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

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
User avatar
HerscheltheHerschel
Posts: 589
Joined: September 4th, 2023, 5:23 am

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by HerscheltheHerschel » December 11th, 2023, 12:55 pm

confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:53 pm
HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:52 pm
Anyways, there is no need to edit war on a lame topic that could very well make it into this list.
confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:34 pm
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).
Just stop it already, confocaloid. I can't bear it anymore. :x
superstrings, fuses, waves, wicks, and agars are cool
30P5H2V0 IS A BAD, UNMEMORIZABLE NAME
moved to new account hth

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3075
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by confocaloid » December 11th, 2023, 12:56 pm

HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:55 pm
Just stop it already, confocaloid. I can't bear it anymore. :x
Why you're arguing with me, then?
I'm simply replying to your posts and trying to explain myself.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic CA, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
HerscheltheHerschel
Posts: 589
Joined: September 4th, 2023, 5:23 am

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by HerscheltheHerschel » December 11th, 2023, 12:58 pm

confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:56 pm
HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:55 pm
Just stop it already, confocaloid. I can't bear it anymore. :x
Why you're arguing with me, then?
I'm simply replying to your posts and trying to explain myself.
I'm trying to make you stop. Nobody bears you anymore.
superstrings, fuses, waves, wicks, and agars are cool
30P5H2V0 IS A BAD, UNMEMORIZABLE NAME
moved to new account hth

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3075
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by confocaloid » December 11th, 2023, 12:59 pm

confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:40 pm
dvgrn wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:35 pm
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.
confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:47 pm
HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:44 pm
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.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic CA, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
HerscheltheHerschel
Posts: 589
Joined: September 4th, 2023, 5:23 am

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by HerscheltheHerschel » December 11th, 2023, 1:02 pm

confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:59 pm
confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:40 pm
dvgrn wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:35 pm
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.
confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:47 pm
HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:44 pm
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.
JUST STOP it already please
superstrings, fuses, waves, wicks, and agars are cool
30P5H2V0 IS A BAD, UNMEMORIZABLE NAME
moved to new account hth

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3075
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by confocaloid » December 11th, 2023, 1:05 pm

HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 1:02 pm
JUST STOP it already please
Stop what, exactly?

E.g. when I made a rewording in OCA:tlife I thought it was an improvement. (I still think it was an improvement.)
When I started the thread "Rule definition terminology", I thought it was a good way to get replies from people other than dvgrn or myself.
Etc.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic CA, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 3075
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by confocaloid » December 11th, 2023, 1:12 pm

HerscheltheHerschel wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 1:08 pm
Reported five of your recent posts here. You're spamming the discussion thread.

User avatar
calcyman
Moderator
Posts: 2938
Joined: June 1st, 2009, 4:32 pm

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

Post by calcyman » December 11th, 2023, 1:19 pm

I'm locking this thread on the basis that it's devolved into counterproductive bickering.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10695
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: OCA:tlife

Post by dvgrn » December 11th, 2023, 1:56 pm

confocaloid wrote:
December 11th, 2023, 12:40 pm
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.
I agree that I'm "a side in this dispute". I don't have a very _strong_ opinion about the particular uses of 'transition' that you've replaced with 'condition' so far -- but it's absolutely true that I personally believe that you are way off on the wrong track in continuing this argument.

You're trying to insist on changes to multiple LifeWiki articles now, based on a limited definition of 'transition' that simply doesn't match the way 'transition' is most commonly used here in the community, either on or off the LifeWiki. No amount of quotes that contain the term 'condition' will do anything at all to address the problem with this arbitrarily limited definition of 'transition' that you're insisting on.

You still seem to think that the simple fact that I hold this opinion is some kind of problem. It isn't a problem. There are no rules that say that a moderator can't have an opinion about a topic -- even "from the very beginning". More important, even if I am doing my moderation job Completely Wrong, due to a conflict of interest ... that would still completely fail to nullify the executive decision I made in my capacity as moderator. You're still breaking the rules.

My decision -- like any future moderator executive decision -- really needs to be able to officially stand until and unless it gets overruled by some kind of community decision, following LW:DR rules. You can't overrule an executive decision all by yourself ... but that's exactly what you keep trying to do.

You've already gotten an independent opinion from another moderator, Sokwe, on this issue. Please don't keep bringing the point up (except as part of LW:DR dispute resolution procedures, of course).

Recap on the actual issue
The transition-vs.-condition topic is almost completely irrelevant to the actual problem at this point. The problem is that you're continuing to refuse to follow the rules of the community, based solely on your own judgment of whether my actions as a moderator are valid or justified. As far as I can tell, you haven't looked for a "touchstone" -- you haven't asked a single other community member whether they think that your judgment is correct or that you're "doing the right thing" here. What you actually seem to be doing is making a whole lot of fuss, and breaking rules a lot -- and several people have strongly suggested that you stop doing that.

There are rules that say not to make edits that try to overrule a moderator's decision. So -- take as much time as you need, but please reassure me and/or the rest of the moderator team that you will be careful never to do that again. Follow LW:DR rules instead.

All of us on the admin/mod team will be very happy to restore the trusted flag to your LifeWiki account, as soon as we can trust you not to continue your current pattern of pointless edit warring. Unfortunately, if you keep on implicitly insisting that what you've been doing is not edit warring ... then we can't trust you to not do it again.

Locked