User talk:HaeB/Archive 2011-2020

Welcome to my talk page :)

In general, I prefer conversations about specific articles to be held on the corresponding article talk pages, so that other editors can follow them too. Work on the Signpost articles of the upcoming issue is coordinated in the Newsroom, and Signpost issues of longer term relvance are discussed at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

If you are referring to a particular edit, it is best to use a diff link.

I usually reply here. I am often working on several things at the same time, so if I haven't answered yet even though I am online and editing elsewhere, please have some patience - if it is really urgent, prod me with a follow-up message.

I can often be reached via IRC, too (HaeB on Freenode).

Archives

Archive 2004–2008

Archive 2009–2010

Edit-wars on Arbitration report related Signpost pages

It appears Ohconfucius is continuing to play up with his battling and edit-warring on Signpost pages ([1] [2] [3] [4]). As it were, Tony1 seems to suggest that the "first author spot" is reserved for whoever creates the report first. Even if that is the case (which it hasn't been since I began writing the report earlier last year), it would not justify this in the newssroom; it shows he is using Signpost as a battleground and your lack of intervention is concerning. You promised that you'd have a talk with him and that would be the end of it; evidently, there is no end to this issue, and he has also resorted to grossly uncivil commentary both in edits and edit summaries ([5] [6]) that shows that he is unlikely to collaborate. He is not heeding the warnings he has been given so it seems there is little choice but to escalate this through the normal route. I'd still prefer to see what you will do to resolve this issue so I'm giving this note to you now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See also what I said here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is more of an editorial and personality issue than anything else – note that I haven't been reverting any of the changes he made to my draft report. I feel it hasn't been the same since I accused NMV for writing like a tabloid journalist, and he's been behaving rather possessively about Arb Report. I suggest that you ask us both to withdraw from editing Arb Report. It wouldn't matter to me if someone else wrote it, so long as his replacement doesn't continually indulge in his NPOV antics. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• The fact that he chose to revert that and nothing else clarifies exactly what I am saying; I'll be waiting for the day when he has stopped serving his own perceived (and actual) agenda, mainly concerning a grudge which he has against me. That may be the first helpful step he takes. What he has been doing is incompatible with The Signpost and the functioning of the wider wiki, and it doesn't matter how many ways I try to convey it to him; he still pushes ahead with it to a maximum, and you've experienced it first hand on more than one occasion. I suspect once he lets it go, he might actually pay attention to what is being said and thereby, bear it in mind so that he can improve the quality of his writings for the report; when that happens, I'd need not put so much (if any) time into this report. I'll keep waiting then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll understand that my spontaneous reaction to edit-warring over the order of user names in the byline and in the Newsroom contributors list for this section was not too different from that of Slakr [7][8] (although I can't endorse his suggestion because I prefer to keep the Signpost out of WP:LAME while still having a proper byline).

At the moment, there is a whole lot of other work to do on tomorrow's Signpost issue which is more important than sorting out this conflict, but I will look at the byline at publication time.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius is repeatedly and disruptively edit-warring on the arbitration pages without any discussion or sign of collaboration - and it's happening after publication this week. I don't know if it's sheer incompetence or a sign that he is determined to cause as much disruption as possible. It is prejudicial to dispute resolution to name (never mind adding a misleading number of) the parties in the absence of complete evidence being presented (and the case being closed). Also, unlike what he has asserted, it does not in fact show the scope of a case; the evidence is what determines that. Finally, the fact that he keeps adding and reinstating inaccurate assertions and omissions in the report (as a matter of regularity) is what is concerning - more than 10 statements were made prior to the case being accepted. The fact that his initial edits came at such a late point suggests his intentions are not as noble as you may like to believe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I note that Tony1 is tag-teaming. Could you please tell the two to avoid making a spectacle? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with minor improvements in wording to make it clearer and easier for our readers. Other editors come in and fix glitches at our other pages after publication, and their edits are almost always an improvement. It is a wiki, after all. The problem arises when you exert ownership by reverting these improvements—and after publication, too. Could you clearly set out why you believe the more recent edits are not improvements before reverting, please? This should not even register on the radar, but is being driven into a big drama. Why? Tony (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's examine that point shall we? When other editors add slight improvements, there isn't an issue, but it's remarkably interesting that where you and Ohconfucius begin tagteaming on this report, be it in the past or this week, you manage to do the exact opposite of an improvement - you turn the entire report (and also each of the cases involved) into a separate spectacle. Evidently, if you read what I said just above, you would note exactly what the problem is with your perceived "improvements" as you charitably characterise them. I think it shows it has nothing to do with ownership; it has everything to do with your apparent inability to accept that you might not have enough of a clue of how this report interacts with dispute resolution or the rest of Wikipedia. This isn't uncommon as far as you are both concerned, given a combination of last year's (and now this year's growing number of) spectacles. And now Ohconfucius is starting to turn another lame edit war with disclaimers - there is a thing called common sense. The fact that no other report is finding a need to add a disclaimer (despite the same effectively applying to all of them), and the fact that despite this, Ohconfucius suddenly feels a great principle is being sacrified by the arb report not explicitly adding this disclaimer, is yet another part of the damaging mentality that the both of you have been bringing to this part of The Signpost. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's now patently obvious that Vocalist doesn't 'get' that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and that 'his' isn't the "orthodox correct way"™ and mine not the 'wrong way'. OTOH, 'crap writing' is quite a bit less subjective, and there's no monopoly on that, either. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Look who's pointing the finger again! I'll admit to 'incompetence' if he'll simply admit to being a dick and a lousy copywriter. I believe that trouts all around for yet another lame edit war are in order. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop it, please, both of you. This is no time to call each other names; it is precisely the time we should all try to give others some leeway. The Signpost needs its journalists to collaborate, to work together productively. Now, Vocalist, I want to point to your achievements in writing the Arbitration report, and to say that your work is appreciated. However, I believe Ohconfucius (and I, if needed) have something to offer as well, and that there is scope for design tweaks in the report. I like the note at the bottom because it means there is no need to clutter the body of the text with time-anchored phrases.

