confocaloid wrote: ↑
November 22nd, 2023, 11:48 am
Re: "moderator hat", if you blame people instead of/before trying to actually understand the issue, then it shouldn't come as a great surprise when those people find it harder and harder to take your words seriously / trust you in that you will not mishandle future situations like this again and again. This is my feedback anyway.
This probably needs a separate response.
You seem to me to be overusing the word "blame" again. I'm trying to stop edit wars. You have been continuing this particular edit war when the rules say you should have stopped at least a couple of edits ago. I don't care about assigning blame at all -- maybe you are completely blameless, a hapless victim of my poor communication skills -- but I still definitely want you to stop trying to undo recent moderator actions right after they happen. That's just plain not ever going to work.
When you do things that a moderator doesn't want you to do, the moderator is going to point out that you did them, and tell you to stop. If you do what the moderator says, then no blame needs to be assigned. If you keep doing whatever-it-is, then I suppose that various unpleasant things might happen, but "blame" still isn't really an important part of that.
There's certainly no requirement that you have to like my moderation style, or that you trust me not to mishandle things. However, there is definitely a requirement that you follow the rules of the LifeWiki, just like everyone else.
At least the last two of your three recent "undo" operations on OCA:tlife
look to me like seriously bad judgment on your part, to put it bluntly. Very early on in the discussion, on the OCA:tlife talk page
, I made it clear that I was acting in my capacity as moderator.
on the OCA:tlife talk page, dvgrn wrote:I'm a bit surprised that you decided to unilaterally go ahead and chanfge all existing uses of "transition" to "condition" in the article, as you have just done -- especially immediately after a moderator made an edit to try to settle an edit war. You've been asked very recently to avoid second-guessing moderator edits in this way.
The edit that I mentioned was an attempt on my part to settle an edit war between you and Haycat2009 that seemed to be getting started in that article.
Now, moderators won't always get things right on the first try. We'll just do our best to improve whatever sticky situation has cropped up. If we're wrong on the first try, we'll maybe do better on the next try -- but once a moderator has gotten involved, it's just an absolutely terrible idea for the original people who were involved in the dispute to try to step in and "improve" on what the moderator did. In this case, both you and Haycat2009 made those kinds of ill-advised attempted adjustments. That was not acceptable behavior.
Don't undo moderator edits
I'll try saying this again, as clearly as possible. Don't undo moderator edits while an issue is still being discussed, no matter how wrong you think those edits are. That's always going to be considered to be edit warring, except that it's even more ill-advised than participating in a normal edit war. Your fixes for any moderator mistakes can perfectly well wait for a little while -- and that enforced period of waiting will avoid a lot of future edit wars. You have now been warned.
That doesn't mean you have no recourse in cases like this. Quite the contrary, there's a whole procedure laid out in LW:DR
for what to do when you don't agree with an edit that a moderator has made. You haven't been following any of those rules.
Here's where we are right now on this issue:
You have referred to your edit that replaced all uses of 'transition' on OCA:tlife with "'condition'
, as a "suggested change". I rolled it back because it was against current LifeWiki rules, but said on the OCA:tlife talk page that that was just "for now":
on the OCA:tlife talk page, dvgrn wrote:Since the change you made was just a "suggested change", I'll go ahead and undo it for now, since it will still be visible as a diff. Would you care to open a new thread on LifeWiki discussion about "condition" vs. "transition", with a link to that diff -- and then we'll see how things go from there?
That suggested change
is still very much on the table. There are clear conditions under which the transition to your wording for that article could still perfectly well happen. All you have to do is show that there's a general consensus in favor of your edit.
I hope you've noticed by this point that there's no visible general consensus in your favor at the moment: no one besides you has spoken up in favor of your proposed change, and three people have expressed objections.
In the absence of a clear consensus, it didn't make a lot of sense for you to immediately revert my edits, multiple times. That was just completely pointless edit warring. The topic had been added to the LifeWiki Discussion board, so it was officially recognized as a topic of discussion.
You've been aiming your arguments specifically at the executive decision that I made in my capacity as a LifeWiki moderator. That decision was about what state the OCA:tlife article should be left in while this issue is being worked out
. Again, that was just a temporary moderator decision aimed at preventing an edit war; there's really no point in attacking it, since it's temporary and easily reversible. It would have worked fine if you had followed the rules instead of insisting on continuing an edit war.
I've been looking for community input on the question (see the various appeals above, with the words "other people
"). However, our long wall-of-text posts are probably getting in the way of community feedback, as usual.
I really wish that you would also prioritize looking for more input from the community. "Input" means new, clear, current opinions on this specific topic. It doesn't mean quotations from old posts that can maybe be interpreted to support your position. I'm talking about people who might now make a post saying "I agree with confocaloid on this one -- those four uses of 'transition' should be changed"... or they might say something else.
It seems to me that it would be a really good idea if we would both talk a lot less on this thread from now on, and let other people talk more, and then listen carefully to what they're saying on this issue.