User:Polygnotus/sr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>Wikipedia contributions for Snow Rise</title> <script> document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {

   const toggleBtn = document.querySelector('.toggle-darklight-btn');
   const iconSpan = toggleBtn.querySelector('#icon');
   const textSpan = toggleBtn.querySelector('#text');
   let isDarkMode = false;
   window.toggleTheme = function() {
       isDarkMode = !isDarkMode;
       if (isDarkMode) {
           document.body.style.filter = 'invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg)';
           document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#000';
           document.documentElement.style.setProperty('--wikitable-bg', '#222222');
       } else {
           document.body.style.filter = 'none';
           document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#fff';
           document.documentElement.style.setProperty('--wikitable-bg', '#fff');
       }
       iconSpan.textContent = isDarkMode ? '☀️' : '🌙';
       textSpan.textContent = isDarkMode ? 'Light Mode' : 'Dark Mode';
   }

}); </script>

<script> document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {

   // Add styles for both filters and row controls
   const styleElement = document.createElement('style');
   styleElement.textContent = `
       .filter-controls {
           margin: 20px 0;
           padding: 15px;
           border: 1px solid #ddd;
           border-radius: 5px;
       }
       .row-controls {
           display: flex;
           flex-direction: column;
           gap: 5px;
           margin-top: 5px;
       }
       .pin-button, .expand-button {
           padding: 2px 8px;
           border: 1px solid #ddd;
           border-radius: 3px;
           cursor: pointer;
           font-size: 12px;
           background: #f8f8f8;
           width: 100%;
       }
       .pin-button:hover, .expand-button:hover {
           background: #eee;
       }
       .pinned-row {
           background-color: #fff8dc !important;
       }
       .pin-button.active {
           background-color: #ffd700;
           border-color: #daa520;
       }
       .contracted-row td:nth-child(2) {
           display: none;
       }
       .contracted-row td:first-child {
           border-right: none;
       }
       .contracted-row td:first-child p:nth-child(2),
       .contracted-row td:first-child p:nth-child(3) {
           display: none;
       }
       .contracted-row .pin-button {
           display: none;
       }
       .article-checkbox-container.hidden {
           display: none !important;
       }
       .namespace-item {
           margin-bottom: 5px;
           white-space: nowrap;
       }
       .namespace-count {
           color: #666;
           font-size: 0.9em;
       }
       .namespace-checkbox:disabled + span {
           color: #999;
           cursor: not-allowed;
       }`;
   document.head.appendChild(styleElement);
   // Create and set up filter container
   const filterContainer = document.createElement('div');
   filterContainer.className = 'filter-controls';
   // Add counter element
   const counterDiv = document.createElement('div');
   counterDiv.id = 'filterCounter';
   counterDiv.style.marginBottom = '15px';
   counterDiv.style.fontWeight = 'bold';
   filterContainer.appendChild(counterDiv);
   // // Insert filter container after title
   // const titleParagraph = document.querySelector('p');
   // titleParagraph.parentNode.insertBefore(filterContainer, titleParagraph.nextSibling);
   // Insert filter container after topbar
   const topbar = document.getElementById('topbar');
   topbar.parentNode.insertBefore(filterContainer, topbar.nextSibling);
   // Define all namespaces
   const namespaces = [
       { value: 'article', label: 'Article (Main)' },
       { value: 'talk', label: 'Talk' },
       { value: 'user', label: 'User' },
       { value: 'user_talk', label: 'User Talk' },
       { value: 'wikipedia', label: 'Wikipedia' },
       { value: 'wikipedia_talk', label: 'Wikipedia Talk' },
       { value: 'file', label: 'File' },
       { value: 'file_talk', label: 'File Talk' },
       { value: 'mediawiki', label: 'MediaWiki' },
       { value: 'mediawiki_talk', label: 'MediaWiki Talk' },
       { value: 'template', label: 'Template' },
       { value: 'template_talk', label: 'Template Talk' },
       { value: 'help', label: 'Help' },
       { value: 'help_talk', label: 'Help Talk' },
       { value: 'category', label: 'Category' },
       { value: 'category_talk', label: 'Category Talk' },
       { value: 'portal', label: 'Portal' },
       { value: 'portal_talk', label: 'Portal Talk' },
       { value: 'draft', label: 'Draft' },
       { value: 'draft_talk', label: 'Draft Talk' },
       { value: 'timedtext', label: 'TimedText' },
       { value: 'timedtext_talk', label: 'TimedText Talk' },
       { value: 'module', label: 'Module' },
       { value: 'module_talk', label: 'Module Talk' }
   ];
   // Get namespace counts
   function getNamespaceCounts() {
       const counts = {};
       namespaces.forEach(ns => counts[ns.value] = 0);
       document.querySelectorAll('table.wikitable > tbody > tr').forEach((row, index) => {
           if (index === 0) return; // Skip header row
           const firstP = row.querySelector('td:first-child p:first-child');
           if (firstP && firstP.textContent.trim()) {
               const namespace = getNamespace(firstP.textContent.trim());
               counts[namespace] = (counts[namespace] || 0) + 1;
           }
       });
       return counts;
   }
   // Create namespace filter section
   const namespaceDiv = document.createElement('div');
   namespaceDiv.style.marginBottom = '15px';
   // Add namespace controls
   const namespaceControls = document.createElement('div');
   namespaceControls.style.marginBottom = '10px';
   namespaceControls.innerHTML = `
       Namespace Filter:
       <button id="checkAllNamespaces" style="margin-left: 10px;">Check All</button>
       <button id="checkNoneNamespaces" style="margin-left: 5px;">Check None</button>
   `;
   namespaceDiv.appendChild(namespaceControls);
   // Create namespace grid
   const namespaceGrid = document.createElement('div');
   namespaceGrid.className = 'namespace-grid';
   // Get namespace counts
   const namespaceCounts = getNamespaceCounts();
   // Calculate items per column for namespaces
   const columnsCount = 4;
   const itemsPerColumn = Math.ceil(namespaces.length / columnsCount);
   const namespaceColumns = Array.from({ length: columnsCount }, () => []);
   // Distribute namespaces into columns vertically
   namespaces.forEach((namespace, index) => {
       const columnIndex = Math.floor(index / itemsPerColumn);
       if (columnIndex < columnsCount) {
           namespaceColumns[columnIndex].push(namespace);
       }
   });
   // Create columns container for namespaces
   const columnsContainer = document.createElement('div');
   columnsContainer.style.display = 'grid';
   columnsContainer.style.gridTemplateColumns = `repeat(${columnsCount}, 1fr)`;
   columnsContainer.style.gap = '10px';
   // Create columns and populate with namespaces
   namespaceColumns.forEach(column => {
       const columnDiv = document.createElement('div');
       columnDiv.style.display = 'flex';
       columnDiv.style.flexDirection = 'column';
       columnDiv.style.gap = '5px';
       column.forEach(namespace => {
           const count = namespaceCounts[namespace.value] || 0;
           const div = document.createElement('div');
           div.className = 'namespace-item';
           div.innerHTML = `
               <label>
                   <input type="checkbox" 
                           class="namespace-checkbox" 
                           value="${namespace.value}" 
                           ${getStoredNamespaceState(namespace.value) ? 'checked' : ''}
                           ${count === 0 ? 'disabled' : ''}>
                   ${namespace.label} (${count})
               </label>
           `;
           columnDiv.appendChild(div);
       });
       columnsContainer.appendChild(columnDiv);
   });
   namespaceGrid.appendChild(columnsContainer);
   namespaceDiv.appendChild(namespaceGrid);
   filterContainer.appendChild(namespaceDiv);
   // Create article filter section
   const articleDiv = document.createElement('div');
   articleDiv.innerHTML =

'

' + 
       'Article Filter:' +
       '<button id="checkAllArticles" style="margin-left: 10px;">Check All</button>' +
       '<button id="checkNoneArticles" style="margin-left: 5px;">Check None</button>' +
'

' + '

';

   filterContainer.appendChild(articleDiv);
   // Store original row order
   let originalOrder = [];
   // Get all unique article names and store original order
   const articles = new Set();
   document.querySelectorAll('table.wikitable > tbody > tr').forEach((row, index) => {
       if (index === 0) return; // Skip header row
       const firstP = row.querySelector('td:first-child p:first-child');
       if (firstP && firstP.textContent.trim()) {
           articles.add(firstP.textContent.trim());
       }
   });
   // Populate article checkboxes with namespace data
   const articleList = document.getElementById('articleList');
   const sortedArticles = Array.from(articles).sort();
   const gridContainer = document.createElement('div');
   gridContainer.style.display = 'grid';
   gridContainer.style.gridTemplateColumns = 'repeat(4, 1fr)';
   gridContainer.style.gap = '10px';
   // Calculate items per column for articles
   const articleItemsPerColumn = Math.ceil(sortedArticles.length / 4);
   const articleColumns = Array.from({ length: 4 }, () => []);
   // Distribute articles into columns
   for (let i = 0; i < sortedArticles.length; i++) {
       const columnIndex = Math.floor(i / articleItemsPerColumn);
       if (columnIndex < 4) {
           articleColumns[columnIndex].push(sortedArticles[i]);
       }
   }
   // Create columns and items with namespace data
   articleColumns.forEach(column => {
       const columnDiv = document.createElement('div');
       columnDiv.style.display = 'flex';
       columnDiv.style.flexDirection = 'column';
       columnDiv.style.gap = '5px';
       column.forEach(article => {
           const div = document.createElement('div');
           div.className = 'article-checkbox-container';
           div.setAttribute('data-namespace', getNamespace(article));
           div.style.whiteSpace = 'nowrap';
           div.style.overflow = 'hidden';
           div.style.textOverflow = 'ellipsis';
           div.innerHTML =
               '<label title="' + article + '">' +
               '<input type="checkbox" class="article-checkbox" value="' + article + '" ' +
                (getStoredArticleState(article) ? 'checked' : '') + '>' +
               article +
               '</label>';
           columnDiv.appendChild(div);
       });
       gridContainer.appendChild(columnDiv);
   });
   articleList.appendChild(gridContainer);
   // Add row controls
   function addRowControls() {
       const table = document.querySelector('table.wikitable');
       if (!table) return;
       const rows = Array.from(table.querySelectorAll('tbody tr')).filter(row => {
           return !row.querySelector('th') && row.parentElement.parentElement === table;
       });
       // Store original order
       originalOrder = rows.map(row => {
           const articleName = row.querySelector('td:first-child p:first-child')?.textContent?.trim() || ;
           const timestamp = row.querySelector('td:first-child p:nth-child(3)')?.textContent?.trim() || ;
           return { articleName, timestamp, element: row };
       });
       rows.forEach((row, index) => {
           const firstCell = row.querySelector('td:first-child');
           if (!firstCell) return;
           const stickyWrapper = firstCell.querySelector('.sticky-wrapper');
           if (!stickyWrapper) return;
           const controlsDiv = document.createElement('div');
           controlsDiv.className = 'row-controls';
           const pinButton = document.createElement('button');
           pinButton.className = 'pin-button';
           pinButton.textContent = '[PIN]';
           const expandButton = document.createElement('button');
           expandButton.className = 'expand-button';
           expandButton.textContent = '[CONTRACT]';
           // Set initial states
           const rowId = `row_${index}`;
           if (localStorage.getItem(`pinned_${rowId}`) === 'true') {
               row.classList.add('pinned-row');
               pinButton.classList.add('active');
               pinButton.textContent = '[PINNED]';
           }
           if (localStorage.getItem(`contracted_${rowId}`) === 'true') {
               row.classList.add('contracted-row');
               expandButton.textContent = '[EXPAND]';
           }
           pinButton.onclick = () => {
               togglePin(row, pinButton, rowId);
               pinButton.textContent = row.classList.contains('pinned-row') ? '[PINNED]' : '[PIN]';
           };
           expandButton.onclick = () => {
               toggleExpand(row, expandButton, rowId);
               expandButton.textContent = row.classList.contains('contracted-row') ? '[EXPAND]' : '[CONTRACT]';
           };
           controlsDiv.appendChild(pinButton);
           controlsDiv.appendChild(expandButton);
           // firstCell.appendChild(controlsDiv);
           stickyWrapper.appendChild(controlsDiv);
       });
       sortPinnedRows();
   }
   // Event handlers for namespaces
   document.getElementById('checkAllNamespaces').addEventListener('click', () => {
       document.querySelectorAll('.namespace-checkbox:not(:disabled)').forEach(cb => {
           cb.checked = true;
           localStorage.setItem(`namespace_${cb.value}`, 'true');
       });
       applyFilters();
   });
   document.getElementById('checkNoneNamespaces').addEventListener('click', () => {
       document.querySelectorAll('.namespace-checkbox:not(:disabled)').forEach(cb => {
           cb.checked = false;
           localStorage.setItem(`namespace_${cb.value}`, 'false');
       });
       applyFilters();
   });
   document.querySelectorAll('.namespace-checkbox').forEach(checkbox => {
       checkbox.addEventListener('change', () => {
           localStorage.setItem(`namespace_${checkbox.value}`, checkbox.checked.toString());
           applyFilters();
       });
   });
   // Event handlers for articles
   document.getElementById('checkAllArticles').addEventListener('click', () => {
       document.querySelectorAll('.article-checkbox').forEach(cb => {
           cb.checked = true;
           localStorage.setItem(`article_${cb.value}`, 'true');
       });
       applyFilters();
   });
   document.getElementById('checkNoneArticles').addEventListener('click', () => {
       document.querySelectorAll('.article-checkbox').forEach(cb => {
           cb.checked = false;
           localStorage.setItem(`article_${cb.value}`, 'false');
       });
       applyFilters();
   });
   document.querySelectorAll('.article-checkbox').forEach(checkbox => {
       checkbox.addEventListener('change', () => {
           localStorage.setItem(`article_${checkbox.value}`, checkbox.checked.toString());
           applyFilters();
       });
   });
   // Helper functions
   function getStoredArticleState(article) {
       const stored = localStorage.getItem(`article_${article}`);
       return stored === null ? true : stored === 'true';
   }
   function getStoredNamespaceState(namespace) {
       const stored = localStorage.getItem(`namespace_${namespace}`);
       return stored === null ? true : stored === 'true';
   }
   function getNamespace(articleName) {
       if (articleName.startsWith('Talk:')) return 'talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('User talk:')) return 'user_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('User:')) return 'user';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Wikipedia:')) return 'wikipedia';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Wikipedia talk:')) return 'wikipedia_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('File:')) return 'file';
       if (articleName.startsWith('File talk:')) return 'file_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('MediaWiki:')) return 'mediawiki';
       if (articleName.startsWith('MediaWiki talk:')) return 'mediawiki_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Template:')) return 'template';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Template talk:')) return 'template_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Help:')) return 'help';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Help talk:')) return 'help_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Category:')) return 'category';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Category talk:')) return 'category_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Portal:')) return 'portal';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Portal talk:')) return 'portal_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Draft:')) return 'draft';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Draft talk:')) return 'draft_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('TimedText:')) return 'timedtext';
       if (articleName.startsWith('TimedText talk:')) return 'timedtext_talk';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Module:')) return 'module';
       if (articleName.startsWith('Module talk:')) return 'module_talk';
       return 'article';
   }
   function togglePin(row, button, rowId) {
       const isPinned = row.classList.toggle('pinned-row');
       button.classList.toggle('active');
       localStorage.setItem(`pinned_${rowId}`, isPinned);
       sortPinnedRows();
   }
   function toggleExpand(row, button, rowId) {
       const isContracted = row.classList.toggle('contracted-row');
       localStorage.setItem(`contracted_${rowId}`, isContracted);
   }
   function sortPinnedRows() {
       const table = document.querySelector('table.wikitable');
       const tbody = table.querySelector('tbody');
       const rows = Array.from(tbody.querySelectorAll('tr')).filter(row => {
           return !row.querySelector('th') && row.parentElement === tbody;
       });
       // First, put all rows in their original order
       const sortedRows = [...originalOrder.map(item => item.element)];
       // Then move pinned rows to the top while maintaining their relative order
       const pinnedRows = sortedRows.filter(row => row.classList.contains('pinned-row'));
       const unpinnedRows = sortedRows.filter(row => !row.classList.contains('pinned-row'));
       const finalOrder = [...pinnedRows, ...unpinnedRows];
       // Remove all rows
       rows.forEach(row => tbody.removeChild(row));
       // Add back in sorted order
       finalOrder.forEach(row => tbody.appendChild(row));
   }
   function applyFilters() {
       const selectedNamespaces = new Set(
           Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.namespace-checkbox:checked')).map(cb => cb.value)
       );
       const selectedArticles = new Set(
           Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.article-checkbox:checked')).map(cb => cb.value)
       );
       let visibleCount = 0;
       const totalCount = document.querySelectorAll('table.wikitable > tbody > tr').length - 1;
       // Filter table rows
       document.querySelectorAll('table.wikitable > tbody > tr').forEach((row, index) => {
           if (index === 0) return;
           const articleCell = row.querySelector('td:first-child p:first-child');
           if (!articleCell) return;
           const articleName = articleCell.textContent.trim();
           const namespace = getNamespace(articleName);
           const namespaceMatch = selectedNamespaces.has(namespace);
           const articleMatch = selectedArticles.has(articleName);
           const isVisible = namespaceMatch && articleMatch;
           row.style.display = isVisible ?  : 'none';
           if (isVisible) visibleCount++;
       });
       // Filter article list checkboxes
       document.querySelectorAll('.article-checkbox-container').forEach(container => {
           const namespace = container.getAttribute('data-namespace');
           container.classList.toggle('hidden', !selectedNamespaces.has(namespace));
       });
       counterDiv.textContent = `Showing ${visibleCount} out of ${totalCount} entries`;
   }
   // Initialize controls and filters
   addRowControls();
   applyFilters();

}); </script>

   <script>
       window.toggleContext = function() {
   const contextElements = document.querySelectorAll('.diff-context');
   const toggleBtn = document.querySelector('.toggle-context-btn');
   const iconSpan = toggleBtn.querySelector('#icon');
   const textSpan = toggleBtn.querySelector('#text');
   // Get the current state from the first context element
   const isVisible = !contextElements[0].classList.contains('hidden');
   contextElements.forEach(element => {
       element.classList.toggle('hidden');
   });
   // Update button text and icon
   if (isVisible) {
       iconSpan.textContent = '👁️‍🗨️';
       textSpan.textContent = 'Show Context';
   } else {
       iconSpan.textContent = '👁️';
       textSpan.textContent = 'Hide Context';
   }

}

   </script>

<style> .hidden {

   display: none !important;

