Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Tempodivalse and Brian McNeil

I am closing this dispute resolution request as unresolved for two reasons: 1. User:Tempodivalse has retired from Wikinews; and 2. there have been no edits in over two weeks. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

and
I'd like to bring an ongoing dispute between myself and user:Brian McNeil to the community's attention. We've been on rather strained terms recently due to frequent disagreements, but Brian's latest comments in reaction to an inadvertent edit conflict I find highly inappropriate, such as:. This isn't the first time he's reacted too strongly to a problem or disagreement; for instance, I was kickbanned and de-opped from the #wikinews channel a few weeks ago because we disagreed on something.

Please understand I'm not at all trying to pursue a personal vendetta against Brian - to the contrary, I appreciate his many contributions to Wikinews and I know he's under a lot of stress in real life. However, I find this attitude deeply concerning - it's totally against the principles of basic etiquette and the spirit of a productive, encouraging editing environment. I've tried to get Brian to realise, on multiple occasions, that this is actively hurting us, but he appears unwilling to consider changing his attitude or even apologise for previous indiscretions. I normally don't like stirring up drama like this, and wouldn't have made such a fuss, but it's crossed a line where I don't want to just let it go. I'd like to turn to the community now to ask what, if anything, we should do to try and remedy the situation. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to mediate in this dispute resolution, however there are a couple things I need to say/ask before you consider taking this step:
 * Have you exhausted other attempts to communicate with BrianMc regarding this issue? Especially, have you attempted to disengage from working in areas you do not need to and where you are sure you will be either in conflict with or an irritation to BrianMc? have you tried either step three or step four above in the dispute resolution?
 * Have you informed BrianMc you will be taking this step to resolve the dispute between the two of you?
 * I have known BrianMc longer than I have known you, Tempodivalse. You may consider this to bias me in BrianMc's favour, which it likely does simply due to familiarity. Be aware that both parties must agree to any mediator choice, and both should feel very comfortable with whomever is chosen. -  Amgine | t 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've talked about this with him on my talk page and other on-wiki pages previously, and had multiple discussions with him in IRC - none of which resulted in much anything. Given that the community is small and I participate in many aspects of Wikinews, it's a bit difficult to avoid coming into contact with Brian sooner or later. The pages linked to in steps three and four are obsolete, so I didn't think there would be much point in going through them.
 * Yes.
 * I actually didn't have in mind to have a specific mediator, mainly just wanting community suggestions on where to go from here. If we do need a mediator, I'd prefer someone that isn't as familiar with either of us and thus less likely to have inherent biases. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WN:TEA, anyone? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That page is more or less obsolete. I wasn't sure whether it would be useful to try and post there. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And, this is the first notice I've seen of this. I certainly overreacted, but I had two edit conflicts while editing from a mobile device; a "lost" edit (conflict) was, perhaps inappropriately titled, but 20+ minutes of explaining myself over the actual earlier conflict was lost in that, and I likely overreacted. I would suggest people actually try editing particularly lengthy pages from a mobile device. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do it all the time, so I know very well how much of a pain it can be. But that's not an excuse for such a strong reaction to what really is a trivial issue. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Difficulties editing from mobile devices are not the issue here. I can very well understand how much time can be lost over a large addition to a talk page in an edit conflict - it happens not infrequently to me. What I'm trying to highlight here is that, in my opinion, you overreact to almost every problem, no matter how trivial, far too drastically. You're unable to control yourself, and it hurts our atmosphere. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that this is slightly off-topic, but I really don't like how Mediawiki deals with edit conflicts. I've been driven to rage on more than one occasion because of Mediawiki's stupidity. But I don't know what other methods could be used other than the current one. Does anyone have any thoughts? Gopher65talk 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have a complex response/edit to make to a large section I often pop in and create a subsection, save, then edit that section. When a page is being heavily edited I will sometimes use a user subpage to draft my changes; the reason for this is if someone else is edit conflicted, they are forced to do a page edit instead of a section edit, so even if I'm off editing my own little section I have a greater likelihood of being conflicted as well. -  Amgine | t 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Amgine's off-the-hook comments
Over the past few months I have observed the background conflicts between Tempodivalse and Brian McNeil. Brian McNeil is a passionate, curmudgeonish contributor with more en.WN experience than I have, and a temper to suit a 30-year veteran news editor. Tempodivalse is lacking depth of experience and character in news, and so relies on rules guidelines to protect xyr often-puppyish blunders. A very similar disagreement developed between myself and DragonFire1024, and while I may have been more polite when ripping xyr a new asshole I am very sympathetic with Brian's position. But keep in mind, DragonFire did mature over time. (I also had conflicts with Brian when we were both rather less experienced with Wikinews, and &lt;tone style="condescending for irony"&gt;he matured too&lt;/tone&gt;.)

