Problematic edits of Verdy_p (again)

Fragment of a discussion from Support
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've not edit-warred, even if a user disagreed on some thing, he started to discuss after the fact, and changed his mind several times, using unexpected brutal comments. And it's definitely NOT "impossible to discuss with me".

I've proposed several things, and again he continues with the lack of politeness. I've discussed fairly (and the prior blocking you invoke against me was also unfair, disregarding as well all efforts I made to negociate calmly and discussing the various options: this blocking was appealed but in fact only this blocking unfairly blocked any kind of discussion, so it was only me that was in the impossibilty to discuss, but not because of any action I did myself).

It is a fact that the existing old translation was NEVER reviewed before by anyone, and reviewing is a full part of if this causes any conflicts, there's no need to forget politeness and discussions should start allowing anyone to give his arguments and propose solutions and comparing them.

I was once again absolutely not "off rails" like you state here. This was fully in respect of the TWN site (for an extension which is also not targetting specifically the French Wikipedia where it is seldomly used just by few users, and even less users having the privileges where confusion is possible: there's no confusion at all for the vast majority of users).

So your statement that this could be "very disruptive" is unfair: for whom? very few admins in French Wikipedia or millions of users not having these privileges but that are exposed with incoherent translation with Flow's options? It's a fact as well that the choices made in English are using another kind of confusion ("delete" vs. "suppress", two different admin optins), which does not help the translations. A single user made an unreviewed choice 3 years ago and tyhat problem was not even reported before. Still, coherence of translations in TWN are a documented goal (that Flow somewhat violates, and the "solution" proposed 3 years ago only in French does not match what was currently used with English that at least avoided breaking the MediaWiki UI coherence for the vast majority of users).

My change in november was part of a normal review for coherence, using the doc provided by Flow authors themselves and visible in the "/qqq" page: this what guided me during the review.

And you are wrong when you say that I changed something used since very long: in fact I just used and respected the translation made since very long in the Mediawiki UI (Flow changed it only in 2017 when it started but this caused an unreported and undiscussed confusion since then in all languages, including English but only for or those very few users having sysop or oversight rights and that should be better trained than the vast majority of users seeing and using "hide" in English, "masquer" in French, without any privilege, but jsut as theur own personal navigation preferences).

I feel that your reaction is very stange: anyone that contributes a lot in TWN will fall into some disagreements with a few users that contribute rarely. This is completely unavoidable. But there's a way to discuss that, and I used that, without forgetting politeness like what your contact did instantly.

Why using such procedure now instead of solving the existing problem created recently only in Flow (2017 for the initial beta tests, but even in French Wikipedia this started being used later in very few user pages) ?

The only real problem is the incoherence (in French only) for not translating "hide" as "masquer" (like it is in MediaWiki since very long) for ALL users. The very few oversighters (on French Wikipedia) should use their own translation for their specific administrative actions without disrupting millions users exposed now with an incoherent translation that does not even follow the **existing** documentation (the "/qqq" page with its links, that I fully respected during a basic review that was not performed by anyone since the initial submission by a single user).

Verdy p (talk)09:39, 22 April 2021

The history of a message like is textbook editwar.

« I've proposed several things », changing a message without talking to anyone before and then reverting everyone who disagree with you is not "proposing".

The first replacement of « masquer » by « cacher » on  MediaWiki:Flow-moderation-confirm-hide-post/fr was done by @Arkanosis: in 2014, which is not 3 years ago and that can count as some sort of review.

If you distord such plain and obivous fact, how can we even start to have a real discussion?

@Nemo bis and Nike: about the « prior blocking » being « unfair ». You had 7 blocks here, 7 blocks on fr.wp, 1 block on en.wp (in fine, almost always for the same reason: edit waring) and you still don't understand... It has also been said countless time to stop dumping long blob of text, this is not helpful and clearly you don't listen to other editors.

Ping @admins: at the very least, what do you think of instoring a 0RR to stop the editwar?

VIGNERON (talk)11:34, 22 April 2021

I have not seen any change in 2014... Flow was not even existing at that time (at least not in fr.wikipedia as it was possibly just in alpha and not deployable except for custom tests). The "evidence" that was given to me (in the discussion) was effectively pointing to 2017... Still Mediawiki exists since much longer time, and the term chosen for Mediawiki for the non-adminsitrative term "hide" dates since longer, as well as the choice decided to use "masquer".

As well the docuumentation in "/qqq" for that message was pointing to a common terminology supposed to unify the term hide with the MediaWiki usage (which was broken only in French and fiors the first time in 2017 from the evidence given, and not discussed anywhere by its submitter, just because he was confused by the terms used in English for the two adminsitrative options "delete" and "suppressed")

Once again when I just reviewed that term in Flow (which was never reviewed before), this was clearly not an edit war, but the instant reaction from another user was excessive, and largely abusing the rules of politeness. I can understand the irritation, but this should have lead to discussing the problem, instead of once again accusing me for things done that respected the common rules and guidelines.

I've not lied, I've not changed my mind though, but this does not mean that my polite talk is means that it's "impossible" to talk with me (at first, that user that complins now, had not initiated any talk, he just expressed his irritation in offensive terms, and once he started talking and I replied calmly, he complained again. Who is refusing to talk? If it's "impossible" to talk it's not my fault, and in fast it has always been possible.