}

body {font-family: monospace,monospace; background-color:#fff; line-height: 1.6; tab-size:4; font-size:13px;} th {background-color:#111317; color:#eaecf0; padding: 0.2em 0.4em; border: 1px solid #515860;} td {padding: 0.2em 0.4em;}


.wikitable {table-layout: fixed; width:95%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-collapse: collapse; background-color:#fff; color:000;} .wikitable th:first-child, .wikitable td:first-child {

   width: 5%;

}

.wikitable th:nth-child(2), .wikitable td:nth-child(2) {

   width: 95%;

}

td {

   word-wrap: break-word;
   overflow-wrap: break-word;
   word-break: break-word;
   hyphens: auto;

}

td del, td ins {

   word-break: break-all;

}



.wikitable td:first-child {

   position: sticky;
   left: 0;
   background: white;
   z-index: 2;
   padding: 0.2em 0.4em;
   vertical-align: top;  /* Add this to align content to top */

}

/* Style for the sticky wrapper in first column cells */ .wikitable td:first-child .sticky-wrapper {

   position: sticky;
   top: 0;
   background: white;
   z-index: 2;

}



.wikitable > tbody > tr > td {border: 1px solid #515860;} a.external:visited {color: #636;} .diff-context {background-color:#f8f9fa;} .diff-deletedline, .diff-addedline {background-color: #fff;} .diff-lineno {font-weight: bold; background-color:#fff;} .diff-context {

                                                                                                                                       color:#202122;
                                                                                                                     border-color: #eaecf0;
                                                                                                                                   }

.diff-addedline {

   border-color: #a3d3ff;
   vertical-align: top;
   border-style: solid;
   border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px;
   border-radius: 0.33em;

} .diff-deletedline {

   border-color: #ffe49c;
   vertical-align: top;
   border-style: solid;
   border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px;
   border-radius: 0.33em;

}

	</style>

</head> <body>

Wikipedia contributions of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snow Rise">Snow Rise</a> (Total entries: 100)

<button class="toggle-context-btn" onclick="toggleContext()"> 👁️ Hide Context </button> <button class="toggle-darklight-btn" onclick="toggleTheme()"> 🌙 Dark Mode </button>

More information Metadata, Diff ...
Metadata Diff

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308221928">diff</a>

2025-08-28T06:11:32Z
Line 849: Line 849:
There may be a slight delay tho, I have some IRL task. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 05:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
There may be a slight delay tho, I have some IRL task. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 05:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)


Reverting the comment will not change the timetable for the closure, as it doesn't invite further scrutiny of HEB--on the contrary, it does the opposite, I feel. And the response to your position is, I feel, highly germane to the discussion. So I'm not inclined to remove it. That said, you should always feel entirely welcome to share any response or concerns here, if you are so-inclined. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Reverting the comment will not change the timetable for the closure, as it doesn't invite further scrutiny of HEB--on the contrary, it does the opposite, I dare say. And the response to your position is, I feel, highly germane to the discussion. Again, I didn't say it out of zealous support for the proposal myself, so much as I think the consensus is clear and provides the best case scenario resolution, given where we are at. So I'm not inclined to remove the comment. Because I don't think your advocacy for ignoring that consensus is in either the community or HEB's best interest, at this juncture--no personal offense intended. That said, you should always feel entirely welcome to share any response or concerns here, if you are so-inclined. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)


:And please don't feel rushed. Aside from the fact I'd rather you responded when you feel least rushed, I'm not exactly able to be super responsive myself just now. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:And please don't feel rushed. Aside from the fact I'd rather you responded when you feel least rushed, I'm not exactly able to be super responsive myself just now. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308221320">diff</a>

2025-08-28T06:06:59Z
Line 850: Line 850:


Reverting the comment will not change the timetable for the closure, as it doesn't invite further scrutiny of HEB--on the contrary, it does the opposite, I feel. And the response to your position is, I feel, highly germane to the discussion. So I'm not inclined to remove it. That said, you should always feel entirely welcome to share any response or concerns here, if you are so-inclined. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Reverting the comment will not change the timetable for the closure, as it doesn't invite further scrutiny of HEB--on the contrary, it does the opposite, I feel. And the response to your position is, I feel, highly germane to the discussion. So I'm not inclined to remove it. That said, you should always feel entirely welcome to share any response or concerns here, if you are so-inclined. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

:And please don't feel rushed. Aside from the fact I'd rather you responded when you feel least rushed, I'm not exactly able to be super responsive myself just now. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308221043">diff</a>

2025-08-28T06:04:56Z
Line 848: Line 848:


There may be a slight delay tho, I have some IRL task. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 05:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
There may be a slight delay tho, I have some IRL task. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 05:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Reverting the comment will not change the timetable for the closure, as it doesn't invite further scrutiny of HEB--on the contrary, it does the opposite, I feel. And the response to your position is, I feel, highly germane to the discussion. So I'm not inclined to remove it. That said, you should always feel entirely welcome to share any response or concerns here, if you are so-inclined. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308220602">diff</a>

2025-08-28T06:00:47Z
Line 577: Line 577:
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was proposed, considered, and almost uniformly accepted with regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear, as is the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions--particularly when you you are talking about an editor's longterm approach to personal interactions and conflict, and that conflict was controversial, but they were ultimately let go with [[WP:ROPE]] and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.{{pb}} And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was proposed, considered, and almost uniformly accepted with regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear, as is the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions--particularly when you you are talking about an editor's longterm approach to personal interactions and conflict, and that conduct was controversial, but they were ultimately let go with [[WP:ROPE]] and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.{{pb}} And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308220217">diff</a>

2025-08-28T05:57:53Z
Line 577: Line 577:
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was considered and almost uniformly accepted with the regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear; as is clear the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions, particularly when you you are talking about an editor whose longterm pattern of interaction was a source of much controversy, but they were ultimately let go with [[WP:ROPE]] and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.{{pb}} And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was proposed, considered, and almost uniformly accepted with regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear, as is the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions--particularly when you you are talking about an editor's longterm approach to personal interactions and conflict, and that conflict was controversial, but they were ultimately let go with [[WP:ROPE]] and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.{{pb}} And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308219022">diff</a>

2025-08-28T05:48:27Z
Line 577: Line 577:
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was considered and almost uniformly accepted with the regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear; as is clear the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions, particularly when you you are talking about an editor whose longterm pattern of interaction was a source of much controversy, but they were ultimately let go with [[WP:ROPE]] and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.{{pb}} And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307841362">diff</a>

2025-08-26T00:47:02Z
Line 473: Line 473:
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have a hard time understanding how anyone who particpated at any length in the discussions that authorized recall (did you?) could come away with the impression that the kind of habitual and serious abuse of tools (and/or position) that was contemplated in those discussions would include "adding a few edis at the 11th hour to comply with [[WP:INACTIVITY]]" as consistent with those concerns. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think you'll stand a shadow of a chance in getting the community to endorse that perspective. {{pb}}Regardless, your tone here has now turned decidedly combative and non-collaborative (to say nothing of presumptuous with regard to telling me what I intend my own words to convey) and I won't be engaging with you further. Believe what you want to believe with regard to what I am saying: I think I've said more than enough for my perspective to be obvious to anyone following this discussion. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have a hard time understanding how anyone who particpated at any length in the discussions that authorized recall (did you?) could come away with the impression that the kind of habitual and serious abuse of tools (and/or position) that was contemplated in those discussions would include "adding a few edis at the 11th hour to comply with [[WP:INACTIVITY]]" as consistent with those concerns. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think you'll stand a shadow of a chance in getting the community to endorse that perspective. {{pb}}Regardless, your tone here has now turned completely combative and non-collaborative (to say nothing of presumptuous with regard to telling me what I intend my own words to convey) and I won't be engaging with you further. Believe what you want to believe with regard to what I am saying: I think I've said more than enough for my perspective to be obvious to anyone following this discussion. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307839630">diff</a>

2025-08-26T00:33:45Z
Line 473: Line 473:
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have a hard time understanding how anyone who particpated at any length in the discussions that authorized recall (did you?) could come away with the impression that the kind of habitual and serious abuse of tools (and/or position) that was contemplated in those discussions would perceive "adding a few actions at th 11th hour to comply with [[WP:INACTIVITY]]" as consistent with those concerns. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think you'll stand a shadow of a chance in getting the community to endorse that perspective. {{pb}}Regardless, your tone here has now turned decidedly combative and non-collaborative (to say nothing of presumptuous with regard to telling me what I intend my own words to convey) and I won't be engaging with you further. Believe what you want to believe with regard to what I am saying: I think I've said more than enough for my perspective to be obvious to anyone following this discussion. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have a hard time understanding how anyone who particpated at any length in the discussions that authorized recall (did you?) could come away with the impression that the kind of habitual and serious abuse of tools (and/or position) that was contemplated in those discussions would include "adding a few edis at the 11th hour to comply with [[WP:INACTIVITY]]" as consistent with those concerns. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think you'll stand a shadow of a chance in getting the community to endorse that perspective. {{pb}}Regardless, your tone here has now turned decidedly combative and non-collaborative (to say nothing of presumptuous with regard to telling me what I intend my own words to convey) and I won't be engaging with you further. Believe what you want to believe with regard to what I am saying: I think I've said more than enough for my perspective to be obvious to anyone following this discussion. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307837523">diff</a>

2025-08-26T00:18:37Z
Line 473: Line 473:
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The issue is the verbiage DOES conform with the consensus. Period, full stop. That is what I mean when I say you two are trying to pick and choose from those discussions what you like, vs what we actually have as policy and it is super unhelpful. It feels strange to say I am misrepresenting you and that you have explained it and then launch into a rant about exactly what I said you were doing. It's weird, don't do that. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have a hard time understanding how anyone who particpated at any length in the discussions that authorized recall (did you?) could come away with the impression that the kind of habitual and serious abuse of tools (and/or position) that was contemplated in those discussions would perceive "adding a few actions at th 11th hour to comply with [[WP:INACTIVITY]]" as consistent with those concerns. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think you'll stand a shadow of a chance in getting the community to endorse that perspective. {{pb}}Regardless, your tone here has now turned decidedly combative and non-collaborative (to say nothing of presumptuous with regard to telling me what I intend my own words to convey) and I won't be engaging with you further. Believe what you want to believe with regard to what I am saying: I think I've said more than enough for my perspective to be obvious to anyone following this discussion. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307825849">diff</a>

2025-08-25T22:51:34Z
Line 471: Line 471:
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think the issue is wanting to change the policy. That is fine, we can have that discussion. The issue is when people say the policy means a certain thing when it does not state it. That is basically SnowRise's and Thryduulf's argument. Picking and choosing certain parts of a decades long discussion to say this policy is really meant for, really anything, not stated in the policy is a road to nowhere. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think the issue is wanting to change the policy. That is fine, we can have that discussion. The issue is when people say the policy means a certain thing when it does not state it. That is basically SnowRise's and Thryduulf's argument. Picking and choosing certain parts of a decades long discussion to say this policy is really meant for, really anything, not stated in the policy is a road to nowhere. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure it's unintentional, but you're misrepresenting my position (and I believe Thryduulf's). I must have said five times now, and with substantial detail each time, that this discussion is (and should be) about clarifying the existing policy verbiage so that it does conform with the consensus that authorized the process in the first. So I'm not sure how anyone could continue to think otherwise at this point. WhatamIdoing is quite correct: this is getting to be quite cyclical and a waste in time. If discussion can't proceed in good faith towards trying to figure out what a proposal could look like, this discussion will not benefit the community. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307818349">diff</a>

2025-08-25T21:50:54Z
Line 471: Line 471:
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than normal approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed by the community through policy (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than the normal and expected approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed as proscribed by the community through policy or consensus (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307817902">diff</a>

2025-08-25T21:48:06Z
Line 470: Line 470:
::::::::So, sure: The rule is "Any [[Wikipedia:XC|extended confirmed]] editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." But the point of this whole discussion is: Maybe the rule should be changed. Then the rule would stop saying "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community" and start saying something different, such as "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community and their reason is not primarily about the admin's WP:INACTIVITY". Then that new text would be "the rule" and would be followed.
::::::::So, sure: The rule is "Any [[Wikipedia:XC|extended confirmed]] editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." But the point of this whole discussion is: Maybe the rule should be changed. Then the rule would stop saying "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community" and start saying something different, such as "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community and their reason is not primarily about the admin's WP:INACTIVITY". Then that new text would be "the rule" and would be followed.
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs]] lists the prior discussions. Glancing through the main ones, I see the word abuse a few dozen times, and inactivity is barely mentioned, except in a proposal that would have replaced WP:INACTIVITY. When it is mentioned, it is usually by way of contrast. I saw nobody mentioning RECALL as a way of addressing admin activity. I therefore suspect that if you asked the supporters of RECALL whether their original intention was to have RECALL address low-activity admins, they would deny any such thoughts. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"it is not helpful nor an effective explanation to assert that RECALL or INACTIVITY say things that they do not."}}
::::::::Except nobody is doing that, that I am seeing. The [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion]] is about how we might adjust the information pages to more closely reflect the consensus which created the process in the first place, including the prospect of further community input to confirm that consensus, to be careful and pro forma. And I would submit to you that [[WP:PROPOSAL|consensus discussion to amend policy is nothing more than normal approach to such situations, and represents best practice]], while making accusations against admins that they have violated policy and community trust on the basis of behaviour that is not expressly endorsed by the community through policy (such as implying that they have done something in bad faith by complying with [[WP:INACTIVITY]] by a narrow margin or at the last moment, even though nothing in policy or community consensus forbids this) [[WP:ASPERSIONS|is very problematic]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307724065">diff</a>

2025-08-25T09:55:58Z
Line 459: Line 459:
::::I am honestly very surprised that this is so controversial. These were always meant to be discrete processes, with different goals, and different mechanisms As Thryduulf says, maybe it was naive to have not foreseen that some people would conflate the purposes of these process and over-reach with petitions that have little to do with the kind of abuse of the tools/position cases recall was intended for. But now that we are seeing just how easy it is for people to make that mistake (or recognize the distinction and just not care about using recall abusively), we clearly need to more clearly express the different roles of these processes and put reasonable limitations to prevent both willful abuse and unintentional but wholly avoidable wastes of community time and resources--including losing admins who did nothing that comes close to the kind of serious abuse for which recall was intended. {{pb}} Rushing to hit your activity threshold at the last minute because you want to keep the tools and believe you are still capable of using them effectively on occasion, even if you are currently in a pronlongued activity slump ≠ abuse of the tools, violation of policy, or conduct calling into question basic suitability for the role. And though hindsight is 20/20 on failing to condify this into the process description, even though it was clearly part of the community consensus authorizing the process, I remain surprised it has to be spelled out in those terms here. But obviously it does, so...let's do that? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I am honestly very surprised that this is so controversial. These were always meant to be discrete processes, with different goals, and different mechanisms As Thryduulf says, maybe it was naive to have not foreseen that some people would conflate the purposes of these process and over-reach with petitions that have little to do with the kind of abuse of the tools/position cases recall was intended for. But now that we are seeing just how easy it is for people to make that mistake (or recognize the distinction and just not care about using recall abusively), we clearly need to more clearly express the different roles of these processes and put reasonable limitations to prevent both willful abuse and unintentional but wholly avoidable wastes of community time and resources--including losing admins who did nothing that comes close to the kind of serious abuse for which recall was intended. {{pb}} Rushing to hit your activity threshold at the last minute because you want to keep the tools and believe you are still capable of using them effectively on occasion, even if you are currently in a pronlongued activity slump ≠ abuse of the tools, violation of policy, or conduct calling into question basic suitability for the role. And though hindsight is 20/20 on failing to condify this into the process description, even though it was clearly part of the community consensus authorizing the process, I remain surprised it has to be spelled out in those terms here. But obviously it does, so...let's do that? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:RECALL]] is about cases where an editor "believe[s] that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." The definition you are using to propose a distinction that is apparently being missed/ignored is unfounded in the actual process page, which does not mention "misconduct", "tools", "violation", or other key words used above. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:RECALL]] is about cases where an editor "believe[s] that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." The definition you are using to propose a distinction that is apparently being missed/ignored is unfounded in the actual process page, which does not mention "misconduct", "tools", "violation", or other key words used above. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Right. That's what we're talking about here. Clarifying the intended distinct role of that process, and the problems it was designed to address. As Thryduulf effectively explains above, the failure to render the consensus of the authorizing discussions more precisely into the process page in no way obviates the existence of that prior community discussion and consensus. Nor for that matter, I will add, does it forestall our re-affirming the reasoning beind said consensus and adjusting the language of both [[WP:RECALL]] and [[WP:INACTIVITY]] to more effectively and pragmatically codify their respective roles and clarify when and how the processes allow us to challenge an admin's fitness for the tools. {{pb}}I appreciate that some people are quite happy with this current free-for-all system we effectively fell ass backwards into with the current wording of the process page. But bluntly, the idea that such a system will sustain a good cost-benefit ratio of utility with that laissze-faire approach is an extremely credulous view. And more to the point, not the view the community adopted when authorizing the process, or is likely to permit if/when we put it to the community at large again. Anybody with the mop being subject to an immediate recall on anyone's notion of improper conduct as an admin may feel very empowering and egalitarian, especially after years of that ability being gatekept for ArbCom, but having absolutely no further guidance is, for a lot of reasons, just not feasible in the longterm. {{pb}} That's my belief anyway. I don't advocate that we rely on the previous consensus discussions for what RECALL is meant to accomplish. I do think it's worth putting to the community again, expressly. I'm just confident that the history of this project has taught us enough about how people will abuse process that the same good sense in those previous discussions will come to the surface again. This process was meant to enable us to disempower admins who had turned out to be fundamentally ill-suited to the bit. Not to bean count the contribs of some of our most dedicated community members and create extra purity tests for them that go beyond that which the community has authorized in INACTIVITY. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307647301">diff</a>

