Next steps on getting back to normal editing for OCA:tlife

[confocaloid]

I do, in fact, "not want to allow changes that somehow conflict with my viewpoint on the issues". This is because, in each of these cases, I've done my homework. I've reached out to others in the community -- anyone who is willing to express an opinion -- and gotten contemporaneous feedback. I've gathered evidence that is compelling to me, that my viewpoint is in line with the community's viewpoint on the issues.

In the current disagreement (on whether OCA:tlife should use the word 'condition' or the word 'transition' to explain similarities/differences between rules, or explain the same idea in a completely different way), I collected many quotes from different times and different places, where multiple different people actually chose to use the word 'condition' in a relevant CA-related context, in a way that is compatible with my understanding of the existing terminology, and also in a way that is compatible with intuitive meaning of the words 'condition' and 'transition'.

In other words, I also believe I did my homework. There is no consensus on this issue. Different people have different preferences. Some people said that they don't have a specific preference one way or another.

There is a separate forum thread intended to cover this question:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6235 "Rule definition terminology"

In the following posts, I posted a number of quotes from CA-related discussions / texts:
viewtopic.php?p=171595#p171595
viewtopic.php?p=171596#p171596
viewtopic.php?p=171671#p171671
viewtopic.php?p=172091#p172091

There is currently no consensus one way or another, on the issue of how to word OCA:tlife.
Just because there is no (near-)unanimous support for my edits, does not mean that reverting them would somehow improve LifeWiki and/or be otherwise helpful and/or productive.
I believe your repeated assertions otherwise are counterproductive. Instead of acknowledging the disagreement and the lack of a single "clearly best" solution, you keep on trying to shift blame on me, again and again.

I believe and state it here that your quoted post below is an instance of harassment, directed at me.

Still wearing my moderator hat, I will now say that it still looks to me like a consensus has been reached on this issue. That will be true until and unless members of the community who have not yet participated in the discussion decide to speak up to add new information -- or unless any of the current participants speak up to say they've changed their minds, of course.

There's currently no evidence of current community support for retaining confocaloid's change of 'transition' to 'condition' in those four places. That edit can be safely rolled back for now, and it should not be re-done unless some significant new information comes in from new participants in the discussion.

At this point I'm thinking everybody should understand how to avoid future edit warring on the OCA:tlife page. Let's see how well that works out in practice!

[dvgrn]

I believe and state it here that your quoted post below is an instance of harassment, directed at me.

Sigh... you're quoting my executive decision on this issue. I've re-read it, and it looks to me like a moderator's good-faith effort to improve a difficult situation. I'm pretty happy with the job I did there. It's not "harassment".

Calling it "harassment" is a violation of rule 1a, and posting more arguments about it before a week has passed is a violation of the LW:DR dispute resolution procedures. @confocaloid, I'm sorry you're upset, but you're going to have to start following the rules better now. There's a clearly stated escalation procedure. Either use it, or drop the subject.

[confocaloid]

You are claiming that it's OK to undo my edits. This your claim is a violation of rule 1a.
You write

[...] That edit can be safely rolled back for now, and it should not be re-done [...]

as if it was settled issue what wording is best for OCA:tlife. It is not a settled issue. Only very few people other than you or me posted on this. There are many quotes showing that the word 'condition' is in common use with same meaning, and that many people actually preferred this word in actual CA-related discussions.

Still wearing my moderator hat, I will now say that it still looks to me like a consensus has been reached on this issue.

You are falsely claiming consensus where no such consensus exists.
You are speaking with superiority attitude, as if you could remain neutral on this issue where you expressed your strong preferences all the way from the beginning.
You are trying to put blame on me and get my rewording reverted, ignoring all existing feedback that contradicts your claims.
Your claims are harassment and a violation of rule 1a.

[haaaaaands]

okok dvgrn and confocaloid (did i spell your name right?), enough. you 2 should stop roasting each other. also, if you (both of you) stop being passive-aggressive, don't you think more people will want to give their opinion?

