: all the name-calling. why? is that supposed to convince me i'm wrong?
arikfr
commented
8 years ago check your timeline. he closed it "won't fix" before the ban.
I did check the timeline, in the same message he said he banned Carter he said he will look into implementing a fix along the lines of what Carter suggested. From the beginning he had a technical discussion with Carter - taking the time to explain in length of how he sees the problem and why it's tricky to fix.
It's the non technical comments that made him ban Carter.
look, @arikfr @janus1337 i get that charles is your friend, or at least a multi-year colleague, and the desire to want to defend him.
I don't know about @janus1337, but Charles is not my friend or colleague (I wish). I am just a happy user of peewee, who is upset by all of this.
also, re: all the name-calling. why? is that supposed to convince me i'm wrong?
What name calling? (asking seriously)
keredson
commented
8 years ago What name calling?
the "sick in the head" / "mental" comments made by @janus1337 in https://github.com/keredson/peewee/issues/2#issuecomment-233163737 (which i see he's now removed), and the many earlier by charles. sorry, it was join reply, should have been more specific.
I did check the timeline, in the same message he said he banned Carter he said he will look into implementing a fix along the lines of what Carter suggested.
well that's not my recollection, but it's hard to confirm now, as the entire conversation was wiped. but even that occurred after he closed the issue "won't fix" style. see screenshot here https://github.com/keredson/peewee/issues/2#issuecomment-232789419 so i call BS on this whole "he always intended to fix it" revisionist history. (which even if it were true, doesn't matter, as the complaint is about inappropriately BANNING USERS, not a silly fix/won't-fix debate which i couldn't give $.02 about, as i've said SO many times. stop it with this ridiculous straw-man argument.)
arikfr
commented
8 years ago It is easy to confirm as I have original copies of all comments (I receive emails for each comment). And it's not a "revisionist history" as it's clearly what he said. Not what he said after or edited, the original comments.
It's not a straw man argument either. Your claim is that he bans users over "minor technical disagreements". This comes to show that it's not true. He bans users over inappropriate language (and probably association with you).
Should he ban users? I think not, but as I said a number of times - it is his decision and right.
Anyway, I don't see where this discussion is going, so I guess we can put it to a rest?
keredson
commented
8 years ago the "inappropriate language" being "super weird" in @neopunisher's case and "silly" in mine. that's pretty weak tea argument-wise. (even ignoring charles' very first comment to me being "Human-friendly? What the hell does that mean?" heaven forbid someone say that to him!)
as I said a number of times - it is his decision and right.
he has the ability. if he has a "right" to, that's debatable, social norm-wise. (as i have the ability punch someone, but not the right to, social norm-wise.) but ok, let's say we disagree on the social norm, and that someone's "right" is based on "can they do it". surely if he has a "right" to that, i have a "right" to voice a complaint about it? (here, HN, or wherever) you and @janus1337 have both said i should be "ashamed" of my behavior. why is me exercising my speech rights shameful, and charles exercising his ban rights A-OK?
janus1337
commented
8 years ago If it was the "Streisand effect", why were you working so hard to promote the issues, Derek? I'd say it was a case of propaganda. Reading your comments it's obvious you are indifferent to Truth. Which one could say reflects a lack of integrity...
Obviously Charles isn't 100% blameless, but neither are you, Derek. As I said earlier your responses have been disproportionate.
I tried finding your posts, Derek, the ones you made on Reddit and Hackernews. The Reddit one seems to have been down voted into oblivion, as there are only a handful of comments, none of which pass judgement on Charles in the way you have. I could not find the Hackernews post so I'm guessing it got flag-killed. You didn't mention that in any comments you made in this thread, though. Again, I see a lack of integrity, among much else.
Derek: I approve of Charles banning you, and pity the maintainerof any project you "adopt" in the future. Furthermore, I feel like there's some real emotional issues here...you should stop posting, Derek, it's only making you look worse.
keredson
commented
8 years ago Reading your comments it's obvious you are indifferent to Truth. Which one could say reflects a lack of integrity...
this is in effect calling me a liar, but you're not detailing any time/place i've lied. so in my eyes it's just more name calling, similar to your sick/mental/"emotional issues" comments. but if you wish to bring up anything specific, i'll be glad to discuss it.
the HN post was flagged into oblivion simultaneously with charles' post complaining about it. i assumed he flagged it, or coordinated its flagging (i don't think it takes many). i posted it with my personal HN account (vtman2002), a handle i've used since 1998 (when i started at virginia tech), and have used broadly over the years. the reddit post was a newer account, labeled "keredson", same as here. i clearly made no attempt to hide myself. (why would i?)
btw, if you're not here because of HN or reddit, how in the world did you know about this? (ie: are you here because charles asked you to be?)
arikfr
commented
8 years ago but if you wish to bring up anything specific, i'll be glad to discuss it.
When presented with anything specific, you call it "revisionist history" or some other excuse, so I think it's pointless.
if you're not here because of HN or reddit, how in the world did you know about this?