2025-08-24T22:10:24Z
Line 145: Line 145:
::::Do you claim, any measurement (e.g. by a telescope or whatever) of the length of a photon's curved trajectory - whether near the sun - or in any phenomenon of gravitational lensing, is a local measurement? [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 13:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Do you claim, any measurement (e.g. by a telescope or whatever) of the length of a photon's curved trajectory - whether near the sun - or in any phenomenon of gravitational lensing, is a local measurement? [[User:HOTmag|HOTmag]] ([[User talk:HOTmag|talk]]) 13:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Does [[Principle of locality]] help? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Does [[Principle of locality]] help? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.210.150.115|90.210.150.115]] ([[User talk:90.210.150.115|talk]]) 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you've mis-interpeted my inquiry here, {{u|Lambiam}}. As it happens, I'm a bit of an expert in visual cognition, and so very familiar with the physics/biophysics of photoreceptive media. That's not the part I am struggling to fix in my mind here. My epistemological confusion about the terminology is this: since a photon trapped at the event horizon never escapes to interact with such a medium, what do we mean when we talk about "observation" when, for example {{u|Ruslik0}} says {{tq|The light from the torch will travel in the direction of the event horizons but will never cross it (from the point of view of an external inertial observer).}}? Is it a conceptual conceit/misnomer for describing the relation of the frames of reference? If so, can you think of a thought experiment that would explain those interactions in such a way that accounts for the fact that, as a strictly empirical and ontological matter, no observation at a distance can be made? Maybe Ruslik0 just mixed their metaphors and terminology a bit? If not, I'm super confused as to what the act of observation means in that description. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 22:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 24 =
= August 24 =

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307644867">diff</a>

2025-08-24T21:52:12Z
Line 452: Line 452:
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying that RECALL is for X, Y, Z because that's what all the discussions about having a recall process, and the ultimate consensus that emerged from them, were predicated on it being about admins who have abused their tools or otherwise actively engaged in serious midconduct that discussions at other venues have failed to resolve. It's true this is not explicitly stated in the policy, but that does not invalidate those discussions or mean that the consensus built on those discussions can be ignored because of that lack of specificity (which, as noted, should not be needed). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying that RECALL is for X, Y, Z because that's what all the discussions about having a recall process, and the ultimate consensus that emerged from them, were predicated on it being about admins who have abused their tools or otherwise actively engaged in serious midconduct that discussions at other venues have failed to resolve. It's true this is not explicitly stated in the policy, but that does not invalidate those discussions or mean that the consensus built on those discussions can be ignored because of that lack of specificity (which, as noted, should not be needed). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Right. We are talking about what it should be. Or more specifically, what community consensus in the authorizing discussions intended it to be. If there are defects in the clarity of the process description page, remedying them is exactly what is being proposed now. Recall was meant to give the community an ability to react to manifestly abusive conduct by an admin without having to wait for an ArbCom case to be filed and resolved. Not to be used flippantly to prosecute some individual's idiosyncratic view of INACTIVITY that goes beyond what that policy actually calls for, by agreement of the community.{{pb}}And again, to be clear, much of the delay in authorizing recall came from concerns about precisely these situations happening. That and axe-grinding foes leveraging the process to make lifer miserable for admins who had previously acted against them. Now, we haven't seen one of those cases yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar they are around the bend, because the ultimate threshold initiating recall is kind of rather minimal, in the grand scheme of things. To be frank, the precise mechanisms probably could have done with a lot more tweaking, but after years of having the process delayed, those with remaining concerns were out!voted and the process was authorized. Which I still think is a good thing, and was overdue. {{pb}} But we have to acknowledge at the same time that the reservations have already proven extremely prescient. Even as someone who was gobsmacked by how many years (indeed, decades) it took to create this process, and who was increasingly critical of the opposition arguments in recent years, I have to admit that and recognize that it is time to start reigning in the blue sky approach here. We're already seeing petitions that are miles away from the kind of serious abuse cases the process was meant for, and the cost-benefit of having the process, and the validity the community regards it with, are going to plummet fast if we can't create some reasonable limitations on what kind of conduct justifies a petition.{{pb}} Such adjustments were always part of the expectation of how this process would evolve, and the only way this process stays valid and does not become uglier than ANI on its worst day is by making good on the assurance that would happen. Codifying the separate intents of INACTIVITY and RECALL by clearly dilineating their aims and different standards, as understood by those who authorized them in community discussions, is a simple place to start, and also clearly the most pressing issue, since this has already obviously become the flashpoint for problematic petitions in the first year. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Right. We are talking about what it should be. Or more specifically, what community consensus in the authorizing discussions intended it to be. If there are defects in the clarity of the process description page, remedying them is exactly what is being proposed now. Recall was meant to give the community an ability to react to manifestly abusive conduct by an admin without having to wait for an ArbCom case to be filed and resolved. Not to be used flippantly to prosecute some individual's idiosyncratic view of INACTIVITY that goes beyond what that policy actually calls for, by agreement of the community.{{pb}}And again, to be clear, much of the delay in authorizing recall came from concerns about precisely these situations happening. That and axe-grinding foes leveraging the process to make lifer miserable for admins who had previously acted against them. Now, we haven't seen one of those cases yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar they are around the bend, because the ultimate threshold initiating recall is kind of rather minimal, in the grand scheme of things. To be frank, the precise mechanisms probably could have done with a lot more tweaking, but after years of having the process delayed, those with remaining concerns were out!voted and the process was authorized. Which I still think is a good thing, and was overdue. {{pb}} But we have to acknowledge at the same time that the reservations have already proven extremely prescient. Even as someone who was gobsmacked by how many years (indeed, decades) it took to create this process, and who was increasingly critical of the opposition arguments in recent years, I have to admit that and recognize that it is time to start reigning in the blue sky approach here. We're already seeing petitions that are miles away from the kind of serious abuse cases the process was meant for, and the cost-benefit of having the process, and the validity the community regards it with, are going to plummet fast if we can't create some reasonable limitations on what kind of conduct justifies a petition.{{pb}} Such adjustments were always part of the expectation of how this process would evolve, and the only way this process stays valid and does not become uglier than ANI on its worst day is by making good on the assurance that would happen. Codifying the separate intents of INACTIVITY and RECALL by clearly dilineating their aims and different standards, as understood by those who authorized them in community discussions, is a simple place to start, and also clearly the most pressing issue, since this has already obviously become the flashpoint for problematic petitions in the first year. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::And to be fair, some of those who held up the process of authorizing the recall process were specifically concerned about such weaponization. Though, I would also hasten to add that I am uncomfortable descrining all of the cases of problematic petitions we are talking about now as weaponization, as I do think the proponents see themselves as having the best interests of the project at heart. I would describe these cases rather as overzealous misapplication of the process for purposes for different for which it was expressly adopted (that is, misuse of the tools primarily, or other habitual violations of policy and community good will conducted pursuant to their work as administrators, or conduct which otherwise proved them fundamentally unfit for the tools). We are talking about two very distinct functions here, with different expectations of when and how they would be used and how a problem in each area should be demonstrated and acted upon:{{pb}}
::::And to be fair, some of those who held up the process of authorizing the recall process were specifically concerned about such weaponization. Though, I would also hasten to add that I am uncomfortable descrining all of the cases of problematic petitions we are talking about now as weaponization, as I do think the proponents see themselves as having the best interests of the project at heart. I would describe these cases rather as overzealous misapplication of the process for purposes for different for which it was expressly adopted (that is, misuse of the tools primarily, or other habitual violations of policy and community good will conducted pursuant to their work as administrators, or conduct which otherwise proved them fundamentally unfit for the tools). We are talking about two very distinct functions here, with different expectations of when and how they would be used and how a problem in each area should be demonstrated and acted upon:{{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:INACTIVITY]] = the process by which we remove tools from accounts, following a stream-lined process with clear usage metrics. It is not meant to reflect judgment of the admin in question or indication of bad faith conduct--it is merely a pro forma step taken rather than leave advanced permissions attached to dormant accounts. It does not come with a presumption of misconduct and most people can get the tools back without needing to re-RfA. {{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:INACTIVITY]] = the process by which we remove tools from accounts, following a stream-lined process with clear usage metrics. It is not meant to reflect judgment of the admin in question or indication of bad faith conduct--it is merely a pro forma step taken rather than leave advanced permissions attached to dormant accounts. It does not come with a presumption of misconduct and most people can get the tools back without needing to re-RfA. {{pb}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307644769">diff</a>

2025-08-24T21:51:06Z
Line 452: Line 452:
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying that RECALL is for X, Y, Z because that's what all the discussions about having a recall process, and the ultimate consensus that emerged from them, were predicated on it being about admins who have abused their tools or otherwise actively engaged in serious midconduct that discussions at other venues have failed to resolve. It's true this is not explicitly stated in the policy, but that does not invalidate those discussions or mean that the consensus built on those discussions can be ignored because of that lack of specificity (which, as noted, should not be needed). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying that RECALL is for X, Y, Z because that's what all the discussions about having a recall process, and the ultimate consensus that emerged from them, were predicated on it being about admins who have abused their tools or otherwise actively engaged in serious midconduct that discussions at other venues have failed to resolve. It's true this is not explicitly stated in the policy, but that does not invalidate those discussions or mean that the consensus built on those discussions can be ignored because of that lack of specificity (which, as noted, should not be needed). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Right. We are talking about what it should be. Or more specifically, what community consensus in the authorizing discussions intended it to be. If there are defects in the clarity of the process description page, remedying them is exactly what is being proposed now. Recall was meant to give the community an ability to react to manifestly abusive conduct by an admin without having to wait for an ArbCom case to be filed and resolved. Not to be used flippantly to prosecute some individual's idiosyncratic view of INACTIVITY that goes beyond what that policy actually calls for, by agreement of the community.{{pb}}And again, to be clear, much of the delay in authorizing recall came from concerns about precisely these situations happening. That and axe-grinding foes leveraging the process to make lifer miserable for admins who had previously acted against them. Now, we haven't seen one of those cases yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar they are around the bend, because the ultimate threshold initiating recall is kind of rather minimal, in the grand scheme of things. To be frank, the precise mechanisms probably could have done with a lot more tweaking, but after years of having the process delayed, those with remaining concerns were out!voted and the process was authorized. Which I still think is a good thing, and was overdue. {{pb}} But we have to acknowledge at the same time that the reservations have already proven extremely prescient. Even as someone who was gobsmacked by how many years (indeed, decades) it took to create this process, and who was increasingly critical of the opposition arguments in recent years, I have to admit that and recognize that it is time to start reigning in the blue sky approach here. We're already seeing petitions that are miles away from the kind of serious abuse cases the process was meant for, and the cost-benefit of having the process, and the validity the community regards it with, are going to plummet fast if we can't create some reasonable limitations on what kind of conduct justifies a petition.{{pb}} Such adjustments were always part of the expectation of how this process would evolve, and the only way this process stays valid and does not become uglier than ANI on its worst day is by making good on the assurance that would happen. Codifying the separate intents of INACTIVITY and RECALL by clearly dilineating their aims and different standards, as understood by those who authorized them in community discussions, is a simple place to start, and also clearly the most pressing issue, since this has already obviously become the flashpoint for problematic petitions in the first year. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::And to be fair, some of those who held up the process of authorizing the recall process were specifically concerned about such weaponization. Though, I would also hasten to add that I am uncomfortable descrining all of the cases of problematic petitions we are talking about now as weaponization, as I do think the proponents see themselves as having the best interests of the project at heart. I would describe these cases rather as overzealous misapplication of the process for purposes for different for which it was expressly adopted (that is, misuse of the tools primarily, or other habitual violations of policy and community good will conducted pursuant to their work as administrators, or conduct which otherwise proved them fundamentally unfit for the tools). We are talking about two very distinct functions here, with different expectations of when and how they would be used and how a problem in each area should be demonstrated and acted upon:{{pb}}
::::And to be fair, some of those who held up the process of authorizing the recall process were specifically concerned about such weaponization. Though, I would also hasten to add that I am uncomfortable descrining all of the cases of problematic petitions we are talking about now as weaponization, as I do think the proponents see themselves as having the best interests of the project at heart. I would describe these cases rather as overzealous misapplication of the process for purposes for different for which it was expressly adopted (that is, misuse of the tools primarily, or other habitual violations of policy and community good will conducted pursuant to their work as administrators, or conduct which otherwise proved them fundamentally unfit for the tools). We are talking about two very distinct functions here, with different expectations of when and how they would be used and how a problem in each area should be demonstrated and acted upon:{{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:INACTIVITY]] = the process by which we remove tools from accounts, following a stream-lined process with clear usage metrics. It is not meant to reflect judgment of the admin in question or indication of bad faith conduct--it is merely a pro forma step taken rather than leave advanced permissions attached to dormant accounts. It does not come with a presumption of misconduct and most people can get the tools back without needing to re-RfA. {{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:INACTIVITY]] = the process by which we remove tools from accounts, following a stream-lined process with clear usage metrics. It is not meant to reflect judgment of the admin in question or indication of bad faith conduct--it is merely a pro forma step taken rather than leave advanced permissions attached to dormant accounts. It does not come with a presumption of misconduct and most people can get the tools back without needing to re-RfA. {{pb}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307642896">diff</a>

2025-08-24T21:34:51Z
Line 451: Line 451:
:::Ah I think I see the fault in your logic now. INACTIVITY isn't overriding RECALL. RECALL exists to deal with editors who are breaching policies and guidelines, that isn't stated explicitly in the policy because it is there implicitly: the entire basis for the consensus establishing it was that there was need for a process to deal with admins who are breaching policies and guidelines. Everybody assumed that abuses of the process, such as attacking editors who were complying with all the relevant policies and guidelines, would either not happen or would be swiftly shot down. I'm only seeking to make things explicit now because that assumption has proven to be naive: editors have weaponised recall to enforce their personal, arbitrary standards rather than the standards of the community. I'm not sure you do understand how disheartening it is to have to explain, repeatedly, to veteran editors that misusing community processes, assuming bad faith and misrepresenting community consensus isn't OK. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah I think I see the fault in your logic now. INACTIVITY isn't overriding RECALL. RECALL exists to deal with editors who are breaching policies and guidelines, that isn't stated explicitly in the policy because it is there implicitly: the entire basis for the consensus establishing it was that there was need for a process to deal with admins who are breaching policies and guidelines. Everybody assumed that abuses of the process, such as attacking editors who were complying with all the relevant policies and guidelines, would either not happen or would be swiftly shot down. I'm only seeking to make things explicit now because that assumption has proven to be naive: editors have weaponised recall to enforce their personal, arbitrary standards rather than the standards of the community. I'm not sure you do understand how disheartening it is to have to explain, repeatedly, to veteran editors that misusing community processes, assuming bad faith and misrepresenting community consensus isn't OK. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You keep saying that Recall is for X, Y, and Z and that is just false. Which seems to be the heart of the matter, you see it how it should be, and I am quoting what it is. Recall is policy, it has no limits on what can trigger it, and because of that has nothing to do with the inactivity policy. Because they are not being brought up under the inactivity policy, they are being brought up under the recall policy. As written, a recall could go through because they don't like that the admin like using the Oxford comma and that would be valid under that policy. We can have a discussion on how to modify policy to prevent that, but first we have to recognize what it is vs what it should be. What you keep repeating is what you think it SHOULD BE, not what IT IS. That seems to be the disconnect, and causing an argument based on a false premise. Also as a side note, accusing other editors of weaponizing something is in itself an assumption of bad faith. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::And to be fair, some of those who held up the process of authorizing the recall process were specifically concerned about such weaponization. Though, I would also hasten to add that I am uncomfortable descrining all of the cases of problematic petitions we are talking about now as weaponization, as I do think the proponents see themselves as having the best interests of the project at heart. I would describe these cases rather as overzealous misapplication of the process for purposes for different for which it was expressly adopted (that is, misuse of the tools primarily, or other habitual violations of policy and community good will conducted pursuant to their work as administrators, or conduct which otherwise proved them fundamentally unfit for the tools). We are talking about two very distinct functions here, with different expectations of when and how they would be used and how a problem in each area should be demonstrated and acted upon:{{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:INACTIVITY]] = the process by which we remove tools from accounts, following a stream-lined process with clear usage metrics. It is not meant to reflect judgment of the admin in question or indication of bad faith conduct--it is merely a pro forma step taken rather than leave advanced permissions attached to dormant accounts. It does not come with a presumption of misconduct and most people can get the tools back without needing to re-RfA. {{pb}}
:::::*[[WP:RECALL]] = the process by which we remove tools for gross misconduct, including abuse of tools, serious violations of policy and other conduct that raises the question of suitability for the tools. It is very much expressly focused in judging the admin's conduct and qualities as an advanced permissions holder, and should be reserved for serious cases of abuse of the position, since it does come with serious consequences for the admin, including (at a minimum, engagement with an arduous re-RfA process and possible stigma, whether accusations are good-faith and well justified or not. {{pb}} Let's put aside for the moment what it puts the subject through and the fact that we ought to have good reason for doing that to someone the community trusted enough to invest the tools in to begin with. It also potentially deprives us more permanently of another admin, during a longterm and ongoing admin retention, and the process requires much more community volunteer time. For all of these reasons and more, it was always meant to be reserved for serious misconduct, not desysoping for bureaucratic technical reasons: we have other well-defined processes for those, including INACTIVITY.{{pb}}
::::I am honestly very surprised that this is so controversial. These were always meant to be discrete processes, with different goals, and different mechanisms As Thryduulf says, maybe it was naive to have not foreseen that some people would conflate the purposes of these process and over-reach with petitions that have little to do with the kind of abuse of the tools/position cases recall was intended for. But now that we are seeing just how easy it is for people to make that mistake (or recognize the distinction and just not care about using recall abusively), we clearly need to more clearly express the different roles of these processes and put reasonable limitations to prevent both willful abuse and unintentional but wholly avoidable wastes of community time and resources--including losing admins who did nothing that comes close to the kind of serious abuse for which recall was intended. {{pb}} Rushing to hit your activity threshold at the last minute because you want to keep the tools and believe you are still capable of using them effectively on occasion, even if you are currently in a pronlongued activity slump ≠ abuse of the tools, violation of policy, or conduct calling into question basic suitability for the role. And though hindsight is 20/20 on failing to condify this into the process description, even though it was clearly part of the community consensus authorizing the process, I remain surprised it has to be spelled out in those terms here. But obviously it does, so...let's do that? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307548228">diff</a>

2025-08-24T08:11:53Z
Line 434: Line 434:


:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for the operation of oversight. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got community recall authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

User:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307546334">diff</a>

2025-08-24T07:55:58Z
Line 3: Line 3:
| style="background-color: #d2e8f3; border-width: 1px 2px 2px 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #6587d1; vertical-align: top; border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" |
| style="background-color: #d2e8f3; border-width: 1px 2px 2px 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #6587d1; vertical-align: top; border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" |
<div style="font-family: Arial, san-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="font-family: Arial, san-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">User info: &nbsp; [[/fauna|Taxonomy]] {{,}} [[/Barnstars|Barnstars/Community Recognition]] {{,}} [[/WikiProjects|WikiProjects]] {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Snow+Rise&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit Statistics]</span> &nbsp; <span style="color:grey"> | </span> &nbsp; <span style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">Content Contributions: &nbsp; <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=0}} Mainspace]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=10}} Templates]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=6}} Files]</span> {{,}} </span> &nbsp; <span style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">Discussion Tracking: &nbsp; <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=1}} Articles]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=4}} Wikipedia]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=5}} Wikipedia talk]</span> [[/Committed identity hash|{{,}}]] <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=3}} User]</span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="background:#ecf2f5; font-size: 9pt;"> <span style="color:#0000FF">--</span>[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] </span></span></div>
<div style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">User info: &nbsp; [[/fauna|Taxonomy]] {{,}} [[/Barnstars|Barnstars/Community Recognition]] {{,}} [[/WikiProjects|WikiProjects]] {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/xtools-ec/?user=Snow+Rise&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit Statistics]</span> &nbsp; <span style="color:grey"> | </span> &nbsp; <span style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">Content Contributions: &nbsp; <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=0}} Mainspace]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=10}} Templates]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=6}} Files]</span> {{,}} </span> &nbsp; <span style="color:#150f60; font-size: 9pt;">Discussion Tracking: &nbsp; <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=1}} Articles]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=4}} Wikipedia]</span> {{,}} <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=5}} Wikipedia talk]</span> [[/Committed identity hash|{{,}}]] <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|limit=500&target=Snow_Rise&namespace=3}} User]</span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="background:#ecf2f5; font-size: 9pt;"> <span style="color:#0000FF">--</span>[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] </span></span></div>


----
----

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307545528">diff</a>

2025-08-24T07:48:08Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" are incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Line 458: Line 458:
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements."}}
::{{tq|"I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements."}}
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least observationally engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::Except that very much [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorically framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least observationally engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy, or with an intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from following through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place. See this is another problem with creating vague, idiosyncratic personal rules about activity that go beyond those agreed by the community through consensus: it creates an incentive for needless and unhelpful speculation about the state of mind of other users: something we are generally meant to avoid here, for a bevy of reasons. This area needs objective metrics that can be reliably and equitably applied, not fishing expeditions based on mere suspicion and the belief that one has pegged the motives of another.
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from following through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF towards a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place. See, this is another problem with creating vague, idiosyncratic personal rules about activity that go beyond those agreed by the community through consensus: it creates an incentive for needless and unhelpful speculation about the state of mind of other users--something we are generally meant to avoid here, for a bevy of reasons. This area needs objective metrics that can be reliably and equitably applied, not fishing expeditions based on mere suspicion and the self-assured belief that one has pegged the motives of another.
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307540538">diff</a>

2025-08-24T07:05:31Z
Line 777: Line 777:
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the [[availability heuristic]] is not the best argument for indicia that their argument is rationally and statistically sound. {{pb}}That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as [[per se]] invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the [[availability heuristic]] is not the best argument for indicia that their position is rationally and statistically sound. {{pb}}That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as [[per se]] invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==
== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307540285">diff</a>

2025-08-24T07:03:24Z
Line 771: Line 771:
::Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time. {{pb}} Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re=appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them [[WP:ROPE]] to make the effort. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time. {{pb}} Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re-appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them [[WP:ROPE]] to make the effort. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. [[User:Jake the Ache|Jake the Ache]] ([[User talk:Jake the Ache|talk]]) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. [[User:Jake the Ache|Jake the Ache]] ([[User talk:Jake the Ache|talk]]) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307540035">diff</a>

2025-08-24T07:00:46Z
Line 105: Line 105:
Thanks everyone. I had been wondering whether calling him "Bob" would be something like [[deadnaming]]. I guess it isn't, but in some religious contexts (e.g. conversion to Islam, like [[Kareem Abdul Jabbar]]'s) you're supposed to use the new name exclusively ("Congratulations, Kareem"). [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|talk]]) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I had been wondering whether calling him "Bob" would be something like [[deadnaming]]. I guess it isn't, but in some religious contexts (e.g. conversion to Islam, like [[Kareem Abdul Jabbar]]'s) you're supposed to use the new name exclusively ("Congratulations, Kareem"). [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|talk]]) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: Before his accession, there were decades of speculation about what regnal name [[Charles III|Prince Charles]] would take. The most common suggestion was "George VII", often citing unimpeachable sources. Had that actually occurred, imagine the massive confusion in the media and among the general populace, given that he'd been known to the world as Charles for close to 74 years. Leo XIV is close to 70 himself, but I think popes are in a special category, whereby they're expected to adopt a papal name that is not the same as their birth name. Also, prior to their election they're generally unknown to the world at large, so the name change per se is not an issue as far as global recognition is concerned. In fact, there's naturally a great deal of public interest in the background of this new kid on the block who has literally overnight gone from obscurity to global recognition, monarchical status, and leadership of a community of billions of followers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 20:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: Before his accession, there were decades of speculation about what regnal name [[Charles III|Prince Charles]] would take. The most common suggestion was "George VII", often citing unimpeachable sources. Had that actually occurred, imagine the massive confusion in the media and among the general populace, given that he'd been known to the world as Charles for close to 74 years. Leo XIV is close to 70 himself, but I think popes are in a special category, whereby they're expected to adopt a papal name that is not the same as their birth name. Also, prior to their election they're generally unknown to the world at large, so the name change per se is not an issue as far as global recognition is concerned. In fact, there's naturally a great deal of public interest in the background of this new kid on the block who has literally overnight gone from obscurity to global recognition, monarchical status, and leadership of a community of billions of followers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 20:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:Others have said it already above, but I'm going to reiterate it: I doubt a single person in his life is addressing him by name, papal or given. I think he will be addressed, at least insofar as the faithful and the church and administrative staff around him, will ever again refer to him by anything other than title: your holiness, holy father, and so forth: including their various cognates in different languages. Perhaps someone outside the faith looking to be irreverent or outright transgressive might shout "Yo Bobbyyyy!" at him at some point, but short of those speculative niche circumstances, he now exists within the linguistic framework of a highly formalized set of relational dynamics and nobody within his daily lived experience, even his former closest friends, is likely to violate those norms, at least as far members of the church go. I suppose family is a possible exception, but in that case I think it is obvious they would use his given rather than papal name--unless, again, attempting to be flippant or sardonic. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Others have said it already above, but I'm going to reiterate it: I doubt a single person in his life is addressing him by name, papal or given. I think he will invariably be addressed, at least insofar as the faithful and the church and administrative staff around him, through titles: 'your holiness', 'holy father' and so forth--including their various cognates or translations in different languages. Perhaps someone outside the faith looking to be irreverent or outright transgressive might shout "Yo Bobbyyyy!" at him at some point, but short of those speculative niche circumstances, he now exists within the linguistic framework of a highly formalized set of relational dynamics and nobody within his daily lived experience, even his former closest friends, is likely to violate those norms, at least as far members of the church go. I suppose family is a possible exception, but in that case I think it is obvious they would use his given rather than papal name--unless, again, attempting to be flippant or sardonic. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 13 =
= August 13 =

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307539759">diff</a>

2025-08-24T06:58:09Z
Line 105: Line 105:
Thanks everyone. I had been wondering whether calling him "Bob" would be something like [[deadnaming]]. I guess it isn't, but in some religious contexts (e.g. conversion to Islam, like [[Kareem Abdul Jabbar]]'s) you're supposed to use the new name exclusively ("Congratulations, Kareem"). [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|talk]]) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I had been wondering whether calling him "Bob" would be something like [[deadnaming]]. I guess it isn't, but in some religious contexts (e.g. conversion to Islam, like [[Kareem Abdul Jabbar]]'s) you're supposed to use the new name exclusively ("Congratulations, Kareem"). [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD|talk]]) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: Before his accession, there were decades of speculation about what regnal name [[Charles III|Prince Charles]] would take. The most common suggestion was "George VII", often citing unimpeachable sources. Had that actually occurred, imagine the massive confusion in the media and among the general populace, given that he'd been known to the world as Charles for close to 74 years. Leo XIV is close to 70 himself, but I think popes are in a special category, whereby they're expected to adopt a papal name that is not the same as their birth name. Also, prior to their election they're generally unknown to the world at large, so the name change per se is not an issue as far as global recognition is concerned. In fact, there's naturally a great deal of public interest in the background of this new kid on the block who has literally overnight gone from obscurity to global recognition, monarchical status, and leadership of a community of billions of followers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 20:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: Before his accession, there were decades of speculation about what regnal name [[Charles III|Prince Charles]] would take. The most common suggestion was "George VII", often citing unimpeachable sources. Had that actually occurred, imagine the massive confusion in the media and among the general populace, given that he'd been known to the world as Charles for close to 74 years. Leo XIV is close to 70 himself, but I think popes are in a special category, whereby they're expected to adopt a papal name that is not the same as their birth name. Also, prior to their election they're generally unknown to the world at large, so the name change per se is not an issue as far as global recognition is concerned. In fact, there's naturally a great deal of public interest in the background of this new kid on the block who has literally overnight gone from obscurity to global recognition, monarchical status, and leadership of a community of billions of followers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 20:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:Others have said it already above, but I'm going to reiterate it: I doubt a single person in his life is addressing him by name, papal or given. I think he will be addressed, at least insofar as the faithful and the church and administrative staff around him, will ever again refer to him by anything other than title: your holiness, holy father, and so forth: including their various cognates in different languages. Perhaps someone outside the faith looking to be irreverent or outright transgressive might shout "Yo Bobbyyyy!" at him at some point, but short of those speculative niche circumstances, he now exists within the linguistic framework of a highly formalized set of relational dynamics and nobody within his daily lived experience, even his former closest friends, is likely to violate those norms, at least as far members of the church go. I suppose family is a possible exception, but in that case I think it is obvious they would use his given rather than papal name--unless, again, attempting to be flippant or sardonic. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 13 =
= August 13 =

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307538171">diff</a>

2025-08-24T06:44:27Z
Line 140: Line 140:
::::I can see some practical issues with measuring the distance to a black hole. And also some theoretical issues. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 16:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I can see some practical issues with measuring the distance to a black hole. And also some theoretical issues. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 16:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Any black hole is just a mass. You need only to measure the orbital parameters of test particles moving around it. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Any black hole is just a mass. You need only to measure the orbital parameters of test particles moving around it. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::This is far from the first time I have been exposed to these facts, but this concept still breaks my brain a little. I think it's on account of how we utilize the notion of an observer from an outside frame of reference as an abstraction. Obviously, in terms actual empirical observation at this point, the photon is completely red-shifted and has no chance of ever escaping. So it can't ever be directly observed. And yet we regard it as being unable to ever being able to be observed to have crossed the event horizon. Can someone help me with the structural distinction here? Because obviously if we had a photon's trajectory bent around the gravity well of a black hole (or any mass), we could observe it only by directly interacting with it by intercepting it somewhere along its path. So what do we mean when we talk about observation in an instance that is not in any scenario actually physically possible? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 24 =
= August 24 =

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307535101">diff</a>

2025-08-24T06:16:41Z
Line 771: Line 771:
::Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time. {{pb}} Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re=appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them [[WP:ROPE]] to make the effort. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. [[User:Jake the Ache|Jake the Ache]] ([[User talk:Jake the Ache|talk]]) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. [[User:Jake the Ache|Jake the Ache]] ([[User talk:Jake the Ache|talk]]) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307533198">diff</a>

2025-08-24T06:00:25Z
Line 776: Line 776:
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the [[availability heuristic]] is not the best argument for indicia that their argument is rationally and statistically sound.
::::::I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the [[availability heuristic]] is not the best argument for indicia that their argument is rationally and statistically sound. {{pb}}That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as [[per se]] invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is perfectly reasonable, imo. It's the rather exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) next steps towards painting such perspectives as [[per se]] invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes that goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==
== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307532826">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:57:04Z
Line 776: Line 776:
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the [[availability heuristic]] is not the best argument for indicia that their argument is rationally and statistically sound.
::::::That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is perfectly reasonable, imo. It's the rather exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) next steps towards painting such perspectives as [[per se]] invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes that goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==
== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307531669">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:46:11Z
Line 460: Line 460:
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least observationally engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least observationally engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from following through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place. See this another problem with creating vague, idiosyncratic personal rules about activity that go beyond those agreed by the community through consensus: it creates an incentive for needless and unhelpful speculation about the state of mind of other users: something we are generally meant to avoid here, for a bevy of reasons. This area needs objective metrics that can be reliably and equitably applied, not fishing expeditions based on mere suspicion and the belief that one has pegged the motives of another.
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from following through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place. See this is another problem with creating vague, idiosyncratic personal rules about activity that go beyond those agreed by the community through consensus: it creates an incentive for needless and unhelpful speculation about the state of mind of other users: something we are generally meant to avoid here, for a bevy of reasons. This area needs objective metrics that can be reliably and equitably applied, not fishing expeditions based on mere suspicion and the belief that one has pegged the motives of another.
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307531475">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:44:25Z
Line 458: Line 458:
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements."}}
::{{tq|"I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements."}}
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but is observationally engaged with the project still and anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least observationally engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from followng through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place.
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from following through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place. See this another problem with creating vague, idiosyncratic personal rules about activity that go beyond those agreed by the community through consensus: it creates an incentive for needless and unhelpful speculation about the state of mind of other users: something we are generally meant to avoid here, for a bevy of reasons. This area needs objective metrics that can be reliably and equitably applied, not fishing expeditions based on mere suspicion and the belief that one has pegged the motives of another.
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307530048">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:32:27Z
Line 462: Line 462:
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from followng through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place.
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from followng through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place.
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for authomatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone would argue that situation is ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petitions is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for automatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone here would argue that situation is not ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petition is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


====RFCBEFORE on RECALL====
====RFCBEFORE on RECALL====

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307529374">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:26:59Z
Line 457: Line 457:
:Good table and stats. Maybe include links to the six recall petitions that were analysed? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:Good table and stats. Maybe include links to the six recall petitions that were analysed? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements. I know we disagree there's a difference, but to me that difference is valid and crucial. I'll even let slide the ones who clearly are simply reacting to alerts with a flurry of edits. But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want. That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"I'm going to disagree that there's no difference between simple inactivity -- a less-active admin who is editing just enough in an organic, non-gaming way -- and gaming the requirements."}}
::Except that very much constitutes [[begging the question|begs the question]], doesn't it? Rhetorially framing acts that fully comport with relevant policy as "gaming" is a false tautology. If an admin is at least engaged enough with the project to know that they are about to be procedurally desysoped, but is observationally engaged with the project still and anticipates being able to make use of the tools productively in the future, and therefore takes steps to comport with activity expectations to keep them, how is any of that in the least bit inconsistent with policy or the intent to do right by the project or the community? If the community wants to set stricter standards, that is one thing. But manifesting hidden extra "implicit" rules for these users on the fly? That's unreliable, unreasonable, and can only serve to disrupt process and foster ill will, to be perfectly blunt.
::{{tq|"But someone desysopped for inactivity who requests resysop because they're "now active again", then immediately becomes inactive again, has just proven they'll lie to get what they want.}}
::Or, and stay with me here: they are a user who acted in good faith and then had an unfortunate turn in their off-project life that prevented them from followng through. Or they just changed their mind. Assuming that such an admin was lying is an example of extreme ABF for a community member who showed enough commitment to this project to have passed RfA in the first place.
::{{tq|"That's a trust issue and has zero to do with inactivity."}}
::Well, let's say for the moment that were so: that cuts against the argument for not having a clear rule against using recall in cases where activity is the underlying concern. For example: if an admin were, on the last day before they qualified for authomatic removal of the tools, to go around blocking left and right in some concerning edge cases, then yes, I don't think anyone would argue that situation is ripe for recall. But as you say, at that point the petitions is clearly not based on inactivity itself but a significant indication of abuse of the tools themselves. Which is what recall is actually for. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


====RFCBEFORE on RECALL====
====RFCBEFORE on RECALL====

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307527134">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:06:20Z
Line 428: Line 428:
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


Line 434: Line 434:


:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC):::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307526979">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:04:55Z
Line 429: Line 429:
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC):::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC):::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307526800">diff</a>

2025-08-24T05:03:24Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, they don't get it. But the numerate among them may want to look at the numbers in [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians#Numbers of editors each year]]. Our overall editor numbers were stable until the pandemic lockdowns, and we got a bump in editors during the lockdowns. We expected that to reverse, and it did, but it's fallen even further since then. In particular, we are losing newbies and occasional contributors – the people who make one or two edits, 10 or 20 edits, even 50 or 100 edits in the course of a year. These are the people who write content, rather than running scripts. They are also the source of the next generation of editors. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost 5% of the editors who make just one or a few edits in the course of a whole year. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC):::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307526338">diff</a>

2025-08-24T04:59:05Z
Line 429: Line 429:
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that excede community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step in towards that refinement of the process that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. {{pb}}Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that exceed community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step towards that refinement of the process, and one that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307526070">diff</a>

2025-08-24T04:56:45Z
Line 429: Line 429:
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. {{pb}} You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. Part of how we ultimately got the process authorized was the argument that the ultimate procedure could be appropriately calibrated for the right cost-benefit result. Setting parameters to prevent specious arguments that excede community-agreed terms for de-sysoping for inactivity is an entirely reasonable step in towards that refinement of the process that preserves the core function of recall and protects the process and admins who are otherwise in good standing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307525193">diff</a>

2025-08-24T04:49:11Z
Line 429: Line 429:
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Maybe the community shouldn't say, out of one side of its mouth, that adminship can be reviewed, and then out of the other side of its mouth, say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters and carve out exceptions to community discussions. Maybe the editors who disagree with the community's very arduous journey towards RECALL should not try to immediately undermine it (despite the furore, the number of closed petitions a year on can be counted on one's fingers). Easy to make rhetorical formulations like that, and these ones don't even conflate procedural standards with a community process. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree: The community's written rules and practices should be consistent. I believe that one way to make those be consistent is to say that there are some limits to valid use of RECALL. For example, I don't think that outright bigoted complaints should be a valid RECALL petition, and if anyone started one with a discriminatory justification like 'We can't have an admin who is that race/nationality/gender/religion', I'd like to see it stopped and the editor blocked. I bet you would feel the same way. Thankfully that hasn't happened, but I don't really want to wait until it after it happens before we {{xt|say that actually admins cannot be reviewed on certain matters}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Respectfully, the recall process exists to give the community the ability to arrest habitual abuse of the tools, not to create opportunities for a relatively small number of editors (compared against those who authorized the bit in the first place) to conjure up complaints about activity levels that exceed the express standards which the community at large has already agreed to through consensus process. You're quite correct that the path towards recall was tedious and difficult. Much of that was because some feared the process would be too permissive and create knock-on effects which would result in it doing more harm than good. Many of us dismissed that concern as either histrionic or not sufficient to justify not having the process. I believe the resulting process will still end up being an advisable and beneficial development for project administration. But I think it's clear that the concerns have proven not unfounded. We do not need this process becoming a portal for parties to appoint themselves special prosecutor and go after admin tools on grounds which are not even supported by our own community-agreed standards on activity. It's bad for retention, its bad for community goodwill, and its bad for operation of oversite. Setting some guardrails here is not just good sense; I'd argue it's essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}
:::::::::::::::::In re {{xt|Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project?}}