[C28]

agreed. both of you need to chill out.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142623
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=142661

re: edit summary: the linked forum post discusses wording in tlife specifically and does not cover this page. More importantly, the linked post contains several misleading statements (assertion that "a consensus has been reached" while there is no general agreement as evidenced by quotes I collected in that discussion; assertion that the post is "a moderator decision" while the author of the post was directly involved in the issue from the start and consequently could not remain neutral on that issue).
Regarding wording in HighFlock: the bracketed digits in 'B3(45678)/S12(678)' are conditions, not transitions. E.g. 5 is a birth condition. Writing 'transitions' is incorrect here.

[dvgrn]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142623
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=142661

Most People Can't See Reported Posts..
... so to make things a little clearer, here's an explanation of the current state of this issue.

Rather than create a separate post in the Edit War Reporting Thread, I've just gone ahead and reported the above post -- not because there's anything wrong with the post, just to get some attention on the problem as per LW:DR. Hopefully some other moderator will come along soon and take a look at it.

It doesn't seem to me like this case needs to be treated as a new edit war. It's an issue that I've already made an executive decision about. The executive decision has not yet been overturned by another moderator, so it remains valid until confocaloid (or someone else) follows the next escalation step in LW:DR to get it overturned.

Now, that executive decision could be read as technically applying only to the single article OCA:tlife. It's certainly possible that there are some places on the LifeWiki where it would be a good idea to replace the word "transition" with the word "condition". I haven't yet seen any instances like that, but I'm not saying they don't exist.

However, when the definitions posted here are used to justify further edits to LifeWiki articles, those edits will very likely be reverted -- because at least one of those definitions does not match the community consensus.

Executive decision by dvgrn per LW:DR:
Please don't use the definitions described here to justify changing existing uses of 'transition' in LifeWiki articles to 'condition'.

It's mostly the definition of 'transition' that doesn't match up with community usage. A lot of people do use 'condition' along the lines of the 'condition' definition, and that's perfectly fine. People are welcome to use 'condition' that way whenever they want to. However, the definition of 'transition' isn't a good match at all for current usage on the forums. Making LifeWiki editing decisions based on that definition seems likely to cause a lot of confusion and not actually improve anything.

The previous discussion on this issue seemed to me like it should have stopped any further changes of 'transition' to 'condition'. Just the feedback from the community starting here, excluding my own personal opinion or executive decision, should make it clear that the issue is controversial. Until controversies are settled, it's generally best to stick with the status quo temporarily -- which in this case is existing uses of 'transition'.

Edits changing 'transition' to 'condition' have continued. Hence this post emphasizing the executive decision.

Again, please consider the above to be an official executive decision by a moderator -- or, more accurately, a clarification of the previous executive decision which is still in force.

@confocaloid or @anyone else, if you find it necessary to contest this decision, please follow LW:DR escalation procedures as usual. Further public complaints that I'm being "biased" or "involved"... are off-topic here and won't do a darn bit of good.

I'm going to go ahead and remove the temporary protection on the OCA:HighFlock page again now. Changing "transition" back to "condition" on that page would be edit warring, so nobody should do that please -- but of course attempts to improve the page in other ways are welcome as usual.

[confocaloid]

The bracketed digits in 'B3(45678)/S12(678)' are conditions, not transitions. For example, 5 is an optional birth condition; 8 is an optional condition in both "birth" and "survival" subsets, and so on. Writing 'transitions' here is incorrect.

[dvgrn]

The bracketed digits in 'B3(45678)/S12(678)' are conditions, not transitions. For example, 5 is an optional birth condition; 8 is an optional condition in both "birth" and "survival" subsets, and so on. Writing 'transitions' here is incorrect.

I'm assuming you saw what I wrote immediately above this. I unprotected the page, believing in good faith that my requests were clear enough that you would know not to continue a pointless edit war on this point. You've gone ahead and made a change of the specific type that I just said should not be made.

I'm still trying to get the problem of edit warring under control. As the title of this thread says, we're trying to get back to doing normal editing without moderators having to intervene all the time. Edits like this are no help at all.

@confocaloid, if I had thought you would go ahead and make that edit, I wouldn't have unprotected the page. In other words, I trusted you not to do that.