The great potential of the Arb report is to render in simple, crisp language and form what are extraordinarily (and IMO often unnecessarily) complex proceedings. It's not always going to be an easy or quick job, and we all know ArbCom specialises in acres of bloated text and has never been good at deadlines and evidentiary limits. We owe it to the community to "translate", as it were, into plain language, skilfully summarised, a record of AC proceedings. Why not embrace the idea of a co-author? I would be pleased if other editors volunteered to help with F and A—it's a mammoth job to do weekly.

Could we come to an amicable arrangement so that the AR can be tended to happily by more than one editor? Can we explore the notion of being nice to each other? It should be the norm, IMO. Tony (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good remarks about the general value of collaboration, Tony, but your words might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't taken part in the conflict yourself (on the same side as in several previous conflicts between these two writers about this section). And insinuating that your opponent wants to "to damage the text" is not so far from calling each other names either; perhaps it's a good moment to re-read WP:AGF. Still, I endorse most of what you said in the above comment.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about not having replied earlier about this matter. But I've been a bit busy in recent days, and after noting the above comments, on Thursday I tried for about 10 minutes to understand which of these changes were either important enough to change the article after the Signpost's publication date, or wrong enough for me to step in. For both criteria, I failed to identify any within this time span. This might be because of my ignorance, or because the comments here and on the story's talk page did not explain the issues clearly enough, or because the changes were made for other reasons.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst it is true that none of the changes could be regarded as 'critical', the 'other reasons' were simply that I had issues (as to the style and some content) following NMV's radical copyedit of my version of the report (overnight, for me). I also though it would be advisable to remove the risible reference to November 2010 as "last year". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Arbitration_report. HaeB, I've asked for your input. Tony (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, this looks like a more relevant question - I'll have a look at it, thanks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have no wish to go around in circles about this, but I regarded your own stance during that argument as highly unsatisfactory and partisan; it is not helped by adding to it here in a high-handed manner. At least the argument has made us think about the need to be sensitive to exposing the names of editors in headlines and in text that go out to thousands of pages, where variations in the amount of newsworthy content can make a significant difference to the effect. Tony (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Your comment indicates a sufficient lack of clue regarding what a "partisan" position is, or indeed, what unsatisfactory conduct you've repeatedly engaged in with Ohconfucius when it comes to this matter. Names of editors being added in headlines is something that is actively avoided for the very reason that we need to be sensitive, but it is unavoidable for some of their names to be mentioned in the text. I note that a couple of the arbitrators who had boldly commented there have not revealed the things that they (and/or certain colleagues of theirs) have said off-wiki in regards to this report, despite the fact it would give everyone more perspective regarding what this really is about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your references to arbitrators and off-wiki, and I don't see how it could be relevant. The personal accusations such as "what unsatisfactory conduct you've repeatedly engaged in" are a pity:\. I don't recall having made accusations of you since my call for collaboration, cooperation, and good-will among Signpost journalists. I wonder whether you might be prepared to take a positive attitude. I support your contributions to the Arb Report, and as I've implied, reacting to Ohconfucius's efforts by reverting and name-placing are unnecessary. Nor is running to mommy on this page; I'd like to think we are mature enough to collaborate on equal terms on each other's talk pages, in the newsroom, or on the talk page of the report (to be removed before publication in that case). Your views on the structure and angle of the page are due some respect, but taking an attitude of overt "ownership" isn't helpful. We all need to show mature respect for each other. I look forward to positive interactions with you. Tony (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If there has truly been any "unsatisfactory conduct", surely there is one name missing? That that name belongs is beyond doubt; whether that missing name belongs at the top or bottom of that list is, of course, a matter of opinion. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think the history that you two have of tagteaming and edit-warring on this part of The Signpost, let alone other areas of Wikipedia, demonstrates anything but ownership Tony, and until that stops, there is no choice but to alert HaeB of these issues each time these arise - which is funnily enough, like I said above, happening each week where you two are concerned. The competence issue also continues to raise its head. I'd again suggest HaeB start taking more drastic measures before this continues to spiral out of control. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
          • The "tag teaming" miraculously stops when you get your way. That tells me plenty... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
            • What tells me plenty is your comment - which demonstrates a lack of insight about what is actually "my way". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)