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307513265">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:58:39Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have discussions proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307512881">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:55:30Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of abuse of the tools, or lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307512717">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:53:47Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the activity requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement through normal editing alone--a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307512565">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:52:09Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. {{pb}} We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications made above (and in the petitions cited) that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of bad faith activity merely because the admin in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. Their doing so still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen taken by a significant minority on this project that these users (whose dedication and contributions to the project are high enough that the community gave them the bit in the first place) are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. {{pb}} Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of policy verbiage that I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration are the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale. But if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no inquiry to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307512048">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:46:21Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. {{pb}} We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. {{pb}} We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocated for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an thus exacerbate the challenges with keeping admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307511767">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:43:34Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. {{pb}} We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307511649">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:42:15Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admisn are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dediciation and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoody rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a treshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated dicussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightlien failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambigously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pountless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambigous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexability for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harrassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. {{pb}}Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admins are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dedication and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoddy rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a threshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated discussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightline failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambiguously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pointless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambiguous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexibility for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307511506">diff</a>

2025-08-24T02:40:47Z
Line 427: Line 427:
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The point is not that inactivity was not involved in some cases, it is that any reason can be used for a recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::My point is that maybe "any reason" shouldn't be acceptable for a recall. Maybe the community should not say, out of one side of its mouth, that we have established some objective [[WP:INACTIVITY]] rules, and then say, out of the other side of its mouth, that any 25 editors who disagree with the community's compromise on inactivity is welcome to flout it by dragging rules-compliant admins off for a no-holds-barred [[WP:RECALL]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I could not possibly agree more. The implications above, and in the petitions cited, by various users implying that these admisn are "gaming the system" is incredibly euphemistic and worrisome. I fail to see how adhering to the standards the community has adopted becomes a form of activity in bad faith merely because the party in question complies with the minimum expected of the standard, or does so in a perfunctory or last minute manner. It still demonstrates they are engaged with the project and aware that they are at the floor of expectations. If the community wishes to raise that floor, it may do so, but it is one of the most staggering displays of [[WP:ABF]] that I have ever seen a significant minority take on this project that these users, whose dediciation and contributions to the are high enough that the community gave them the bit int he first place, are framed, by shoody rhetorical flourish, as having acted against the project's interests merely by hitting a treshold just above what the community has said it expects. Indeed, some of the speculation in those petitions is simply wild and/or downright ugly, and a real slap in the face to the work of these volunteers. I don't understand this reasoning at all. It seems to be based on the worst kind of [[WP:BURO]] thinking--a bit of community verbiage I am not disposed towards citing reflexively, because I think complex systems of administration is the name of the game on this project because of its nature and scale, but if ever there was an occasions to cite it, this is it. We've been in the middle of an admin retention crisis for years, and yet here we see a rush to desysop editors who have evidenced no indication of lack of abuse of the tools, lack of familiarity with evolving community standards, or security concerns. {{pb}} Both these petitions and the drive for more onerous inactivity guidelines seem the epitome of solutions in search of a problem, but at least with regard to the latter, I can see the situation as one where variation in upkeep with community standards in individual cases gives some grist for the mill for an ongoing conversation about calibrating the exact figures. Some of the cited petitions, on the other hand, are disturbingly wrong-headed, contain perspectives that are needlessly punitive of non-issues, and, I don't doubt, have deeply hurt the prospect of those admins continuing to contribute to the project at all, going forward. I'd certainly feel kicked in the teeth if I saw some of those comments directed at me as if I was a problem user trying to cling on to advanced permissions for nothing other than cred, merely because I didn't have the time to do more than the minimum, but did foresee using the tools for the betterment of the project moving forward, and so met those requirements. {{pb}}Bluntly, the drive to increase the threshold for inactivity reeks of [[WP:CREEP]]--another principle I think should be invoked sparingly, but which I think applies here. But at a minimum, I agree that no discussion to advance more restrictive standards should take place without integrated dicussion of establishing that admin recall and procedural desysoping for inactivity are parallel and separate processes, and that, whatever we decide the standards for activity are, it is only express, brightlien failure to meet those figures which triggers the desysoping for inactivity. Recall was unambigously created to address abuse of tools, and I recall a lot of us pushed back hard against those who advocating for no recall process at all, when they said it would be abused for this kind of nonsense an exacerbate the challenges with keep admins on the job. It's now time to push in the other direction and be as good as our word as to that. The only time I can ever fathom "gaming" to be an issue is when an admin takes an action against another editor in the 11th hour in order to satisfy the requirements. And that's highly unlikely to happen so long as admins can satisfy the requirement without administrative actions (a strong argument for preserving that aspect of the status quo at a minimum. {{pb}} These issues are part and parcel and cannot be discussed effectively in isolation for one-another. I'm open to reviewing the data and arguments for heightening the activity standards, but first we need to make it clear that whatever standard the community settles on, good faith administrator-contributors are not going to be hauled before recall on the most specious, pountless, tedious arguments that they are not operating in good faith, even when they meet those standards. I cam out vociferously in support of a recall process every time the subject came up (and began to despair that it would never happen) because I felt the community ought to have the ability to rescind those permissions it granted in the first place, and because accountability is essential to good governance. But nit-picking the heels of good faith mops over small margins on the metrics of their activities is not what I had in mind when I speculated on that need, and I think the vast majority of those of us who argued for the process would say the same.{{pb}} We need an unambigous delineation of the roles and standards for recall and procedural loss of the tools for inactivity. Recall should have flexability for the community to address substantive problem behaviour in those with the tools. Inactivity should have clear, firm standards, and admins should not be harrassed if they meet them, however minimally and formulaicly. {{pb}}Good golly, so much effort to put up walls on this project over recent years. On this very page right now, we have proposals proposing disempowerment of parties who run the gamut from the very newest editors all the way through to most veteran and trusted users. Do people not get just how critical our retention and recruitment problems are, and how dangerous this trend is to the long-term sustainability of the project? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{{od|14}} I've just looked at all the certified petitions and classified the supporters' comments based on how they relate to inactivity:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"

User talk:HiLo48

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307500274">diff</a>

2025-08-24T01:01:34Z
Line 40: Line 40:


:Thanks for that detailed explanation. Not complicated? LOL. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48#top|talk]]) 00:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for that detailed explanation. Not complicated? LOL. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48#top|talk]]) 00:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, for all their talk to the contrary, nobody does either idiomatic linguistic constructions or byzantine bureaucracies in all their flexible and frustrating aspects quite like Americans--don't let them tell you otherwise! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 August 9

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307497356">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:33:50Z
Line 59: Line 59:
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)


HiLo, A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
HiLo48, a fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 August 9

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307496746">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:29:10Z
Line 59: Line 59:
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)


HiLo, A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
=="College" in the U.S.==
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2025 August 9

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307496618">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:28:08Z
Line 58: Line 58:
:* Level of research activity. A "college" is usually mostly about teaching; a "university" will almost always do some original research.
:* Level of research activity. A "college" is usually mostly about teaching; a "university" will almost always do some original research.
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Note that there are many institutions that almost everyone would agree are universities that do not have "university" in the name. Dartmouth has already been mentioned, and many schools called "Institute of Technology" will also be in this category ([[MIT]], [[Caltech]]), but not all of them ([[Fashion Institute of Technology]]). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

=="College" in the U.S.==
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:HiLo48

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307496073">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:23:55Z
Line 54: Line 54:
=="College" in the U.S.==
=="College" in the U.S.==
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to not that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:HiLo48

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307496026">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:23:27Z
Line 54: Line 54:
=="College" in the U.S.==
=="College" in the U.S.==
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]] [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to not that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]]" [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to not that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:HiLo48

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307495933">diff</a>

2025-08-24T00:22:39Z
Line 52: Line 52:
|imagesize=50px
|imagesize=50px
}}
}}
=="College" in the U.S.==
Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.
{{u|HiLo48}} A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:{{pb}}First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy. {{pb}}To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.{{pb}} Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "[[Public_university#United_States|state university]] [[University_system#United_State|system]], of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with [[Ivy League]] institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program. {{pb}} It's important to not that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality. {{pb}} The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

HMS Phaeton (1782)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306887240">diff</a>

2025-08-20T07:35:45Z
Line 212: Line 212:


==In popular media==
==In popular media==
The Nagasaki Harbour Incident plays a role in the novel [[The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet]] by [[David Mitchell (author)|David Mitchell]]. However, this depiction is highly fictionalised; the ship in the novel is HMS Phoebus, the incident occurs in 1800 and finding no Dutch ships the Phoebus of the novel bombards Dejima.
The Nagasaki Harbour Incident plays a role in the novel [[The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet]] by [[David Mitchell (author)|David Mitchell]]. However, this depiction is highly fictionalized; the ship in the novel is HMS Phoebus, the incident occurs in 1800 and finding no Dutch ships the Phoebus of the novel, commanded by a Captain Pellew who is considerably older than the historical figure at this time, bombards Dejima.


The Nagasaki Harbour Incident plays a role in the novel [[Blood of Tyrants]] by [[Naomi Novik]]. This depiction is historical fantasy; the Japanese sink HMS Phaeton with [[dragon]]s stationed at Nagasaki at the time.
The Nagasaki Harbour Incident plays a role in the novel [[Blood of Tyrants]] by [[Naomi Novik]]. This depiction is historical fantasy; the Japanese sink HMS Phaeton with [[dragon]]s stationed at Nagasaki at the time.

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306518129">diff</a>

2025-08-18T04:54:39Z
Line 67: Line 67:
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Well put. Considering our years-long collective dragging of feet in authorizing the community recall process (something which I always found mystifying at the time), a propensity for over-leveraging the process hasn't taken long to establish itself. I always assumed (perhaps a bit naively, in retrospect) that the process would (bar the occasional abusive filing) be applied mostly for the most blatant and severe cases of violations of community trust. While I don't consider the policy rationales that underpin the activity requirements to be completely without merit, I do worry about moving the needle very much in terms of shortening the timeline for de-sysopping. We are already in a state of slow-rolling crisis when it come to administrative manpower. {{pb}}I certainly don't think it's helpful for recall petition's to be based upon such factors, even indirectly. I haven't looked at the discussions in question, but to the extent some of these are apparently based upon gaming the system to stay above thresholds of activity, I have to say this is one area where at least my initial impression is "game away": any editor that invested in keeping the tools that they are pushing out a few extra actions to comport with the stats as a technical matter is showing enough interest to justify their continued possession of the tools, barring a showing of other factors suggesting unfitness. Of course, the devil is in the details, so perhaps I'm missing important context. But again: at first blush, I am fully in support of an express rule that recall petitions should not be based on inactivity. Equally, as you say, discussion of a change in the activity threshold should be divorced, to the maximum degree achieveable, from the context of the recall petitions, which I think colour the percpetions of participants with more impressionistic and anecdotal influences by way of the [[availability heurestic]], whereas this is one area where we particularly want to predicating our approach in broader and empirically robust analysis. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Well put. Considering our years-long collective dragging of feet in authorizing the community recall process (something which I always found mystifying at the time), a propensity for over-leveraging the process hasn't taken long to establish itself. I always assumed (perhaps a bit naively, in retrospect) that the process would (bar the occasional abusive filing) be applied mostly for the most blatant and severe cases of violations of community trust. While I don't consider the policy rationales that underpin the activity requirements to be completely without merit, I do worry about moving the needle very much in terms of shortening the timeline for de-sysopping. We are already in a state of slow-rolling crisis when it come to administrative manpower. {{pb}}I certainly don't think it's helpful for recall petition's to be based upon such factors, even indirectly. I haven't looked at the discussions in question, but to the extent some of these are apparently based upon gaming the system to stay above thresholds of activity, I have to say this is one area where at least my initial impression is "game away": any editor that invested in keeping the tools that they are pushing out a few extra actions to comport with the stats as a technical matter is showing enough interest to justify their continued possession of the tools, barring a showing of other factors suggesting unfitness. Of course, the devil is in the details, so perhaps I'm missing important context. But again: at first blush, I am fully in support of an express rule that recall petitions should not be based on inactivity. Equally, as you say, discussion of a change in the activity threshold should be divorced, to the maximum degree achieveable, from the context of the recall petitions, which I think colour the percpetions of participants with more impressionistic and anecdotal influences by way of the [[availability heuristic]], whereas this is one area where we particularly want to predicating our approach in broader and empirically robust analysis. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306518070">diff</a>

2025-08-18T04:53:52Z
Line 67: Line 67:
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Well put. Considering our years-long collective dragging of feet in authorizing the community recall process (something which I always found mystifying at the time), a propensity for over-leveraging the process hasn't taken long to establish itself. I always assumed (perhaps a bit naively, in retrospect) that the process would (bar the occasional abusive filing) be applied mostly for the most blatant and severe cases of violations of community trust. While I don't consider the policy rationales that underpin the activity requirements to be completely without merit, I do worry about moving the needle very much in terms of shortening the timeline for de-sysopping. We are already in a state of slow-rolling crisis when it come to administrative manpower. {{pb}}I certainly don't think it's helpful for recall petition's to be based upon such factors, even indirectly. I haven't looked at the discussions in question, but to the extent some of these are apparently based upon gaming the system to stay above thresholds of activity, I have to say this is one area where at least my initial impression is "game away": any editor that invested in keeping the tools that they are pushing out a few extra actions to comport with the stats as a technical matter is showing enough interest to justify their continued possession of the tools, barring a showing of other factors suggesting unfitness. Of course, the devil is in the details, so perhaps I'm missing important context. But again: at first blush, I am fully in support of an express rule that recall petitions should not be based on inactivity. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Well put. Considering our years-long collective dragging of feet in authorizing the community recall process (something which I always found mystifying at the time), a propensity for over-leveraging the process hasn't taken long to establish itself. I always assumed (perhaps a bit naively, in retrospect) that the process would (bar the occasional abusive filing) be applied mostly for the most blatant and severe cases of violations of community trust. While I don't consider the policy rationales that underpin the activity requirements to be completely without merit, I do worry about moving the needle very much in terms of shortening the timeline for de-sysopping. We are already in a state of slow-rolling crisis when it come to administrative manpower. {{pb}}I certainly don't think it's helpful for recall petition's to be based upon such factors, even indirectly. I haven't looked at the discussions in question, but to the extent some of these are apparently based upon gaming the system to stay above thresholds of activity, I have to say this is one area where at least my initial impression is "game away": any editor that invested in keeping the tools that they are pushing out a few extra actions to comport with the stats as a technical matter is showing enough interest to justify their continued possession of the tools, barring a showing of other factors suggesting unfitness. Of course, the devil is in the details, so perhaps I'm missing important context. But again: at first blush, I am fully in support of an express rule that recall petitions should not be based on inactivity. Equally, as you say, discussion of a change in the activity threshold should be divorced, to the maximum degree achieveable, from the context of the recall petitions, which I think colour the percpetions of participants with more impressionistic and anecdotal influences by way of the [[availability heurestic]], whereas this is one area where we particularly want to predicating our approach in broader and empirically robust analysis. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306517361">diff</a>

2025-08-18T04:46:52Z
Line 67: Line 67:
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::But without an idea of what that phrase means to people, and whether that's their genuine reason or just the one that's socially acceptable for public consumption, it's impossible to know whether what we have works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*The recalls listed above as relating to inactivity were all closely tied to accountability (or lack of) in different ways. Procedural inactivity desysoppings are set at a very low bar deliberately, being technical and explicit, and adjusting the bar (even if it is merited for other reasons) would for the purposes of the diffuse concept of community discussion likely shift the grey area to whatever the new technical bar is. A change in requirements would further catch lower-activity admins who are engaged with the community, which is not something that I've seen expressed as desirable by any editor in discussions surrounding these Recalls. The recalls are not the best place to base a new discussion on inactivity from, as many of the suggestions that WP:INACTIVITY be updated were coming from those in opposition to these Recalls as something others may want to do, and so themselves don't represent belief that INACTIVITY needs changing/updating. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Well put. Considering our years-long collective dragging of feet in authorizing the community recall process (something which I always found mystifying at the time), a propensity for over-leveraging the process hasn't taken long to establish itself. I always assumed (perhaps a bit naively, in retrospect) that the process would (bar the occasional abusive filing) be applied mostly for the most blatant and severe cases of violations of community trust. While I don't consider the policy rationales that underpin the activity requirements to be completely without merit, I do worry about moving the needle very much in terms of shortening the timeline for de-sysopping. We are already in a state of slow-rolling crisis when it come to administrative manpower. {{pb}}I certainly don't think it's helpful for recall petition's to be based upon such factors, even indirectly. I haven't looked at the discussions in question, but to the extent some of these are apparently based upon gaming the system to stay above thresholds of activity, I have to say this is one area where at least my initial impression is "game away": any editor that invested in keeping the tools that they are pushing out a few extra actions to comport with the stats as a technical matter is showing enough interest to justify their continued possession of the tools, barring a showing of other factors suggesting unfitness. Of course, the devil is in the details, so perhaps I'm missing important context. But again: at first blush, I am fully in support of an express rule that recall petitions should not be based on inactivity. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*All I know for sure is that this gives weight to the idea that ADMINRECALL may need to eventually raise the signature threshold if it's going to be used as a place to get around community created activity guidelines, that's simply not what that venue was created for. I'm not advocating for any of those who lost the tools to keep them, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we're using recall for a purpose I'd argue it wasn't intended for. Also noting that the Master Jay case was about more than their activity. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I do not necessarily disagree with any of those points, just that this discussion is specifically to judge whether the activity thresholds currently are sufficient or not. What precisely should RECALL change, is a separate question. Either we believe the current procedural thresholds are strong enough, or we'll raise/lower it accordingly. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 17:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306306250">diff</a>