That usage of 'transition' was originally added (in a slightly different form) by DroneBetter, not by me. Completely contrary to what you keep saying, that usage was a completely normal and accepted use of the word 'transition', both on the LifeWiki and on the forums. There's absolutely no need to change it. There's especially no need for you to change it, given the three moderator opinions you've heard so far on this issue.

Can you please explain why you thought it was a good idea to completely ignore the revised executive decision that I had just posted?

[confocaloid]

I believe I already attempted to explain myself (both in the forum threads, and on the talk page of the article).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142623
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=142661

re: edit summary: the linked forum post discusses wording in tlife specifically and does not cover this page. More importantly, the linked post contains several misleading statements (assertion that "a consensus has been reached" while there is no general agreement as evidenced by quotes I collected in that discussion; assertion that the post is "a moderator decision" while the author of the post was directly involved in the issue from the start and consequently could not remain neutral on that issue).
Regarding wording in HighFlock: the bracketed digits in 'B3(45678)/S12(678)' are conditions, not transitions. E.g. 5 is a birth condition. Writing 'transitions' is incorrect here.

[dvgrn]

I believe I already attempted to explain myself (both in the forum threads, and on the talk page of the article).

I'm afraid that those attempts to explain didn't actually address the current question.

The question is no longer why "condition" is somehow so much better than "transition" that it's worth making all this fuss about.

The question is why you continue to feel free to ignore moderators' executive decisions.

1) You're expected to respect moderators' decisions in cases like this.
2) The decision I made was a moderator's decision -- explicitly labeled as such.
3) An accusation from you that I'm "directly involved in the issue from the start" in a particular issue, does not in any way make a clearly labeled moderator's decision into a non-moderator's non-decision that you can safely ignore.
4) Moderators may make the wrong decisions sometimes. That's to be expected occasionally. In such cases everyone is expected to work within the existing system to solve the problem.
5) There are rules laid out in LW:DR for escalating bad decisions by rogue moderators -- or even just moderators who make honest mistakes -- to get the bad decisions overturned.
6) You aren't following those rules in this case -- not even close. You're just engaging in completely pointless edit warring.

I'm not interested in letting this kind of edit warring continue any longer. I've been asking you to state clearly whether you intend to follow LW:DR rules in the future. The impression you're giving by your recent rule-breaking is that you have no intention of paying attention to those rules -- but I still haven't heard a straight "yes" or "no" answer.

The entire conwaylife.com mod/admin team is still hoping to hear an unqualified "yes" answer from you on this question, really soon. As I keep telling everyone, you're an incredibly good LifeWiki editor about 99% of the time -- except in those rare cases when your opinion seems to run counter to the community consensus. Those cases cause a lot of fuss and bother, because it seems like you won't take "no" for an answer, apparently no matter who says it.

This is a serious problem -- but it seems like it ought to be a solvable one!

[confocaloid]

[...] except in those rare cases when your opinion seems to run counter to the community consensus. [...]

Clarification: your repeated assertions about the community consensus seem to run counter to my understanding of the actual current community consensus, as well as my understanding of the terms 'community' and 'consensus'.

[...] apparently no matter who says it. [...]

Clarification: it seems to me that you do not want to step away from this issue entirely, and let people discuss it without your repeated "moderator interventions". In my opinion this is destructive.
To restate what I already wrote before: I believe you cannot moderate the "condition vs. transition" issue, as you were involved in it from the very beginning, with clearly stated preferences that go against my attempts to reword affected articles. I believe my rewording is an improvement, in each specific case.

[dvgrn]

I believe my rewording is an improvement, in each specific case.

That much has been clear from the beginning.

So far, not even one single other member of the community besides you has been willing to speak up in these discussions to say that they believe that any of your transition->condition rewordings are an improvement.

As soon as that happens, we might have something to talk about!

Until then, my executive decision is my best guess based on the information I have. The people who spoke up to say that they like 'transition' better, you should leave existing uses as they are, etc., etc., represent (what looks to me like) the current community consensus. You're the only current representative of the viewpoint that your rewordings are improvements. But consensus, as they say on Wikipedia, does not require unanamity.