My suggestion for both parties is avoidance. You are not going to get along at this point, so try hard to work in separate areas. Both of you are policy wonks: I suggest you both stop touching policy for a few weeks. Discussions on WC are fine, but getting into policy changes are going to cause your mutual distrust to flare. -  Amgine | t 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be posting a fuller comment on this dispute later, but I just can't let your absurd characterisation of Tempo go unchallenged. He has contributed over 500 articles to Wikinews, reviewed countless more, came first by a huge margin in the Writing contest 2010 (which accounted for depth of contributions, not just quantity, and specifically excluded content from VoA), is a member of the Arbitration Committee, and is justifiably receiving significant support in the ongoing elections to that body. the wub "?!"  18:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the articles I have examined have placed the context of the world news events, nor indicated an ability by Tempodivalse to connect events. A firehose of output without the ability to understand the material xe is synthesizing means very little to me. The ArbCom as it is currently constituted is a beauty contest - it has little to do with actual critical analysis. In my opinion a journalist must be able to critically examine original source materials within their context to be able to write good news. Without the critical view it's amateurish, puppyish, with good intention but without depth. You, however, may have a different opinion. -  Amgine | t 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your characterisation of me, but nonetheless, thanks for your comments. Normally, two editors that have inherently conflicting personalities would do well to avoid each other when possible, but it's not just me that Brian's not getting along with. I've had many editors, both newbies and long-term contributors, complain to me about his attitude, saying it was discouraging them from participating. It's fine to be straightforward and blunt - sometimes it's needed - but one has to know where to stop. I want at least some sort of acknowledgment from Brian that this is a problem and that he needs to tone down his attitude. If we don't do anything, we're basically condoning stuff like this and saying "that's fine, you can break all our etiquette guidelines, hurt the community atmosphere, and there won't be any repercussions". Had it been anyone other than Brian making that particular comment, I'm sure a few admins would be considering a block. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * &lt;grin&gt; If I had bits, it wouldn't be merely considered. I tend to shoot from the hip about admins, and, I admit, Brian McNeil in particular. And if I had done so we'd have had a shouting match in IRC, then he'd have admitted as briefly as he could (as he did on this page) that he'd screwed up. And we'd try to forget about it, he being more circumspect and me pretending nothing had happened but remembering that something had.