2025-08-17T02:16:53Z
Line 915: Line 915:
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns". . .}} Well no, not necessarily in every instance, but it can't be denied that this is often an aspect of such efforts. And I don't think it's entirely coincidence that others have raised colourable concerns that this was what was happening in the instant case. Whether Levivich was consciously attempting to deflect is a harder thing to prove (and I would suggest unproductive) but their very broad impugnment of the validity of the proposal is unambiguously a choice to eschew engagement with the proposal on its merits in favour of a [[fallacy of virtue]] argument. You're absolutely right that an ndef (indeed, any form of CBAN, insofar as it creates a mark of community censure) should be treated "with the greatest care possible". But that care is a product of the conscientiousness and perspicuity of our indivual deliberations and the fair application of our agreed upon behavioural standards. I don't see how either of those is enhanced by trying to erect barriers that prevent a non-trivial portion of our community from participating in vetting solutions to problems. Quite the contrary.{{pb}} I absolutely understand the impulse to treat them with more scrutiny, as you frame it. I would never blame someone for treating an IP proposal with extreme caution, nor from voicing to others that we should do so. Indeed, on that narrow issue I gave full-throated support to Levivich, despite finding their broader approach to the discussion disturbing and problematic. But there's a difference between having (and expressing) an extra dollop of doubt and instead turning towards blanket bans on access to processes that are meant to check abusive behaviour. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns". . .}} Well no, not necessarily in every instance, but it can't be denied that this is often an aspect of such efforts. And I don't think it's entirely coincidence that others have raised colourable concerns that this was what was happening in the instant case. Whether Levivich was consciously attempting to deflect is a harder thing to prove (and I would suggest unproductive) but their very broad impugnment of the validity of the proposal is unambiguously a choice to eschew engagement with the proposal on its merits in favour of a [[fallacy of virtue]] argument. You're absolutely right that an ndef (indeed, any form of CBAN, insofar as it creates a mark of community censure) should be treated "with the greatest care possible". But that care is a product of the conscientiousness and perspicuity of our indivual deliberations and the fair application of our agreed upon behavioural standards. I don't see how either of those is enhanced by trying to erect barriers that prevent a non-trivial portion of our community from participating in vetting solutions to problems. Quite the contrary.{{pb}} I absolutely understand the impulse to treat such proposals with more scrutiny, as you frame it. I would never blame someone for treating an IP proposal with extreme caution, nor from voicing to others that we should do so. Indeed, on that narrow issue I gave full-throated support to Levivich when they were accused of casting aspersions, despite finding their broader approach to the discussion despiriting and problematic. But there's a difference between having (and expressing) an extra dollop of doubt and instead turning towards blanket bans on access to processes that are meant to check abusive behaviour. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306302204">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:50:01Z
Line 910: Line 910:
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but, though I recognize that slippery slope arguments have their weaknesses, disenfranchisement of people on the periphery of a system always start with little moves like this, and the recent history of this project very much proves that said principle applies here. Even the presumption that non-established editors should be held in immediate suspicion while trying to participate in an important part of of our processes for applying behavioural norms and restraining abuse sets a bad precedent.{{pb}} We should only even contemplate such a move if there had been some extremely compelling evidence of a longterm destabilizing influence of the current openness of our structures. And bluntly, not only do we not have that, but no one here has even been able to point to so much as a single concrete example of abuse. I mean, what happened in the immediately relevant discussion concerning HEB? Someone made an overzealous (but hardly entirely unfounded) proposal that took us from 0 to 100. Par for the course at ANI and hardly something that is going to go away if we begin excising the access of IP contributors. A non-trivial number of community members supported (or rather, most tried to support more moderate efforts), but the majority of us just saw the proposal as premature and shot it down in quick order. The system worked precisely as designed, and even if the proposal had attracted overwhelming support, that would only have meant that there was even more merit to the proposal. And again, proposals like this are routinely the product of established editors and we do not harangue them for having a perspective out of lock-step with the majority. {{pb}} What harm was done here that even begins to justify this kind of re-assessment of access to our processes for as-yet un-established contributors. Because I am just not seeing how this can possibly pass a cost-benefit analysis when we consider the utter dearth of empirical evidence that there is an issue here, beyond hand-wringing about the unknown. This would be policy creep at its worst, and part of a pattern (deeply concerning to me at least) about increasingly insularizing our community spaces and processes. No thank you: not on this (lack of) evidence. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but, though I recognize that slippery slope arguments have their weaknesses, disenfranchisement of people on the periphery of a system always start with little moves like this, and the recent history of this project very much proves that said principle applies here. Even the presumption that non-established editors should be held in immediate suspicion while trying to participate in an important part of of our processes for applying behavioural norms and restraining abuse sets a bad precedent.{{pb}} We should only even contemplate such a move if there had been some extremely compelling evidence of a longterm destabilizing influence of the current openness of our structures. And bluntly, not only do we not have that, but no one here has even been able to point to so much as a single concrete example of abuse. {{pB}} I mean, afterall, what happened in the immediately relevant discussion concerning HEB? Someone made an overzealous (but hardly entirely unfounded) proposal that took us from 0 to 100. Par for the course at ANI and hardly something that is going to go away if we begin excising the access of IP contributors. A non-trivial number of community members supported (or rather, most tried to support more moderate efforts), but the majority of us just saw the proposal as premature and shot it down in quick order. The system worked precisely as designed, and even if the proposal had attracted overwhelming support, that would only have meant that there was even more merit to the proposal. And again, proposals like this are routinely the product of established editors and we do not harangue them for having a perspective out of lock-step with the majority. {{pb}} So, what harm was done here that even begins to justify this kind of re-assessment of access to our processes for as-yet un-established contributors? Because I am just not seeing how this can possibly pass a cost-benefit analysis when we consider the utter dearth of empirical evidence that there is an issue here, beyond hand-wringing about the unknown. This would be policy creep at its worst, and part of a pattern (deeply concerning to me at least) about increasingly insularizing our community spaces and processes. No thank you: not on this (lack of) evidence. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306301582">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:46:54Z
Line 910: Line 910:
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but, though I recognize that slippery slope arguments have their weaknesses, disenfranchisement of people on the priperhy of a system always start with little moves like this, and the recent history of this project very much proves that said principle applies here. Even the presumption that non-established editors should be held in immediate suspicion while trying to participate in an important part of of our processes for applying behavioural norms and restraining abuse sets a bad precedent.{{pb}} We should only even contemplate such a move if there had been some extremely compelling evidence of a longterm destabilizing influence of the current openess of our structures. And bluntly, not only do we not have that, but no one here has even been able to point to so much as a single concrete example of abuse. I mean, what happened in the immediately relevant discussion concerning HEB? Someone made an overzealous (but hardly entirely unfounded) proposal that took us from 0 to 100. Par for the course at ANI and hardly something that is going to go away if we begin excizing the access of IP contributors. A non-trivial number of community members supported (or rather, most tried to support more moderate efforts), but the majority of us just saw the proposal as premature and shot it down in quick order. The system worked preciesely as designed, and even if the proposal had attracted overwhelming support, that would only have meant that there was even more merit to the propsal. And again, proposals like this are routinely the product of established editors and we do not harngue them for having a persective out of lock-step with the majority. {{pb}} What harm was done here that even begins to justify this kind of re-assessment of access to our processes for as-yet un-established contrinutors. Because I am just not seeing how this can possibly pass a cost-benefit analysis when we consider the utter dearth of emprical evidence that there is an issue here, beyond hand-wringing about the unknown. This would be policy creep at its worst, and part of a pattern (deeply concerning to me at least) about increasinly insularizing our community spaces and processes. No thank you: not on this (lack of) evidence. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but, though I recognize that slippery slope arguments have their weaknesses, disenfranchisement of people on the periphery of a system always start with little moves like this, and the recent history of this project very much proves that said principle applies here. Even the presumption that non-established editors should be held in immediate suspicion while trying to participate in an important part of of our processes for applying behavioural norms and restraining abuse sets a bad precedent.{{pb}} We should only even contemplate such a move if there had been some extremely compelling evidence of a longterm destabilizing influence of the current openness of our structures. And bluntly, not only do we not have that, but no one here has even been able to point to so much as a single concrete example of abuse. I mean, what happened in the immediately relevant discussion concerning HEB? Someone made an overzealous (but hardly entirely unfounded) proposal that took us from 0 to 100. Par for the course at ANI and hardly something that is going to go away if we begin excising the access of IP contributors. A non-trivial number of community members supported (or rather, most tried to support more moderate efforts), but the majority of us just saw the proposal as premature and shot it down in quick order. The system worked precisely as designed, and even if the proposal had attracted overwhelming support, that would only have meant that there was even more merit to the proposal. And again, proposals like this are routinely the product of established editors and we do not harangue them for having a perspective out of lock-step with the majority. {{pb}} What harm was done here that even begins to justify this kind of re-assessment of access to our processes for as-yet un-established contributors. Because I am just not seeing how this can possibly pass a cost-benefit analysis when we consider the utter dearth of empirical evidence that there is an issue here, beyond hand-wringing about the unknown. This would be policy creep at its worst, and part of a pattern (deeply concerning to me at least) about increasingly insularizing our community spaces and processes. No thank you: not on this (lack of) evidence. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306300690">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:40:34Z
Line 113: Line 113:
::::::::::::I'm going to be honest with you, IP: from my review so far I think you might have a slightly stronger argument when it comes to the sourcing/content bit itself, but you've done immense damage to your own position with how you have approached this situation. Now that I am clued into the meme's meaning, I must tell you that the triple parenthesis thing in particular is a big problem and could possibly get you blocked. The only reason I haven't flagged it for an admin myself is that when I look at the full context and how you used it, I suspect it was meant to be ironic and demonstrate your opposition to antisemitism. But even if I am correct about that, you need to realize that, in a context like this in particular, that detail can get easily lost. You all need to stop speculating about what you suspect eachother's backgrounds, motives, and biases to be, and keep things focused on content, policy, and sourcing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm going to be honest with you, IP: from my review so far I think you might have a slightly stronger argument when it comes to the sourcing/content bit itself, but you've done immense damage to your own position with how you have approached this situation. Now that I am clued into the meme's meaning, I must tell you that the triple parenthesis thing in particular is a big problem and could possibly get you blocked. The only reason I haven't flagged it for an admin myself is that when I look at the full context and how you used it, I suspect it was meant to be ironic and demonstrate your opposition to antisemitism. But even if I am correct about that, you need to realize that, in a context like this in particular, that detail can get easily lost. You all need to stop speculating about what you suspect eachother's backgrounds, motives, and biases to be, and keep things focused on content, policy, and sourcing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I appreciate your willingness to understand the full context of my comment being in total opposition to antisemitism. My one sticking point is that assuming good faith only goes so far. While I appreciate the necessity of AGF to keep the project from spiralling into unhelpful duelling accusations of bad faith, I think that it's necessary to be vigilant about nationalist editing and to sometimes [[WP:NORACISTS|call a spade a spade]] when the criteria clearly fits a pattern of behaviour all too common to spades. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 22:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I appreciate your willingness to understand the full context of my comment being in total opposition to antisemitism. My one sticking point is that assuming good faith only goes so far. While I appreciate the necessity of AGF to keep the project from spiralling into unhelpful duelling accusations of bad faith, I think that it's necessary to be vigilant about nationalist editing and to sometimes [[WP:NORACISTS|call a spade a spade]] when the criteria clearly fits a pattern of behaviour all too common to spades. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 22:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's only human nature (and sometimes good instinct) to have such suspicions, but by policy ([[WP:FOC]]) they do not belong here as a part of your arguments on the approach we should be taking to content. If you have suspicions supported by substantial evidence of behaviours that rise to the level of policy violations, take them to a relevant behavioural forum. But personal speculation about the background, motives, biases, failings, and character of your fellow contributors have no place in article talk space discussion. If you can't comport with that expectation and discuss content proposals and disputes purely on the merits of the arguments and policy, this is not the project for you. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}} Ok, you two, back to your corners, please? AssanEcho did precisely the right thing in seeking outside perspectives to end this deadlock, so I highly recommend you both take a pause for the cause and wait for some of that feedback before re-engaging in more cycles of the circular argumentation you seem to be stuck in with one-another. I for one will need a day or more to find the time to review the sources to provide a firm opinion on this matter, so please be patient in the meantime: you might very well get responses before then. {{pb}}But as an initial matter, to address the ancillary behavioural bit here: I'm not super impressed by the nature of a lot of the commentary in the immediately previous messages above. JJNito, attempting to undermine your rhetorical opposition's argument by reference to the areas they have previously contributed to, your personal speculation about their motives, and the deficiencies you presume in their understanding of this topic are wholly irrelevant arguments in a content discussion on this project--and indeed, to the extent you have done it here and considering your specific verbiage, I would say it's crossed into [[WP:battleground]] territory. Please keep your commentary focused on the content arguments provided, and completely away from speculation about the capabilities and outlook of involved editors, as those are not appropriate topics for an article talk page. On the other hand, 69.156.104.108, you have hardly been a paragon in this respect yourself: JJNitto may have overtaken you in this department, but you got the ball rolling on the bulverism/[[WP:AGF|ABF]] party here, at least as far as this thread is concerned.{{pb}}This behaviour is frustrating because both of you have made salient points on the actual content issue, insofar as I can tell before digging deeper into the sources, but overall you are [[WP:DISRUPT|disrupting]] the discussion and muddying the waters by personalizing the difference of opinion. Both of you stand to possibly be removed from this sphere if you keep this level of animosity and lack of focus on the content up, but at a minimum you are currently bringing much more heat than light. Please try to adopt a more restrained approach like AassanEcho brought to their prompt. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 23:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}} Ok, you two, back to your corners, please? AssanEcho did precisely the right thing in seeking outside perspectives to end this deadlock, so I highly recommend you both take a pause for the cause and wait for some of that feedback before re-engaging in more cycles of the circular argumentation you seem to be stuck in with one-another. I for one will need a day or more to find the time to review the sources to provide a firm opinion on this matter, so please be patient in the meantime: you might very well get responses before then. {{pb}}But as an initial matter, to address the ancillary behavioural bit here: I'm not super impressed by the nature of a lot of the commentary in the immediately previous messages above. JJNito, attempting to undermine your rhetorical opposition's argument by reference to the areas they have previously contributed to, your personal speculation about their motives, and the deficiencies you presume in their understanding of this topic are wholly irrelevant arguments in a content discussion on this project--and indeed, to the extent you have done it here and considering your specific verbiage, I would say it's crossed into [[WP:battleground]] territory. Please keep your commentary focused on the content arguments provided, and completely away from speculation about the capabilities and outlook of involved editors, as those are not appropriate topics for an article talk page. On the other hand, 69.156.104.108, you have hardly been a paragon in this respect yourself: JJNitto may have overtaken you in this department, but you got the ball rolling on the bulverism/[[WP:AGF|ABF]] party here, at least as far as this thread is concerned.{{pb}}This behaviour is frustrating because both of you have made salient points on the actual content issue, insofar as I can tell before digging deeper into the sources, but overall you are [[WP:DISRUPT|disrupting]] the discussion and muddying the waters by personalizing the difference of opinion. Both of you stand to possibly be removed from this sphere if you keep this level of animosity and lack of focus on the content up, but at a minimum you are currently bringing much more heat than light. Please try to adopt a more restrained approach like AassanEcho brought to their prompt. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 23:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306298992">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:29:14Z
Line 915: Line 915:
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns". . .}} Well no, not necessarily in every instance, but it can't be denied that this is often an aspect of such efforts. And I don't think it's entirely coincidence that others have raised colourable concerns that this was what was happening in the instant case. Whether Levivich was consciously attempting to deflect is a harder thing to prove (and I would suggest unproductive) but their very broad impugnment of the validity of the proposal is unambigously a choice to eschew engagement with the proposal on its merits in favour of a [[fallacy of virtue]] argument. You're absolutely right that an ndef (indeed, any form of CBAN, insofar as it creates a mark of community censure) should be treated "with the greatest care possible". But that care is a product of the conscientiousness and perpiscuity of our indivual deliberations and the fair application of our agreed upon behavioural expectations. I don't see how either of those is enhanced by trying to errect barriers that prevent a non-trivial portion of our community from participating in vetting solutions to problems. Quite the contrary. I absolutely understand the impulse to treat them with more scrutiny, as you frame it. I would never blame someone for treating an IP proposal with extreme caution, nor from voicing to others that we should do so. Indeed, on that narrow issue I gave full throated support to Levivich, despite finding their broader approach to the discussion disturbing and problematic. But there's a difference between having (and expressing) an extra dollop of doubt and instead turning towards blanket bans on access to processes that are meant to check abusive behaviour. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns". . .}} Well no, not necessarily in every instance, but it can't be denied that this is often an aspect of such efforts. And I don't think it's entirely coincidence that others have raised colourable concerns that this was what was happening in the instant case. Whether Levivich was consciously attempting to deflect is a harder thing to prove (and I would suggest unproductive) but their very broad impugnment of the validity of the proposal is unambiguously a choice to eschew engagement with the proposal on its merits in favour of a [[fallacy of virtue]] argument. You're absolutely right that an ndef (indeed, any form of CBAN, insofar as it creates a mark of community censure) should be treated "with the greatest care possible". But that care is a product of the conscientiousness and perspicuity of our indivual deliberations and the fair application of our agreed upon behavioural standards. I don't see how either of those is enhanced by trying to erect barriers that prevent a non-trivial portion of our community from participating in vetting solutions to problems. Quite the contrary.{{pb}} I absolutely understand the impulse to treat them with more scrutiny, as you frame it. I would never blame someone for treating an IP proposal with extreme caution, nor from voicing to others that we should do so. Indeed, on that narrow issue I gave full-throated support to Levivich, despite finding their broader approach to the discussion disturbing and problematic. But there's a difference between having (and expressing) an extra dollop of doubt and instead turning towards blanket bans on access to processes that are meant to check abusive behaviour. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306298638">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:26:58Z
Line 915: Line 915:
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns"; I see good faith efforts to treat proposed indefinite blocks of long-standing users (or anyone) with the greatest care possible -- and that means a drive-by proposal to do the harshest possible thing we can to an editor from someone with no edit history gets scrutiny. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How is an indefinite block the harshest possible thing we can do to an editor? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You see bad faith efforts to "deflect concerns". . .}} Well no, not necessarily in every instance, but it can't be denied that this is often an aspect of such efforts. And I don't think it's entirely coincidence that others have raised colourable concerns that this was what was happening in the instant case. Whether Levivich was consciously attempting to deflect is a harder thing to prove (and I would suggest unproductive) but their very broad impugnment of the validity of the proposal is unambigously a choice to eschew engagement with the proposal on its merits in favour of a [[fallacy of virtue]] argument. You're absolutely right that an ndef (indeed, any form of CBAN, insofar as it creates a mark of community censure) should be treated "with the greatest care possible". But that care is a product of the conscientiousness and perpiscuity of our indivual deliberations and the fair application of our agreed upon behavioural expectations. I don't see how either of those is enhanced by trying to errect barriers that prevent a non-trivial portion of our community from participating in vetting solutions to problems. Quite the contrary. I absolutely understand the impulse to treat them with more scrutiny, as you frame it. I would never blame someone for treating an IP proposal with extreme caution, nor from voicing to others that we should do so. Indeed, on that narrow issue I gave full throated support to Levivich, despite finding their broader approach to the discussion disturbing and problematic. But there's a difference between having (and expressing) an extra dollop of doubt and instead turning towards blanket bans on access to processes that are meant to check abusive behaviour. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why should we subject ourselves to scrutiny by people with no editing history, by any random person on the internet? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are
::That's the wrong question. The right questions are