As a moderator, one of my jobs is to make good guesses at community consensus -- and to try to backpedal gracefully when I'm wrong! As a non-moderator, one of your jobs is to not attempt to directly overrule moderators when they make good-faith attempts to figure out what the community consensus is. When you try to do that, it's disruptive to the community. Your non-moderator role involves following the escalation rules if you can't live with a particular decision.

One more try at the actual question
The important question is still completely independent of the specific issue! Here's the important question:

Do you intend to follow the dispute resolution rules laid out in LW:DR to resolve future issues?

A simple "yes" or "no" answer would be really helpful here. Speaking as a moderator, I'm asking you to please focus on answering this specific question with a "yes" or a "no".

[Haycat2009]

You are falsely claiming consensus where no such consensus exists.
You are speaking with superiority attitude, as if you could remain neutral on this issue where you expressed your strong preferences all the way from the beginning.
You are trying to put blame on me and get my rewording reverted, ignoring all existing feedback that contradicts your claims.
Your claims are harassment and a violation of rule 1a.

Just stop arguing. This is a trivial issue that concerns the use of two synonyms. Why are we bothering with this anyway?

Confocaloid, you really ought to stop creating chaos and blaming others for it (I, dvgrn, galoomba and GUYTU6J are victims of this), as well as taking advantage of loopholes to spread your anger. I think that you should apologise to dvgrn for accusing him of nonexistent claims (e.g being biased).

Dvgrn, you really ought to take this issue (not the false claims, nobody likes being harassed) more lightly, as this is just an edit with no whatsoever significance.

Give this post a heart is you think that this really has to stop.

okok dvgrn and confocaloid (did i spell your name right?), enough. you 2 should stop roasting each other. also, if you (both of you) stop being passive-aggressive, don't you think more people will want to give their opinion?

agreed. both of you need to chill out.

I wholeheartedly agree. This situation has escalated to ridiculous proportions where an MODERATOR has been harassed and wrongly blamed just because they were trying to make peace. Can you, especially confocaloid, just CUT IT OUT? After all, the wiki is a wiki, not a war zone. Good faith should prevail, not suspicion and harassment.

[confocaloid]

You are directly involved in the condition/transition disagreement from the start (you were the first to express disagreement to that rewording in OCA:tlife, and argued against my changes further). As such, you cannot mediate this disagreement between me and yourself.
Your repeated long posts in these threads related to the dispute serve no helpful purpose, and make it unlikely that the actual community consensus will become clear. People see your attitude on this dispute, even before/without joining the discussion.

Clarification: as long as you're trying to moderate disagreements where you're a side with strong preferences from the beginning, I'm unable to take your words seriously. Your posts on these issues do not reflect and do not represent the community consensus.

[Haycat2009]

You are directly involved in the condition/transition disagreement from the start (you were the first to express disagreement to that rewording in OCA:tlife, and argued against my changes further). As such, you cannot mediate this disagreement between me and yourself.
Your repeated long posts in these threads related to the dispute serve no helpful purpose, and make it unlikely that the actual community consensus will become clear. People see your attitude on this dispute, even before/without joining the discussion.

Clarification: as long as you're trying to moderate disagreements where you're a side with strong preferences from the beginning, I'm unable to take your words seriously. Your posts on these issues do not reflect and do not represent the community consensus.

They do. I cannot tell whether you are referring to me or dvgrn, but this post only proves your immaturity and pettiness. Real people forgive and listen to admins. Dvgrn just wanted to give a suggestion to improve yourself, but you interpreted it as being biased and useless. Since you REFUSE to comply with dvgrn, it reveals your true colours.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

I think we should settle on the most common term (is it condition or transition?). I myself agree with the term condition but I think using the most commonly used term is the best solution.

[confocaloid]

I think we should settle on the most common term (is it condition or transition?). I myself agree with the term condition but I think using the most commonly used term is the best solution.

This cannot be done without accounting for the context.
The two words are not equivalent. There are contexts where 'condition' is correct, but 'transition' is incorrect. And vice versa.
A condition explains when a certain event happens with a cell. For example "birth on 6 alive neighbours" or "S8" or "5 alive neighbours" etc.
A transition is simply the event that happens (e.g. birth, survival).

Further, the question is about LifeWiki specifically (how to word LifeWiki articles aimed at readers/newcomers). Forum discussions are out of scope.

