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

[confocaloid]

dvgrn is claiming existence of "consensus" on an issue on which there is no general agreement (I collected multiple quotes).

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

There is no general agreement. I collected multiple quotes where people used the word 'condition' because it is the correct choice in that context.

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

The words are not synonymous. These words have different meanings in relevant contexts.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

dvgrn is claiming existence of "consensus" on an issue on which there is no general agreement (I collected multiple quotes).

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

There is no general agreement. I collected multiple quotes where people used the word 'condition' because it is the correct choice in that context.

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

The words are not synonymous. These words have different meanings in relevant contexts.

Transition has 3760 server-wide matches and condition has 1567.
Transition has 1388 forum matches and condition has 478.
(By the way, I edited the tlife page. Do not revert the edit because you cannot revert without violating the executive decision).

[confocaloid]

The words are not synonymous. These words have different meanings in relevant contexts.

Transition has 3760 server-wide matches and condition has 1567.
Transition has 1388 forum matches and condition has 478.

You are ignoring what I wrote. The words 'condition' and 'transition' have different meanings in relevant contexts. These are not synonyms. Hence it is incorrect to refer to the number of search matches without considering the context.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

The words are not synonymous. These words have different meanings in relevant contexts.

Transition has 3760 server-wide matches and condition has 1567.
Transition has 1388 forum matches and condition has 478.

You are ignoring what I wrote. The words 'condition' and 'transition' have different meanings in relevant contexts. These are not synonyms. Hence it is incorrect to refer to the number of search matches without considering the context.

Confocaloid (and dvgrn), please stop this. If you guys stopped (at least for a bit), then general agreement could appear.
Also, stop reverting edits.

[confocaloid]

Confocaloid (and dvgrn), please stop this. If you guys stopped (at least for a bit), then general agreement could appear.

Actually, this is one of major complaints from myself, about what dvgrn is doing in all these terminology disputes.
Instead of letting people discuss the matter, they're constantly intervening with long "official-sounding" posts / attempts to get me out of the discussion, even where they're a side in the dispute with strong opinion.

Also, stop reverting edits.

Reverting an edit is one of ways to indicate disagreement. This is a feature.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

Confocaloid (and dvgrn), please stop this. If you guys stopped (at least for a bit), then general agreement could appear.

Actually, this is one of major complaints from myself, about what dvgrn is doing in all these terminology disputes.
Instead of letting people discuss the matter, they're constantly intervening with long "official-sounding" posts / attempts to get me out of the discussion, even where they're a side in the dispute with strong opinion.

If you stopped, then dvgrn will stop too. You must stop first.

[confocaloid]

If you stopped, then dvgrn will stop too.

In my experience that is not the case (unfortunately).

[HerscheltheHerschel]

If you stopped, then dvgrn will stop too.

In my experience that is not the case (unfortunately).

In 99.9999999999999999% of peoples experience, that is the case. You must stop more and surrender.

[confocaloid]

Well I attempted to explain what I think about this. It is your choice to accept or ignore my arguments and explanations.
Likewise, it is my choice to decide how to reconcile someone's claims with my own direct experience.

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

[calcyman]

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.

This would only be harassment if he's specifically targeting you, personally. Trying to filibuster* an argument -- whilst being an underhanded tactic for winning a debate -- still isn't harassment unless it's consistently targeted at you, the person, rather than a particular idea/suggestion of yours. But dvgrn isn't consistently firing down all of your suggestions (dvgrn said "Mostly it looks to me like confocaloid makes good edits and keeps the LifeWiki more consistent than it would have been otherwise" on the Discord, for example), or being unfairly biased against suggestions that originate from you rather than from someone else (he's consistently attempted to resolve all sorts of edit wars over the years, which is befitting of a moderator). So you could say that he's persistently resisting a particular change that you've suggested, but he's doing so as a function of the content of the suggestion, not based on who suggested it.

*N.B. I don't think that's what's happening here, as dvgrn's posts tend to be lengthy in general (see the various planning threads he made for the RCT project), so 'their long posts' are typical of the author.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

Well I attempted to explain what I think about this. It is your choice to accept or ignore my arguments and explanations.
Likewise, it is my choice to decide how to reconcile someone's claims with my own direct experience.

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

I choose to ignore your arguments and explanations.

[haaaaaands]

we're getting nowhere. calm down, confocaloid, you're only making this more difficult!

[confocaloid]

This would only be harassment if he's specifically targeting you, personally. Trying to filibuster* an argument -- whilst being an underhanded tactic for winning a debate -- still isn't harassment unless it's consistently targeted at you, the person, rather than a particular idea/suggestion of yours.

According to my own direct experience, dvgrn is specifically targeting me and my actions.

At the moment, I'm not at all clear that this recent edit by confocaloid to the tlife page is any kind of improvement. I've reverted that change for now, mostly to register a clear objection. Otherwise I would be somewhat worried that similar "transition" -> "condition" replacements might start happening on other pages.

This is directly targeted at me. There are no actual explanations for why the changes would be bad.

dvgrn says they reverted my edit "mostly to register a clear objection", while at the same time saying it is "a reasonable idea" and "a little more precise". Instead of directly addressing my specific rewording in OCA:tlife, dvgrn accuses me of planning edits on other pages. Even then, dvgrn does not directly explain why any such edits would be bad.

[...]
We can try to keep the discussion focused better on the actual issue in the future, instead of accidentally slipping so much into discussion about the discussion (which I know I'm doing in this post, by the way -- my apologies for that!).
[...]