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306295566">diff</a>

2025-08-17T01:05:12Z
Line 910: Line 910:
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end?}} - No. We're just preventing someone with no edit history from proposing a sanction against someone in a matter they're not already involved with. ...Unless they demonstrate that they do have a history. I agree with what a couple other people said that how to demonstrate as much would be tricky, though. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but, though I recognize that slippery slope arguments have their weaknesses, disenfranchisement of people on the priperhy of a system always start with little moves like this, and the recent history of this project very much proves that said principle applies here. Even the presumption that non-established editors should be held in immediate suspicion while trying to participate in an important part of of our processes for applying behavioural norms and restraining abuse sets a bad precedent.{{pb}} We should only even contemplate such a move if there had been some extremely compelling evidence of a longterm destabilizing influence of the current openess of our structures. And bluntly, not only do we not have that, but no one here has even been able to point to so much as a single concrete example of abuse. I mean, what happened in the immediately relevant discussion concerning HEB? Someone made an overzealous (but hardly entirely unfounded) proposal that took us from 0 to 100. Par for the course at ANI and hardly something that is going to go away if we begin excizing the access of IP contributors. A non-trivial number of community members supported (or rather, most tried to support more moderate efforts), but the majority of us just saw the proposal as premature and shot it down in quick order. The system worked preciesely as designed, and even if the proposal had attracted overwhelming support, that would only have meant that there was even more merit to the propsal. And again, proposals like this are routinely the product of established editors and we do not harngue them for having a persective out of lock-step with the majority. {{pb}} What harm was done here that even begins to justify this kind of re-assessment of access to our processes for as-yet un-established contrinutors. Because I am just not seeing how this can possibly pass a cost-benefit analysis when we consider the utter dearth of emprical evidence that there is an issue here, beyond hand-wringing about the unknown. This would be policy creep at its worst, and part of a pattern (deeply concerning to me at least) about increasinly insularizing our community spaces and processes. No thank you: not on this (lack of) evidence. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 01:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306292363">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:39:27Z
Line 939: Line 939:
::::Reporters are open for scrutiny, and changing that is not proposed. The only change would be that when someone (anyone) makes a proposal discussion of that proposal needs to remain focused on that proposal. The reporter's conduct is and will remain firmly open for scrutiny, it just needs to happen in a different (sub)section to discussion of their proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Reporters are open for scrutiny, and changing that is not proposed. The only change would be that when someone (anyone) makes a proposal discussion of that proposal needs to remain focused on that proposal. The reporter's conduct is and will remain firmly open for scrutiny, it just needs to happen in a different (sub)section to discussion of their proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. Adding to this, the general discussion (that usually and ideally takes place before specific sanctions get proposed) can touch on the behavior of everyone involved. I just want the discussions of sanction proposals to be streamlined, so that issues with one editor's conduct don't derail a proposal for sanctions on another editor. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. Adding to this, the general discussion (that usually and ideally takes place before specific sanctions get proposed) can touch on the behavior of everyone involved. I just want the discussions of sanction proposals to be streamlined, so that issues with one editor's conduct don't derail a proposal for sanctions on another editor. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::A little formalistic and bureaucratic, but honestly ANI could arguably use a little more structure in that respect. This seems like it would preserve the access of IP editors to the process, but create a channel for any legitimate discussion about abusive proposals. I really only have two concerns. 1) it's not the most intuitive idea in the world, especially for free-wheeling ANI, so I'm wondering if people won't become easily confused about how to initiate and proceed with such side discussions, and 2) I worry that formalizing a process for investigating the basis of proposals will lead to automatic (and quickly streamlined and weaponized) witch hunt responses to every IP proposal. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::That is not how [[WP:FOC]] works at all. We don't create subsections on RfCs to discuss the nominator. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::That is not how [[WP:FOC]] works at all. We don't create subsections on RfCs to discuss the nominator. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that is because RfCs are not the place to discuss such issues – sorry for my imperfect analogy. But if a RfC's nominator shows conduct issues, then [[WP:FOC]] doesn't make them immune to scrutiny, but their conduct shouldn't be a factor in !voting for or against the RfC. Instead, it is to be taken to an appropriate place (usually ANI).{{pb}}In the same way, an ANI commenter's conduct isn't immune to scrutiny either, but it shouldn't come into play in !voting for or against their proposal, and is to be taken to an appropriate place (a (sub)thread not already focused on a separate proposal). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that is because RfCs are not the place to discuss such issues – sorry for my imperfect analogy. But if a RfC's nominator shows conduct issues, then [[WP:FOC]] doesn't make them immune to scrutiny, but their conduct shouldn't be a factor in !voting for or against the RfC. Instead, it is to be taken to an appropriate place (usually ANI).{{pb}}In the same way, an ANI commenter's conduct isn't immune to scrutiny either, but it shouldn't come into play in !voting for or against their proposal, and is to be taken to an appropriate place (a (sub)thread not already focused on a separate proposal). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306290322">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:25:34Z
Line 148: Line 148:
:::Well in the hopes of being totally transparent... I am myself skepitcal even despite the sources that I respect about whether or not the SSNP can still be called fascist (though i stress that i still find them near totally condemable) but that is such a large project and would really be, I feel borderline even unnecessary since I will also say that going "No, they arent fascist, they are merely highly violent and authoritarian far right party" would both be taking piss and being obnoxiously pedantic to everyone involved in this article's history.
:::Well in the hopes of being totally transparent... I am myself skepitcal even despite the sources that I respect about whether or not the SSNP can still be called fascist (though i stress that i still find them near totally condemable) but that is such a large project and would really be, I feel borderline even unnecessary since I will also say that going "No, they arent fascist, they are merely highly violent and authoritarian far right party" would both be taking piss and being obnoxiously pedantic to everyone involved in this article's history.
:::If the proposed changes I invision for this article are kept (removing ONLY those three sources on the infobox claim while leaving the other two and the {{better source needed}} on the election article) then I'll just move on from this article unless i notice some other minor issue like copy editing or something, but even if the conscensus goes to keeping it how it is I'll go do something else regardless since Im pretty burnt out on this page.(I think you can even see me making more edits in my contribution history to other pages after doing the first edit to this page)(cntrl F "BOLD" to find it). [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 14:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If the proposed changes I invision for this article are kept (removing ONLY those three sources on the infobox claim while leaving the other two and the {{better source needed}} on the election article) then I'll just move on from this article unless i notice some other minor issue like copy editing or something, but even if the conscensus goes to keeping it how it is I'll go do something else regardless since Im pretty burnt out on this page.(I think you can even see me making more edits in my contribution history to other pages after doing the first edit to this page)(cntrl F "BOLD" to find it). [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 14:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That's fair enough: I've seen similar middle-ground perspectives from you in the foregoing discussions and I take them at face value. I just to emphasize again, though, that the arguments based on stamping our personal approval on the internal reasoning of sources is not really consistent with sourcing policy, and would have very little chance of carrying the day here, if we were talking about removing the descriptor altogether. And I do think that [[WP:ONUS]] would be met in this instance easily as well. Sources do not need to be completely pre-occupied with the subject of an article in order to be cited for facts they cover, even incidentally. Again, it's just not our place as editors ont his project to substitute our judgment for that of the sources. That would be unambigous [[WP:original research]]. Considering your much more modest goals, though, [[WP:overcite]] does have some relevance. Can you give me your impressions on the compromise solution I have suggested to the IP below? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Again, AssanEcho's argument has no salience with sourcing policy. It isn't relevant whether labels are deemed "perjorative" in RS by individual editors and it's nonsensical to say an article that centers on a scandal surrounding the SSNP precisely because it is fascist lacks weight in a section describing its ideological positioning as a fascist party. Fundamentally, they are challenging the content of the sources when that is an academic discussion and not an editorial one.
::Again, AssanEcho's argument has no salience with sourcing policy. It isn't relevant whether labels are deemed "perjorative" in RS by individual editors and it's nonsensical to say an article that centers on a scandal surrounding the SSNP precisely because it is fascist lacks weight in a section describing its ideological positioning as a fascist party. Fundamentally, they are challenging the content of the sources when that is an academic discussion and not an editorial one.
::This is also the first time they've brought up OVERCITE, which makes me further suspicious that they are trying to civil POV push. It feels like deja vu with another user in this conversation who likes trying to come up with different and often directly contradictory justifications to reach their desired outcome (removing the fascist label entirely) Frankly, I do not care about "assurances" because they do not mean anything or have bearing in future discussion. That doesn't preclude us working together in good faith on sourcing though. The fundamental issue here, aside from not consulting Talk, is that when citations are trimmed down, the arguments for removing the label become "there aren't enough sources/the sources available are too weak." I am extremely wary of this behaviour because this has happened before on this page, and I don't look kindly on these edits when the sources being left in the infobox are the weakest. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::This is also the first time they've brought up OVERCITE, which makes me further suspicious that they are trying to civil POV push. It feels like deja vu with another user in this conversation who likes trying to come up with different and often directly contradictory justifications to reach their desired outcome (removing the fascist label entirely) Frankly, I do not care about "assurances" because they do not mean anything or have bearing in future discussion. That doesn't preclude us working together in good faith on sourcing though. The fundamental issue here, aside from not consulting Talk, is that when citations are trimmed down, the arguments for removing the label become "there aren't enough sources/the sources available are too weak." I am extremely wary of this behaviour because this has happened before on this page, and I don't look kindly on these edits when the sources being left in the infobox are the weakest. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306289091">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:16:05Z
Line 150: Line 150:
::Again, AssanEcho's argument has no salience with sourcing policy. It isn't relevant whether labels are deemed "perjorative" in RS by individual editors and it's nonsensical to say an article that centers on a scandal surrounding the SSNP precisely because it is fascist lacks weight in a section describing its ideological positioning as a fascist party. Fundamentally, they are challenging the content of the sources when that is an academic discussion and not an editorial one.
::Again, AssanEcho's argument has no salience with sourcing policy. It isn't relevant whether labels are deemed "perjorative" in RS by individual editors and it's nonsensical to say an article that centers on a scandal surrounding the SSNP precisely because it is fascist lacks weight in a section describing its ideological positioning as a fascist party. Fundamentally, they are challenging the content of the sources when that is an academic discussion and not an editorial one.
::This is also the first time they've brought up OVERCITE, which makes me further suspicious that they are trying to civil POV push. It feels like deja vu with another user in this conversation who likes trying to come up with different and often directly contradictory justifications to reach their desired outcome (removing the fascist label entirely) Frankly, I do not care about "assurances" because they do not mean anything or have bearing in future discussion. That doesn't preclude us working together in good faith on sourcing though. The fundamental issue here, aside from not consulting Talk, is that when citations are trimmed down, the arguments for removing the label become "there aren't enough sources/the sources available are too weak." I am extremely wary of this behaviour because this has happened before on this page, and I don't look kindly on these edits when the sources being left in the infobox are the weakest. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::This is also the first time they've brought up OVERCITE, which makes me further suspicious that they are trying to civil POV push. It feels like deja vu with another user in this conversation who likes trying to come up with different and often directly contradictory justifications to reach their desired outcome (removing the fascist label entirely) Frankly, I do not care about "assurances" because they do not mean anything or have bearing in future discussion. That doesn't preclude us working together in good faith on sourcing though. The fundamental issue here, aside from not consulting Talk, is that when citations are trimmed down, the arguments for removing the label become "there aren't enough sources/the sources available are too weak." I am extremely wary of this behaviour because this has happened before on this page, and I don't look kindly on these edits when the sources being left in the infobox are the weakest. [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, perhaps there is a compromise here, since [[WP:OVERCITE]] is a real, if minor, concern, regardless of whether it is just being mentioned. We could leave the strongest of the three sources in, meaning three sources total (plus the detailed main body discussion) would still support that entry. We could also place a hidden message in the markup for that field explaining that the title and the existing sources are supported by consensus and that no change should be made without first securing a new consensus here on the talk page. We could additionally place a notice to the same effect above. That should be more than enough to short circuit any kind of slow erosion/end run attempts to remove the label from the infobox without detailed discussion and consensus for that change. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306287187">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:03:15Z
Line 800: Line 800:
You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


:I gotcha, {{u|Baseball Bugs}}[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC): happy to follow your [[WP:BEANS]] call on this. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't complicating some poorly-educated individual's clumsy attempts to find reproductive health resources. But if you're confident this the latest iteration of a recurrent troll, that's good enough for me. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:I gotcha, {{u|Baseball Bugs}}: happy to follow your [[WP:BEANS]] call on this. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't complicating some poorly-educated individual's clumsy attempts to find reproductive health resources. But if you're confident this the latest iteration of a recurrent troll, that's good enough for me. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306287153">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:02:56Z
Line 800: Line 800:
You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


:I gotcha, {{u|baseball bugs}}: happy to follow your [[WP:BEANS]] call on this. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't complicating some poorly-educated individual's clumsy attempts to find reproductive health resources. But if you're confident this the latest iteration of a recurrent troll, that's good enough for me. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:I gotcha, {{u|Baseball Bugs}}[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC): happy to follow your [[WP:BEANS]] call on this. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't complicating some poorly-educated individual's clumsy attempts to find reproductive health resources. But if you're confident this the latest iteration of a recurrent troll, that's good enough for me. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306287100">diff</a>

2025-08-17T00:02:33Z
Line 799: Line 799:


You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right that it's important not to make too big a fuss, as it just eggs them on. In the case of this character, his tells are very obvious to those of us who are unfortunately all too familiar with them. And so it goes. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

:I gotcha, {{u|baseball bugs}}: happy to follow your [[WP:BEANS]] call on this. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't complicating some poorly-educated individual's clumsy attempts to find reproductive health resources. But if you're confident this the latest iteration of a recurrent troll, that's good enough for me. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 00:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306186678">diff</a>

2025-08-16T11:31:04Z
Line 907: Line 907:
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad bad actors and their only purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't think I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument essentially boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad actors, and their true purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


== Skin selector for users not logged in ==
== Skin selector for users not logged in ==

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306186478">diff</a>

2025-08-16T11:29:11Z
Line 907: Line 907:
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument boils down to "This newcomer/outsider can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad bad actors and their only purposes to disrupt and take advantage." {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres this type of reasoning represents an especially poorly-considered and impressionistic kind of logic. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument boils down to {{tq|"This newcomer/outsider (or at least person who looks like one) can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad bad actors and their only purposes to disrupt and take advantage."}} {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres where it appears, this type of impressionistic, reactionary, and ramshackle thinking has obvious flaws and tends to appear in particular circumstances. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


== Skin selector for users not logged in ==
== Skin selector for users not logged in ==

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306186094">diff</a>

2025-08-16T11:25:39Z
Line 906: Line 906:
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This proposal risks being just another barrier that is used by experienced users to avoid scrutiny. If you look at the ANI thread that's provoked this, then these sorts of arguments (that proposals from IP editors should be dismissed automatically) are being used in an attempt to deflect concerns about behaviour of a very experienced editor, where other experienced editors are agreeing with the IP.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 09:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, and while the last thing I would typically want to do is inject polemics into a Wikipedia discussion, I don't I can avoid the feeling that there is something disquietingly familiar to what we see in the world at large right now when the argument boils down to "This newcomer/outsider can't possibly have something of value to say if they are criticizing one of us. And if they are calling out abuse, they are probably bad bad actors and their only purposes to disrupt and take advantage." {{pb}} And let me be clear: I don't meant to imply that anyone who embraces this attitude on-project is necessarily someone likely to embrace it in other contexts. I'm just saying that in all spheres this type of reasoning represents an especially poorly-considered and impressionistic kind of logic. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


== Skin selector for users not logged in ==
== Skin selector for users not logged in ==

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306184213">diff</a>

2025-08-16T11:10:31Z
Line 269: Line 269:
So...normally I would respect the close box and the call of a regular colleague make a troll call, but in this case I think it is worth asking: are we sure this is not someone very young and/or from a culture where discussion of reliable facts about reproductive health is taboo or restricted enough that they felt awkward asking these questions without a cover story? what exactly was asked, last time? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
So...normally I would respect the close box and the call of a regular colleague make a troll call, but in this case I think it is worth asking: are we sure this is not someone very young and/or from a culture where discussion of reliable facts about reproductive health is taboo or restricted enough that they felt awkward asking these questions without a cover story? what exactly was asked, last time? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:The user is a long-standing troll who always gets around to griping about some TV show and some plot line about pregnancy. His geolocate could indicate anywhere in the world, as he is presumably using a VPN tool to accomplish that bit of fakery. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:The user is a long-standing troll who always gets around to griping about some TV show and some plot line about pregnancy. His geolocate could indicate anywhere in the world, as he is presumably using a VPN tool to accomplish that bit of fakery. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks for the extra context, Bugs: feel free to manually erase my inquiry and your own post, if you think that is the best approach to [[WP:DENY]] in this instance. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 11:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 16 =
= August 16 =

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306172252">diff</a>

2025-08-16T09:27:03Z
Line 266: Line 266:
[[File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ([[User talk:Baseball Bugs#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Baseball Bugs|contribs]]) 20:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ([[User talk:Baseball Bugs#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Baseball Bugs|contribs]]) 20:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}

So...normally I would respect the close box and the call of a regular colleague make a troll call, but in this case I think it is worth asking: are we sure this is not someone very young and/or from a culture where discussion of reliable facts about reproductive health is taboo or restricted enough that they felt awkward asking these questions without a cover story? what exactly was asked, last time? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 16 =
= August 16 =

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306171312">diff</a>

2025-08-16T09:18:59Z
Line 1,032: Line 1,032:
*:::::::::::::It is a good block. This pedantic nonsense about "I didn't really insult anyone, I just insulted near someone and that isn't the same!" is beneath us, especially with the aggression and incivility to, well, everyone. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::It is a good block. This pedantic nonsense about "I didn't really insult anyone, I just insulted near someone and that isn't the same!" is beneath us, especially with the aggression and incivility to, well, everyone. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I guess I don't have the interpretative authority to call it a bad block, but I find it an unnecessary block (apparently, you find it a "good" block, and that is ok). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I guess I don't have the interpretative authority to call it a bad block, but I find it an unnecessary block (apparently, you find it a "good" block, and that is ok). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Once again, my opinion runs down the center of perspectives here. I guess it's just one of those threads for me this time. Because I've already said (and stand by the assessment) that what Levivich said was not really an aspersions violation. But I also don't think Bushranger was [[WP:involved]] here: allow users to short-circuit blocks after a warning merely by folding the warning admin into the cautioned behaviour, and the flood of abuse will be profound. I may not agree that this comment in particular is what Levivich should have been criticized for, but Bushranger was within their administrative discretion, and Levivich chose to call that bluff. I don't have to agree with every call and admin makes in order to feel their actions should generally stand, outside a clear abuse of privilege under the ban policy, or other major PAG violation. This was not such an exceptional case, imo. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Also, [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] says {{tqq|On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe.}} That doesn't apply to anything I've written here. To the extent that I've accused another editor of misbehavior--a dynamic IP proposing the siteban, or other editors supporting it--I did not do so without evidence; the evidence is right here on this page. So please don't accuse me (repeatedly) of doing something that I haven't done. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Also, [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] says {{tqq|On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe.}} That doesn't apply to anything I've written here. To the extent that I've accused another editor of misbehavior--a dynamic IP proposing the siteban, or other editors supporting it--I did not do so without evidence; the evidence is right here on this page. So please don't accuse me (repeatedly) of doing something that I haven't done. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::That might technically be true, in the sense that you haven't explicitly "accused" anyone, but instead only "hinted" that everyone should assume that there's something nefarious going on with the IP editor.
*:::::::::That might technically be true, in the sense that you haven't explicitly "accused" anyone, but instead only "hinted" that everyone should assume that there's something nefarious going on with the IP editor.