[Haycat2009]

I think we should settle on the most common term (is it condition or transition?). I myself agree with the term condition but I think using the most commonly used term is the best solution.

That is the best solution, the most commonly used is best for two synonyms.

[confocaloid]

the most commonly used is best for two synonyms

The words 'condition' and 'transition' are not synonyms. These words have different meanings.

[Haycat2009]

the most commonly used is best for two synonyms

The words 'condition' and 'transition' are not synonyms. These words have different meanings.

Yes, but that is not an excuse for making false claims about dvgrn. Mind you, that is defamation and harassment.

[confocaloid]

These are not false claims. I am harassed by dvgrn, who is trying to shift blame on me for the disputes where we disagree on terminology, to avoid dealing with the actual disagreements. They are trying to 'moderate' issues where they're directly involved as a side, and get upper hand on these disputes.

[...] except in those rare cases when your opinion seems to run counter to the community consensus. [...]

Clarification: your repeated assertions about the community consensus seem to run counter to my understanding of the actual current community consensus, as well as my understanding of the terms 'community' and 'consensus'.

[...] apparently no matter who says it. [...]

Clarification: it seems to me that you do not want to step away from this issue entirely, and let people discuss it without your repeated "moderator interventions". In my opinion this is destructive.
To restate what I already wrote before: I believe you cannot moderate the "condition vs. transition" issue, as you were involved in it from the very beginning, with clearly stated preferences that go against my attempts to reword affected articles. I believe my rewording is an improvement, in each specific case.

I do, in fact, "not want to allow changes that somehow conflict with my viewpoint on the issues". This is because, in each of these cases, I've done my homework. I've reached out to others in the community -- anyone who is willing to express an opinion -- and gotten contemporaneous feedback. I've gathered evidence that is compelling to me, that my viewpoint is in line with the community's viewpoint on the issues.

In the current disagreement (on whether OCA:tlife should use the word 'condition' or the word 'transition' to explain similarities/differences between rules, or explain the same idea in a completely different way), I collected many quotes from different times and different places, where multiple different people actually chose to use the word 'condition' in a relevant CA-related context, in a way that is compatible with my understanding of the existing terminology, and also in a way that is compatible with intuitive meaning of the words 'condition' and 'transition'.

In other words, I also believe I did my homework. There is no consensus on this issue. Different people have different preferences. Some people said that they don't have a specific preference one way or another.

There is a separate forum thread intended to cover this question:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6235 "Rule definition terminology"

In the following posts, I posted a number of quotes from CA-related discussions / texts:
viewtopic.php?p=171595#p171595
viewtopic.php?p=171596#p171596
viewtopic.php?p=171671#p171671
viewtopic.php?p=172091#p172091

There is currently no consensus one way or another, on the issue of how to word OCA:tlife.
Just because there is no (near-)unanimous support for my edits, does not mean that reverting them would somehow improve LifeWiki and/or be otherwise helpful and/or productive.
I believe your repeated assertions otherwise are counterproductive. Instead of acknowledging the disagreement and the lack of a single "clearly best" solution, you keep on trying to shift blame on me, again and again.

I believe and state it here that your quoted post below is an instance of harassment, directed at me.

Still wearing my moderator hat, I will now say that it still looks to me like a consensus has been reached on this issue. That will be true until and unless members of the community who have not yet participated in the discussion decide to speak up to add new information -- or unless any of the current participants speak up to say they've changed their minds, of course.

There's currently no evidence of current community support for retaining confocaloid's change of 'transition' to 'condition' in those four places. That edit can be safely rolled back for now, and it should not be re-done unless some significant new information comes in from new participants in the discussion.

At this point I'm thinking everybody should understand how to avoid future edit warring on the OCA:tlife page. Let's see how well that works out in practice!

[HerscheltheHerschel]

These are not false claims. I am harassed by dvgrn, who is trying to shift blame on me for the disputes where we disagree on terminology, to avoid dealing with the actual disagreements. They are trying to 'moderate' issues where they're directly involved as a side, and get upper hand on these disputes.

[...] except in those rare cases when your opinion seems to run counter to the community consensus. [...]