The quoted post by dvgrn appeared right after one of my attempts to explain myself.
dvgrn's post is offtopic in that thread (discussing general policies, stating expectations of "future cases", etc.)
The post has effect of disrupting discussion flow, and giving appearance that all the actual feedback is simply ignored.

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.

Here dvgrn ignores the many quotes I posted (where multiple people at different times actually chose to use the word 'condition' in relevant CA-related contexts).
Dvgrn also ignores that out of few people other than dvgrn or me,

• some ( viewtopic.php?p=171889#p171889 ) did not express any specific preference one way or another,
• some expressed their opinions/preferences on general usage but did not directly object to my rewording in OCA:tlife,
• statements "the word 'transition' is commonly used" are not an argument against 'condition', because 'condition' is also commonly used, and because the words have differing meanings.

Just because there's no major support for my edit, does not mean it "has to be reverted" or "can safely be reverted".
The claim "That edit can be safely rolled back for now,..." by dvgrn is targeted at my actions specifically, and dvgrn asserts that it's OK to undo my edit, without giving adequate explanation/evidence for that.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

I made this userpage which might be useful:
User:HerscheltheHerschel/How_to_stop_an_edit_war

[haaaaaands]

I made this userpage which might be useful:
User:HerscheltheHerschel/How_to_stop_an_edit_war

...which already got a deletion tag :/







confocaloiiiiiiiiid stoooop aaaaaaaaaa (i checked history and duh, he added it because of the excuse that got us here)

[azulavoir]

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

It seems to me like you are trying to harass yourself out of the community, using him as your method.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

I made this userpage which might be useful:
User:HerscheltheHerschel/How_to_stop_an_edit_war

...which already got a deletion tag :/







confocaloiiiiiiiiid stoooop aaaaaaaaaa (i checked history and duh, he added it because of the excuse that got us here)

I started a topic on the article's talk page.

[haaaaaands]

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

It seems to me like you are trying to harass yourself out of the community, using him as your method.

if you no longer want to be here you can leave, no need to edit war on a lame topic that could very well make it into this list.

[confocaloid]

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

It seems to me like you are trying to harass yourself out of the community, using him as your method.

Whether or not I'll be able to remain here is not the most important question.

When I wrote "My own experience" above, I meant several relatively recent (a few months) disagreements on terminology-related questions, including this.
dvgrn's actions in these disputes do not help to resolve the actual disagreements. I believe dvgrn was acting destructively in all these terminology debates (mainly by trying to control the discussion artificially, instead of letting people discuss the issue).

[dvgrn]

My own experience tells me that dvgrn is trying to harass me out of the community, because of our disagreements on terminology.

confocaloid, the truth is exactly the opposite. I've spent all this time and listened to all these complaints and insults from you, because I'm very interested in keeping you in the community.

You've been making that goal extraordinarily difficult recently -- not following LW:DR rules at all, not giving discussions enough time to play out, repeating yourself an awful lot, edit warring, labeling people "troll" and so forth. You just continued the OCA:tlife edit war yet again, this time with HerscheltheHerschel.

For the time being, just so you don't dig yourself into a deeper hole, I've removed the trusted flag from your LifeWiki account.

Look at the recent history of OCA:tlife. Is that really how you want these kinds of editing disagreements to play out in the future? None of the huge unnecessary mess in that edit history would have happened if you had simply been able to follow my executive decision (whether you liked it or agreed with it or not) and -- if after a week you still thought the issue was important -- use the escalation procedure outlined in LW:DR to try to get my executive decision overturned.

[confocaloid]

my executive decision

There was no meaningful way for you to make an "executive decision" on the condition/transition issue where you were the first person to disagree with my rewording, and actively continued to do so. You are a side in this dispute.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

my executive decision

There was no meaningful way for you to make an "executive decision" on the condition/transition issue where you were the first person to disagree with my rewording, and actively continued to do so. You are a side in this dispute.

That's not true. Haycat was the first person to disagree with your rewording.
If you need proof, here's a screenshot:

[confocaloid]

They reverted two unrelated changes (diff: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141270 ), without giving an edit summary that could explain what is the objection. It is an unexplained revert, not an objection to one of changes in the edit.

Shortly before that, Haycat2009 created a redirect ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=141235 ) from the alternate name not in common use that I removed from the page. I assume that they objected to my removal of "Thigh Life" from the page, and not to my rewording of "transition" to "condition".
But they never explained the actual reason. An unexplained revert is not a valid objection.

[HerscheltheHerschel]

They reverted two unrelated changes (diff: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141270 ), without giving an edit summary that could explain what is the objection. It is an unexplained revert, not an objection to one of changes in the edit.

Shortly before that, Haycat2009 created a redirect ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=141235 ) from the alternate name not in common use that I removed from the page. I assume that they objected to my removal of "Thigh Life" from the page, and not to my rewording of "transition" to "condition".
But they never explained the actual reason. An unexplained revert is not a valid objection.

Anyways, there is no need to edit war on a lame topic that could very well make it into this list.

[confocaloid]

Anyways, there is no need to edit war on a lame topic that could very well make it into this list.

Whether or not I'll be able to remain here is not the most important question.

When I wrote "My own experience" above, I meant several relatively recent (a few months) disagreements on terminology-related questions, including this.
dvgrn's actions in these disputes do not help to resolve the actual disagreements. I believe dvgrn was acting destructively in all these terminology debates (mainly by trying to control the discussion artificially, instead of letting people discuss the issue).