Reference to this issue was added by GitHub on the original issue in peewee's repo. That's how I got here, and probably how Janus.
keredson
commented
8 years ago the thing i called revisionist history was where charles claimed "i always intended to fix it". when he clearly didn't, as he closed the issue saying (paraphrasing) "yeah, this is less than ideal, but the alternatives aren't any better, and it'll break compatibility, so i'll pass". (i don't have the original text - perhaps you'd like to post the full thing?) but clearly he didn't "always intend to fix it".
i'm pretty sure you're here because i tagged you in https://github.com/keredson/peewee/issues/2#issuecomment-226985208. it seems unlikely to me @janus1337 happened upon https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012 accidentally, if not through one of {HN, reddit, personal request from charles}. but i could be wrong. maybe perusing through already closed peewee issues is a common hobby of his. :100:
arikfr
commented
8 years ago This is so exhausting... Charles always closes issues when there is no further action needed and reopens them if necessary. You keep taking things out of their context by ignoring the rest of their discussion. This is what some might consider as being in different to the truth...
As for Janus being here: he already mentioned that he's following peewee and reading the discussions (just like I do), so I assume that's how he got here. But I don't know him and this is just an educated guess.
janus1337
commented
8 years ago I am a watcher of the Peewee project for some time, as I said.
Derek, this is silly, let it go.
keredson
commented
8 years ago @arikfr you're making my point. he closed it when he felt no further action (ie no fix) was needed. then he banned @neopunisher. then the HN attention happened. then he re-opened it (obviously having changed his mind on it). charles later claimed he always had intended to fix it (which is the part i called revisionist history), but the ordering of events directly contradicts that. what possible context am i missing here? (btw, again, that's not even the point. the BAN is what the complaint is about, not whether or not he agreed on the bug report or not.)
@janus1337:
I am a watcher of the Peewee project for some time, as I said.
you didn't answer my question. how did you stumble onto this particular issue? on your own, or were you directed to it on request someone else? (i mean, you don't ever seemed to have commented on any peewee issues before, or anything on GH ever for that matter.)
Derek, this is silly, let it go.
This is my GH page you are arguing on. Where am I supposed to be going? Also @coleifer still emails my boss daily. Don't confuse his silence here with having let anything go.
arikfr
commented
8 years ago Here we go again. You just skipped the parts in the timeline that don't serve your narrative. As I already explained the timeline, I'm not going to do it again.
As you said, it's not the point so let's not continue this discussion. I don't see it going anywhere productive.
keredson
commented
7 years ago i really am honestly confused by your point. you agree he closed it, you agree that means he didn't think there was anything left to do. but you also argue he always intended to fix it. that makes so sense at all to me w/o serious cognitive dissonance.
btw, you / @janus1337 / @coleifer keep trying to paint this as some personal grudge i have against charles. that's not true. i like peewee a lot and have tons of respect for him and what he's built. my criticisms are very specific around his actions deleting/banning users and why he took then.
and FWIW, i can prove it: right in the middle of the first disagreement over deleting comments, i gave a >2h long talk on peewee, how great it is, and how we're switching everything to it. if i had a personal grudge against charles i never would have done that, or at the very least used the opportunity to badmouth him. the list of attendees is there in the link. you're free to contact any of them to confirm i spoke quite well of both charles and the project. i mentioned the code differences and why we made them, but took every opportunity to stress how thankful we were of him and this open source project (which is why we were switching to it).
arikfr
commented
7 years ago i like peewee a lot and have tons of respect for him and what he's built.
Maybe you have respect to peewee, but you most certainly have no respect to Charles.
keredson
commented
7 years ago with all do respect, i know my own thoughts and opinions better than you do. not respecting a handful of actions someone takes is very different from not respecting them as a whole, or any of their other accomplishments.
so... interesting twist. my friend @smtheard clicked the fork button on peewee yesterday, and discovered he was banned too. this led to a question of who else had been as well, and we discovered @ajbisberg has also been banned. to my knowledge their only interaction w/ peewee was a single :+1: on a PR i made about a month ago (before any of this even started):
what exactly is the criteria you're using for these decisions @coleifer? is anyone i've ever known subject to a ban now? and why ban them now, as opposed to back then, if it wasn't retaliatory against me? and just days after you expressed regret over banning @neopunisher.
keredson
commented
7 years ago it's amazing how a different face on a PR makes a world of difference :100: https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/commit/c2bb9b4e3df9540d41f89fc0d773fdba1104868a
but hey, at least our bug fixes are getting upstream now. (and thanks for the nice words) :+1:
copied from https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/986 because @coleifer deleted the original.
this is an issue with the maintenance of the peewee project, not the code itself.
@coleifer please stop editing/deleting comments from other users without their permission, just because you disagree with some minor technical point they're making.
peewee is a good project. but such obviously unprofessional and unethical behavior drives away users, which hurts us all. and it's fundamentally unfair to those who spend the time to articulate reasons (pro or con) as to why/how peewee works, either with you or other users of peewee.
example issues where you've inappropriately altered other user's comments:
__len__should do a db count rather than load all results into memory https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/980if you truly believe such technical discussion to be spam, i recommend using github's spam reporting features instead, and let them handle it:
thank you, derek
EDIT 7/17: @coleifer has self-deleted his dozen+ comments in this thread and dozens more in his own repo (by him and others), which makes it kind of hard to read / independently verify the discussion here. long story short, this "delete/ban" approach he's taken of silencing even mundane technical criticism has been documented over multiple independent developers (myself and my colleague, who @coleifer didn't know was my colleague until after banning him), and 50+ others who commented/reacted negatively to said ban here: https://github.com/coleifer/peewee/issues/1012 (most of which came through a HN post titled "developer banned from open source project for calling bug 'super weird'", which admittedly i posted, hoping to get the ban reversed.)