MrAdamJohn — May 18, 2026

Hey, my name is MrAdamJohn (llwp on github), and I just thought I would say "hi" and share that I'm happy to help!

4 replies

Matvey Kukuy (archestra team) — May 19, 2026

Hi @user, I blocked your account on the repo for violating the code of conduct.

MrAdamJohn — May 19, 2026

Hi. Thank you for the message and for explaining the reason directly. I want to acknowledge the violation & share the read I was operating under so you have full context, and ask how to make it right. I read the contributing doc, and I see the "Respect assigned work" section. piercypixel was already assigned at 19:42 UTC, before I posted my /attempt at 22:46 without re-loading the page. So it took me about an hour or even a bit more to compose my thoughtful reply and I was unaware of any internal movement outside my own effort to complete the work. The assignment was visible in the sidebar, and I missed it. That is the violation and I own it. Where I was operating in good faith: the algora-pbc bot's pinned instructions on the issue read as a sequence where Step 1 is "Comment /attempt #4758 with your implementation plan" and Step 2 is "Make sure you're assigned to the issue by the core team member." I read that as /attempt being how you raise your hand for assignment, not a claim that requires already-being-assigned. piercypixel's /attempt comment landed at 21:14, which I read on discovery as "WIP attempt, sponsor selection still open." The Attempts table the bot maintains at the top of the issue showed a :large_green_circle: next to piercypixel but no explicit "this attempt has been accepted", which would of course mean do not file more etc. I see now that the sidebar assignment is the controlling signal and the bot's flow is decorative on top of it. I read it one way and did not grok the full picture. For full transparency: I drafted a follow-up comment yesterday evening explicitly proposing to yield to piercypixel and offering a complementary backend/DX slice rather than competing on the same surfaces. I never posted it and I learned the ban was in place just when I was going to post this morning when at the same time I popped over to slack to catch up here. The draft was framed as "what serves the bounty best, happy to stand down" and tagged piercypixel and q404365631 by name. I mention it only because it shows the direction my thinking was already going before the block landed and I'm good to continue that direction if it is helpful. I want to do right by Archestra and by piercypixel. A few questions on how to proceed: 1. What's the appropriate next move? Withdraw the /attempt comment from the issue with an apology? Edit it to redirect to piercypixel? Leave it and let the ban stand and this work is over? Something else? 2. Is there a path to having the ban lifted, or is this a hard line? I respect either answer; just want to know. 3. Going forward in the Archestra space, what's the right way to engage on future issues that genuinely interest me? Is "Hi in #channel first, never /attempt on anything with a visible assignee" the rule even if it is the author, or are there other norms I should know about like many organizations? And I'll do another pass on the docs to make sure useful contributions land as expected. The author assignment during the apparent "open bounty" phase was probably my biggest mistake as a newbie in your community - apologies for any toes tapped. Sorry for the noise on the issue. Whatever you'd like me to do to clean it up, happy to make it happen.

Matvey Kukuy (archestra team) — May 19, 2026

@user, the decision has been made because of a massive unsupervised AI-generated comment in the GitHub

MrAdamJohn — May 19, 2026

completely understand, I get it! ... it looks like you're leading an important direction here with that balance and I respect it...