I've iven a rationale, may be you don't accept it, but it can be evaluated, and there's efectively a problem. And no need to use bird's names. I contribute a lot and let a lot of existing translations pass (including many changes). Very few terms will cause a discussion because there's a disagreement or misunderstanding, but no need to use bad tone. I've made my best, that user also tried his best at that time, without seeing the problem. I'm only more exposed to such conflict because I contribute a lot, and I take care of remembering the past as much as possible (it may happen that I can't remember everything in the past, notably if there were old discussions made years ago, without leaving any comment or documentation).

The document I used was the "/qqq" page, but the complaining user commented with "which doc?" meaning that he had not even read it, even if it was very visible in the normal UI of TWN. That "/qqq" page was the first evident source and the main cause of this unification of common terminology already used and decided since long in MediaWiki core messages.

"I've proposed several things": yes, see the talk thread that was initiated by the complainer and linked in his edit summary. He initiated the talk, I replied promptly and calmly (without using the unpolite tone he used and repeated later), so where is it "impossible" to talk with me?

Verdy p (talk)12:24, 22 April 2021

Please keep you answer short and it also wouldn't hurt to know what you are talking about (a simple look at the history shows the message exist since 2013 and the term here is used by Flow - now known as Structured Discussions - but not from Flow, it is older and used in other older messages).

Your first edit was indeed not an edit war and could be seen as a simple honest good-faith mistake, the following reverts are clearly an unconstructive edit war. Other people shouldn't have to start the discusion, you are responsible for your edits ; when reverted, the usual and correct wiki way is to start a discussion, not to revert (as you have been told multiple times already).

For the MediaWiki:Flow-moderation-confirm-hide-post/qqq, did you really read it yourself? by putting the same translation "Masquer" on two different message use in the same context,  MediaWiki:Flow-moderation-confirm-hide-post/fr and  MediaWiki:Flow-moderation-confirm-suppress-post/fr, you obviously less the interface less clear.

VIGNERON (talk)13:14, 22 April 2021

Bien sûr que j'ai lu la doc "/qqq" et j'ai justement veillé à éviter toute confusion, il n'y avait PAS (et il n'y a jamais eu) la même traduction "masquer" dans les deux messages (quelque soit le contexte d'utilisation).

Et bien sûr que c'était PLUS CLAIR :

  • "hide"="masquer" pour l'action d'interface de navigation donnée à tout le monde (sans privilège et sans conséquence pour les autres visiteurs ou utilisateur, et uniformément conforme à l'interface de MediaWiki)
  • "delete"="supprimer" (uniformément conforme à l'interface de Mediawiki, même si cette option dans Flow n'est disponible qu'aux "sysops")
  • "suppress" (problématique en anglais aussi, disponible aux seuls "oversighters", une poignée): c'est là le désaccord car les premiers traducteurs y ont mis "masquer", qui ajoutait de la confusion non plus avec la deuxième option quasi-synonyme pour sysops comme en anglais, mais a perturbé les millions d'utilisateurs de Mediawiki, car la première option a été unilatéralement remplacée avec "cacher", quasi-synonyme sans ajouter aucune clarté réelle, et sans dire non plus dans l'option 3 que c'était non pas l'option 1 commune de navigation personnelle sans privilège mais bien une action de modération administrative.

La doc "/qqq" notamment inclue une liste de termes "identical" (ou supposés comme tels et voulus ainsi par les auteurs de Flow): il suffit de la dérouler (justement avec un lien "afficher/masquer" basculable !) pour voir qu'en français ce n'était pas pour Flow le terme attendu et utilisé depuis longtemps (et dans cette liste pour l'interface de Mediawiki il y a a eu déjà diverses autres unifications de "cacher" vers "masquer": Flow ne devrait pas faire exception et c'est à lui de s'adapter dans ses autres options administratives, en ajoutant une précision claire)

On peut ne pas être d'accord avec ce que je désigne comme "modération" pourtant c'en est une, le terme seuil d'indiquant pas la raison de la modération, mais le fait de rendre invisible à tout le monde (et pas juste soi-même) de façon contraignante (selon une politique donnée, qui peut être de protéger la vie privée mais peut être toute autre raison justifiée par une politique en vigueur ou une obligation légale que le site doit respecter ou qui lui est imposée par une autre autorité plus forte).

Verdy p (talk)13:30, 22 April 2021

« il n'y avait PAS (et il n'y a jamais eu) la même traduction "masquer" dans les deux messages (quelque soit le contexte d'utilisation) » : c'est faux.

C'est précisément parce que dans l'interface des historiques Flow il y avait deux liens « masquer » que je suis venu corriger ici. Et c'est bien vous qui avez introduit cette erreur. MediaWiki:Flow-history-action-suppress-post/fr indiquait (à raison) « masquer » et MediaWiki:Flow-history-action-hide-post/fr indiquait aussi « masquer » depuis votre revert de novembre 2020. Donc soit vous êtes totalement de mauvaise foi, soit vous ne savez pas consulter des historiques.

Quant au reste de votre argumentaire, ça fait dix fois que je vous explique que « masquer » est un terme systématiquement utilisé pour décrire des actions admins ou OS (masquage léger/masquage lourd, cf. [1] ou [2]), donc ne doit évidemment pas être utilisé pour l'action hide qui est une action accessible à tout le monde. C'est pour cette raison qu'Arkanosis ([3], [4], [5], etc.) ou Kvardek du ([6]) avaient corrigé.

Si l'erreur initiale est compréhensible, il est tout de même incroyable que vous me révoquiez puis que vous persistiez dans l'erreur.

Jules* (talk)10:25, 23 April 2021