Clarification: your repeated assertions about the community consensus seem to run counter to my understanding of the actual current community consensus, as well as my understanding of the terms 'community' and 'consensus'.

[...] apparently no matter who says it. [...]

Clarification: it seems to me that you do not want to step away from this issue entirely, and let people discuss it without your repeated "moderator interventions". In my opinion this is destructive.
To restate what I already wrote before: I believe you cannot moderate the "condition vs. transition" issue, as you were involved in it from the very beginning, with clearly stated preferences that go against my attempts to reword affected articles. I believe my rewording is an improvement, in each specific case.

I do, in fact, "not want to allow changes that somehow conflict with my viewpoint on the issues". This is because, in each of these cases, I've done my homework. I've reached out to others in the community -- anyone who is willing to express an opinion -- and gotten contemporaneous feedback. I've gathered evidence that is compelling to me, that my viewpoint is in line with the community's viewpoint on the issues.

In the current disagreement (on whether OCA:tlife should use the word 'condition' or the word 'transition' to explain similarities/differences between rules, or explain the same idea in a completely different way), I collected many quotes from different times and different places, where multiple different people actually chose to use the word 'condition' in a relevant CA-related context, in a way that is compatible with my understanding of the existing terminology, and also in a way that is compatible with intuitive meaning of the words 'condition' and 'transition'.

In other words, I also believe I did my homework. There is no consensus on this issue. Different people have different preferences. Some people said that they don't have a specific preference one way or another.

There is a separate forum thread intended to cover this question:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6235 "Rule definition terminology"

In the following posts, I posted a number of quotes from CA-related discussions / texts:
viewtopic.php?p=171595#p171595
viewtopic.php?p=171596#p171596
viewtopic.php?p=171671#p171671
viewtopic.php?p=172091#p172091

There is currently no consensus one way or another, on the issue of how to word OCA:tlife.
Just because there is no (near-)unanimous support for my edits, does not mean that reverting them would somehow improve LifeWiki and/or be otherwise helpful and/or productive.
I believe your repeated assertions otherwise are counterproductive. Instead of acknowledging the disagreement and the lack of a single "clearly best" solution, you keep on trying to shift blame on me, again and again.

I believe and state it here that your quoted post below is an instance of harassment, directed at me.

Still wearing my moderator hat, I will now say that it still looks to me like a consensus has been reached on this issue. That will be true until and unless members of the community who have not yet participated in the discussion decide to speak up to add new information -- or unless any of the current participants speak up to say they've changed their minds, of course.

There's currently no evidence of current community support for retaining confocaloid's change of 'transition' to 'condition' in those four places. That edit can be safely rolled back for now, and it should not be re-done unless some significant new information comes in from new participants in the discussion.

At this point I'm thinking everybody should understand how to avoid future edit warring on the OCA:tlife page. Let's see how well that works out in practice!

To me, it doesn't look like "harassment" at all. To me it seems like you are harassing dvgrn.
I have reported your post.

[confocaloid]

To me, it doesn't look like "harassment" at all.

dvgrn is claiming existence of "consensus" on an issue on which there is no general agreement (I collected multiple quotes).
dvgrn is trying to use that claim to get my rewording reverted, because they personally disagree with me on the terminology to be used on LifeWiki in these contexts.
Instead of letting people discuss the matter, dvgrn constantly inserts their long posts after my posts, flooding the discussion threads.
dvgrn is speaking as someone who is "above the argument" even though they're directly involved as a side.
This is harassment. They're trying to gain upper hand on the dispute and get me out.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

To me, it doesn't look like "harassment" at all.

dvgrn is claiming existence of "consensus" on an issue on which there is no general agreement (I collected multiple quotes).
dvgrn is trying to use that claim to get my rewording reverted, because they personally disagree with me on the terminology to be used on LifeWiki in these contexts.
Instead of letting people discuss the matter, dvgrn constantly inserts their long posts after my posts, flooding the discussion threads.
dvgrn is speaking as someone who is "above the argument" even though they're directly involved as a side.
This is harassment. They're trying to gain upper hand on the dispute and get me out.

"no agreement" There is agreement. For example, I agree with transition because it's much more common.
Confocaloid, please stop this.