 * That's how communities get along. There will always be provocations, but communicate, forgive, and sort of forget. -  Amgine | t 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with all of Amgine's comments herein. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Yes, this works for one-off occurrences; someone got overheated, then we forgive and forget and the whole thing goes away. Totally agree. But in this case it won't work because nobody learns. I've seen it happen, time and again: Brian does something bad, usually issues a short apology, and several days later the same thing happens all over again. I consider myself to have "thick skin", but not everyone does, and a *lot* of people would be put off just to see that such behaviour is tolerated. Imagine if you worked at a real news agency where a coworker jeers at you, calling you a useless imbecile - even when your actual work would prove that patently false - and nobody else would care or even try to do anything. I don't think the average person would like to stick around for long there before quitting. Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you mention it, I have worked in such a place. Actually, a couple of them. And no, I don't work there anymore. But I understand your point; you feel Brian's approach is consistently abusive, and is immutable. I could make several arguments regarding that, but I'll only make one suggestion: why don't you wait and see if this step you've taken - a dispute resolution request between you and he - has an effect on how both you and he behave? Mind you, this is just a personal comment/suggestion, but I'm wondering if you've considered that his (and your) personal interactions actually do change over time, and sometimes it takes what he calls a wake-up call to force communication. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to kick things back into touch here; my behaviour, and approach to other contributors, is being questioned/challenged. The points raised in this sub-section relate to the other party's usefulness to the project, and how they - albeit politely - ask immature, uninformed questions, repeatedly badger for input on their latest plans to tinker with project policies, &c.
 * Example: A new guide to Wikinews? That is what I put time into creating the welcome template for; succinct, visually pleasing on most browsers, includes a "start an article" editbox, and links to all key policies. What, exactly, was wrong with, avoiding flowery, wasteful, verbiage, and suggesting improvements? There's a long, long, history of Tempo fiddling with policies from a position which Amgine lays out above, and I will sum up bluntly; Xe knows how news should look, but sweet F.A. about how to get it or manage its production. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "...badger for input on their latest plans to tinker with project policies" = um, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? You've proposed changes to policies and actually altered them at least as much, if not more than, me. I'm sorry, but I have to object to my "usefulness" being questioned like this. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I assert more time hanging over the real fire. And, again, you either did not edit a section, or erased the relevant edit summary component to allow someone to immediately jump to the section you edited. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Real"? As in ...? Okay, so you say I'm a useless fool; I disagree and think that is very easily disproven, but that's not what I'm trying to stress here. Specifically, you still haven't addressed why you don't think your attitude is hurting the project, despite many users voicing repeated concern over it. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Real", as in I have actually carried out original research, and real journalism. And, I did not say you were a 'useless fool'; I bemoaned your failure to learn from others (such as myself) where we've gone wrong, and how we've actually formulated the policies you see before you.
 * Or, do you consider yourself useless because I agree with Amgine's "A firehose of output without the ability to understand the material xe is synthesizing means very little to me."? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for fucks sake. Yes, you enjoy doing long original research pieces, and yes, you're very good at it. Other people (myself included) prefer doing synthesis articles, and stick to that. Mock it as not "real" journalism all you want, but both are important and valuable to Wikinews. You can't force people to do something they don't want to do: A. We aren't paid for this, and B. this site doesn't fucking belong to you, no matter what you might think. This is supposed to be a site for free NEWS, and that doesn't just include what you do. the wub "?!"  23:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank fuck, someone else swore in the discussion. :-P Let me give an example, because I appreciate the value of synthesis. This article is from a contributor I trust to go "by-the-book" style-wise, look at the versions either end, and the effect on how that lede scans. Then look at it again as if you know nothing about US culture, and the framework the story fits into. Now, if you want to really dig into this discussion, why are people repeatedly coming in from Wikipedia and thinking that project's rules, conventions, &c apply? They're inappropriate. There is not the time to run a wikicrèche, I'm writing here out of respect for the community. I have, several times in the past, told to read past discussion on policy formulation, or review the work that led to policy being formulated in a certain way. Invariably, there is no response to indicate such action has been taken; far less likelihood of any indication a lesson has been learned, or knowledge absorbed. Yes, this is somewhat rhetoric-based hyperbole, but I'm usually pushed far past being sarcastically civil before there's any climbdown or acknowledgement that I "have more than just a clue". --Brian McNeil / talk 00:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break, comment
Per my userpage notice, I've decided it's best to step back from the project for now. The constant frustration and disappointment has surpassed the "fun" of aspect Wikinews, and without that, there's no incentive for me to stay here. As such, I'm probably not going to reply to any further posts; that's just as well, because we're starting to go round in circles. However, I'd much appreciate for this to remain open for a bit to let other users comment - and ideally for us to actually get somewhere and learn, instead of it being the fruitless arguments that past similar discussions have all been. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. But, I strongly feel that announcing this, then continuing to snipe in a vote to drive me off-project, is not anywhere remotely related to disengaging. We run round in circles because when I raise a challenge such as the above you have no answer. I'm very thankful you've done so much archiving; that job was hellish to get close to up-to-date. I would have loved to see that feeding back into the news generation cycle, instead of being a piece of accounting. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)