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306167421">diff</a>

2025-08-16T08:50:08Z
Line 904: Line 904:
:It can be a user like myself who has been around since 2003 and who doesn't want to create an account. [[Special:Contributions/199.224.113.11|199.224.113.11]] ([[User talk:199.224.113.11|talk]]) 02:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:It can be a user like myself who has been around since 2003 and who doesn't want to create an account. [[Special:Contributions/199.224.113.11|199.224.113.11]] ([[User talk:199.224.113.11|talk]]) 02:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:This would be very helpful to head off sockfarms manipulating our processes to try and sanction editors dealing with them (not just on AN/I but in 3RR reports etc.), but it seems a blunt instrument to achieve that. In general I suspect adherence to [[WP:DENY]] to the point we lose our internal documentation of issues (eg. not tagging sock accounts) may be detrimental to us, but that's a much broader discussion. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:This would be very helpful to head off sockfarms manipulating our processes to try and sanction editors dealing with them (not just on AN/I but in 3RR reports etc.), but it seems a blunt instrument to achieve that. In general I suspect adherence to [[WP:DENY]] to the point we lose our internal documentation of issues (eg. not tagging sock accounts) may be detrimental to us, but that's a much broader discussion. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the slide of even permitting them unrestricted access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the backslide on even permitting them access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. Can anyone here provide even one example of a case where an IP later connected with an LTA or other abusive party resulted in a sanction for another editor at ANI? Because I'd be frankly gobsmacked if anyone could. Meanwhile, the value to our spirit of collaboration and the quality of transparency on the project that accrues from allowing everyone a say in process and behavioural norms is of immensely greater value. {{pb}} I really hope the community will not ultimately seriously contemplate this step towards further isolating our processes and community hubs as spaces for an increasingly rarefied few. The consequences to important needs, from retention and recruitment, to openness and transparency, to equanimity and diversity, would be non-trivial to say the least. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


== Skin selector for users not logged in ==
== Skin selector for users not logged in ==

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306166118">diff</a>

2025-08-16T08:38:50Z
Line 904: Line 904:
:It can be a user like myself who has been around since 2003 and who doesn't want to create an account. [[Special:Contributions/199.224.113.11|199.224.113.11]] ([[User talk:199.224.113.11|talk]]) 02:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:It can be a user like myself who has been around since 2003 and who doesn't want to create an account. [[Special:Contributions/199.224.113.11|199.224.113.11]] ([[User talk:199.224.113.11|talk]]) 02:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:This would be very helpful to head off sockfarms manipulating our processes to try and sanction editors dealing with them (not just on AN/I but in 3RR reports etc.), but it seems a blunt instrument to achieve that. In general I suspect adherence to [[WP:DENY]] to the point we lose our internal documentation of issues (eg. not tagging sock accounts) may be detrimental to us, but that's a much broader discussion. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:This would be very helpful to head off sockfarms manipulating our processes to try and sanction editors dealing with them (not just on AN/I but in 3RR reports etc.), but it seems a blunt instrument to achieve that. In general I suspect adherence to [[WP:DENY]] to the point we lose our internal documentation of issues (eg. not tagging sock accounts) may be detrimental to us, but that's a much broader discussion. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this would be a terrible new step in the slow (and with respect to many changes in recent years, intentional) erosion of IP inclusion in the project. The ways in which users who choose--for any number of legitimate reasons--not to register have, through a piecemeal process, been frozen out of anything that remotely resembles contribution to even slightly controversial content is bad enough. Now we're going to begin the slide of even permitting them unrestricted access to process on the back end? I'm sorry, but that cure is far worse than the disease. People are perfectly free to discount IP behavioural proposals if (as a general principle, or just in individual cases) they incline towards suspicion to a proposal. I see only down sides here. Or at least, so much more downside relative to legitimate concerns as makes no difference. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)


== Skin selector for users not logged in ==
== Skin selector for users not logged in ==

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306126927">diff</a>

2025-08-16T02:52:46Z
Line 145: Line 145:
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for this extra context, Assan. I have to say, this is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup. If you are not proposing to remove facism from the infobox, but rather just reduce the number of citations (and two of those citations remain in the main body of the text to support the prose discussion of the label), then those seem like pretty mild changes. However, the IP's concern may be that the plan is to slowly remove the sources and then remove the descriptor as well. Some POV editors do use such bad faith methods. If you can assure us that is not the ultimate goal here, that would would certainly warm my interpretation of your position, as just one random respondent. I assume that was not your longterm goal just based on your good faith behaviour and attitude in this discussion, but it would certainly help build a bridge between the sides if everyone was on the same page about that. T And yes, you are correct: the flipside of [[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS]] is [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for this extra context, Assan. I have to say, this is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup. If you are not proposing to remove facism from the infobox, but rather just reduce the number of citations (and two of those citations remain in the main body of the text to support the prose discussion of the label), then those seem like pretty mild changes. However, the IP's concern may be that the plan is to slowly remove the sources and then remove the descriptor as well. Some POV editors do use such bad faith methods. If you can assure us that is not the ultimate goal here, that would would certainly warm my interpretation of your position, as just one random respondent. I assume that was not your longterm goal just based on your good faith behaviour and attitude in this discussion, but it would certainly help build a bridge between the sides if everyone was on the same page about that. And yes, you are correct: the flipside of [[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS]] is [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306126799">diff</a>

2025-08-16T02:51:48Z
Line 145: Line 145:
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::hanks for this extra context, Assan. I have to say, this is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup. If you are not proposing to remove facism from the infobox, but rather just reduce the number of citations (and two of those citations remain in the main body of the text to support the prose discussion of the label), then those seem like pretty mild changes. However, the IP's concern may be that the plan is to slowly remove the sources and then remove the descriptor as well. Some POV editors do use such bad faith methods. If you can assure us that is not the ultimate goal here, that would would certainly warm my interpretation of your position, as just one random respondent. I assume that was not your longterm goal just based on your good faith behaviour and attitude in this discussion, but it would certainly help build a bridge between the sides if everyone was on the same page about that. T And yes, you are correct: the flipside of [[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS]] is [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for this extra context, Assan. I have to say, this is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup. If you are not proposing to remove facism from the infobox, but rather just reduce the number of citations (and two of those citations remain in the main body of the text to support the prose discussion of the label), then those seem like pretty mild changes. However, the IP's concern may be that the plan is to slowly remove the sources and then remove the descriptor as well. Some POV editors do use such bad faith methods. If you can assure us that is not the ultimate goal here, that would would certainly warm my interpretation of your position, as just one random respondent. I assume that was not your longterm goal just based on your good faith behaviour and attitude in this discussion, but it would certainly help build a bridge between the sides if everyone was on the same page about that. T And yes, you are correct: the flipside of [[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS]] is [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306126715">diff</a>

2025-08-16T02:51:08Z
Line 145: Line 145:
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:Lastly I just now saw the section in the general guidelines titles [Bias In Sources], and found the last sentence applicable to the general view point I have though take this with a grain of salt since I did literally just see it
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS|This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.]] [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::hanks for this extra context, Assan. I have to say, this is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup. If you are not proposing to remove facism from the infobox, but rather just reduce the number of citations (and two of those citations remain in the main body of the text to support the prose discussion of the label), then those seem like pretty mild changes. However, the IP's concern may be that the plan is to slowly remove the sources and then remove the descriptor as well. Some POV editors do use such bad faith methods. If you can assure us that is not the ultimate goal here, that would would certainly warm my interpretation of your position, as just one random respondent. I assume that was not your longterm goal just based on your good faith behaviour and attitude in this discussion, but it would certainly help build a bridge between the sides if everyone was on the same page about that. T And yes, you are correct: the flipside of [[WP:ALLOWEDBIAS]] is [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 02:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306003130">diff</a>

2025-08-15T10:05:45Z
Line 121: Line 121:
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].


Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.
Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:ATTRIBUTE|attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.


Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306003039">diff</a>

2025-08-15T10:05:11Z
Line 120: Line 120:


The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].



Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.
Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.
Line 127: Line 125:
Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
In the present case, I believe that the Ideology section as it presently reads is mostly appropriately neutral and accomplishes the goal of presenting the disputed perspectives on the subject. As I noted above, this is the preferred approach in such situations. Clearly, what we are looking at here is a nexus of intensely hyper-controversial topics imputing overlapping political, ideological, ethnic, and nationalist factors. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect storm for strong differences of opinion about such labels than this, where we are talking about a hard right political movement that crosses ethnic boundaries in the Levant. That this subject's position on the political map, and even the exact details of its history and motivations of it's leaders should be hotly contested is not surprising. But that does not mean it cannot be neutrally handled or that editors here have excuse for entrenched or hostile views.
In the present case, I believe that the Ideology section as it presently reads is mostly appropriately neutral and accomplishes the goal of presenting the disputed perspectives on the subject. As I noted above, this is the preferred approach in such situations. Clearly, what we are looking at here is a nexus of intensely hyper-controversial topics imputing overlapping political, ideological, ethnic, and nationalist factors. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect storm for strong differences of opinion about such labels than this, where we are talking about a hard right political movement that crosses ethnic boundaries in the Levant. That this subject's position on the political map, and even the exact details of its history and motivations of it's leaders should be hotly contested is not surprising. But that does not mean it cannot be neutrally handled or that editors here have excuse for entrenched or hostile views.



In one respect at least, this is simple: if you have confidence that you have the right end of the stick, both in terms of the actual facts and the sources that tell that story, then you should be confident enough to present the full debate to the reader and allow said facts to speak for themselves. My present view is that the article is already in decent shape in this respect. As to the three disputed sources I could identify, I think they are all valid for inclusion; I do not judge the arguments that I have seen so far for why they are "bad" sources to be valid under policy. There are other arguments to be made about how to use them, however. Arguments such as those regarding weight and attribution. I will wait to make sure I have not missed any sources before I provide further input, but my basic advice at this point is that the discussion should be less about whether to use them, and more about how.
In one respect at least, this is simple: if you have confidence that you have the right end of the stick, both in terms of the actual facts and the sources that tell that story, then you should be confident enough to present the full debate to the reader and allow said facts to speak for themselves. My present view is that the article is already in decent shape in this respect. As to the three disputed sources I could identify, I think they are all valid for inclusion; I do not judge the arguments that I have seen so far for why they are "bad" sources to be valid under policy. There are other arguments to be made about how to use them, however. Arguments such as those regarding weight and attribution. I will wait to make sure I have not missed any sources before I provide further input, but my basic advice at this point is that the discussion should be less about whether to use them, and more about how.

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306002950">diff</a>

2025-08-15T10:04:40Z
Line 118: Line 118:
===Non-arbitrary break===
===Non-arbitrary break===
I'm creating a new header here because I am hoping we can reboot this discussion free of the kind of [[fallacy of virtue]] arguments and needless personalization of the dispute that the RfC initially got off to a start on. Now, to start off, can I please ask that someone diff the disputed edits and list the relevant sources? I think I know what they are from the edit history, but I'd like to be certain I am not missing everything before I settle on a final position. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts:
I'm creating a new header here because I am hoping we can reboot this discussion free of the kind of [[fallacy of virtue]] arguments and needless personalization of the dispute that the RfC initially got off to a start on. Now, to start off, can I please ask that someone diff the disputed edits and list the relevant sources? I think I know what they are from the edit history, but I'd like to be certain I am not missing everything before I settle on a final position. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts:

The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].


Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.
Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.

Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
In the present case, I believe that the Ideology section as it presently reads is mostly appropriately neutral and accomplishes the goal of presenting the disputed perspectives on the subject. As I noted above, this is the preferred approach in such situations. Clearly, what we are looking at here is a nexus of intensely hyper-controversial topics imputing overlapping political, ideological, ethnic, and nationalist factors. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect storm for strong differences of opinion about such labels than this, where we are talking about a hard right political movement that crosses ethnic boundaries in the Levant. That this subject's position on the political map, and even the exact details of its history and motivations of it's leaders should be hotly contested is not surprising. But that does not mean it cannot be neutrally handled or that editors here have excuse for entrenched or hostile views.
In the present case, I believe that the Ideology section as it presently reads is mostly appropriately neutral and accomplishes the goal of presenting the disputed perspectives on the subject. As I noted above, this is the preferred approach in such situations. Clearly, what we are looking at here is a nexus of intensely hyper-controversial topics imputing overlapping political, ideological, ethnic, and nationalist factors. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect storm for strong differences of opinion about such labels than this, where we are talking about a hard right political movement that crosses ethnic boundaries in the Levant. That this subject's position on the political map, and even the exact details of its history and motivations of it's leaders should be hotly contested is not surprising. But that does not mean it cannot be neutrally handled or that editors here have excuse for entrenched or hostile views.

In one respect at least, this is simple: if you have confidence that you have the right end of the stick, both in terms of the actual facts and the sources that tell that story, then you should be confident enough to present the full debate to the reader and allow said facts to speak for themselves. My present view is that the article is already in decent shape in this respect. As to the three disputed sources I could identify, I think they are all valid for inclusion; I do not judge the arguments that I have seen so far for why they are "bad" sources to be valid under policy. There are other arguments to be made about how to use them, however. Arguments such as those regarding weight and attribution. I will wait to make sure I have not missed any sources before I provide further input, but my basic advice at this point is that the discussion should be less about whether to use them, and more about how.
In one respect at least, this is simple: if you have confidence that you have the right end of the stick, both in terms of the actual facts and the sources that tell that story, then you should be confident enough to present the full debate to the reader and allow said facts to speak for themselves. My present view is that the article is already in decent shape in this respect. As to the three disputed sources I could identify, I think they are all valid for inclusion; I do not judge the arguments that I have seen so far for why they are "bad" sources to be valid under policy. There are other arguments to be made about how to use them, however. Arguments such as those regarding weight and attribution. I will wait to make sure I have not missed any sources before I provide further input, but my basic advice at this point is that the discussion should be less about whether to use them, and more about how.

Both sides in this dispute have argued their perspectives on these sources so far on grounds that are partly out of alignment with policy: the IP user on the basis of "obviousness" and their rhetorical opponents on the basis that sources are "wrong". None of this is obvious and it is not our place to determine which sources are right. There is a middle-ground that is not being explored here and it runs straight through our policy expectations. I think a fruitful next step is proposing competing prose based on the sources, not arguing about them in the abstract. Anyway, that's my two cents. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 10:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Both sides in this dispute have argued their perspectives on these sources so far on grounds that are partly out of alignment with policy: the IP user on the basis of "obviousness" and their rhetorical opponents on the basis that sources are "wrong". None of this is obvious and it is not our place to determine which sources are right. There is a middle-ground that is not being explored here and it runs straight through our policy expectations. I think a fruitful next step is proposing competing prose based on the sources, not arguing about them in the abstract. Anyway, that's my two cents. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 10:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306002892">diff</a>

2025-08-15T10:04:00Z
Line 116: Line 116:
:I agree with you, apologies if I came across this way. It was more in defence of Assan who I thought, like you, was acting in a very sensible and reasonable way and did not deserve to be stonewalled like that. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with you, apologies if I came across this way. It was more in defence of Assan who I thought, like you, was acting in a very sensible and reasonable way and did not deserve to be stonewalled like that. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! It's unfortunate how this has all developed but regardless, I really appreciate that from you. [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! It's unfortunate how this has all developed but regardless, I really appreciate that from you. [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
==Non-arbitrary break==
===Non-arbitrary break===
I'm creating a new header here because I am hoping we can reboot this discussion free of the kind of [[fallacy of virtue]] arguments and needless personalization of the dispute that the RfC initially got off to a start on. Now, to start off, can I please ask that someone diff the disputed edits and list the relevant sources? I think I know what they are from the edit history, but I'd like to be certain I am not missing everything before I settle on a final position. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts:
I'm creating a new header here because I am hoping we can reboot this discussion free of the kind of [[fallacy of virtue]] arguments and needless personalization of the dispute that the RfC initially got off to a start on. Now, to start off, can I please ask that someone diff the disputed edits and list the relevant sources? I think I know what they are from the edit history, but I'd like to be certain I am not missing everything before I settle on a final position. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts:
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306002832">diff</a>

2025-08-15T10:03:19Z
Line 116: Line 116:
:I agree with you, apologies if I came across this way. It was more in defence of Assan who I thought, like you, was acting in a very sensible and reasonable way and did not deserve to be stonewalled like that. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with you, apologies if I came across this way. It was more in defence of Assan who I thought, like you, was acting in a very sensible and reasonable way and did not deserve to be stonewalled like that. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! It's unfortunate how this has all developed but regardless, I really appreciate that from you. [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! It's unfortunate how this has all developed but regardless, I really appreciate that from you. [[User:AssanEcho|AssanEcho]] ([[User talk:AssanEcho|talk]]) 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
==Non-arbitrary break==
I'm creating a new header here because I am hoping we can reboot this discussion free of the kind of [[fallacy of virtue]] arguments and needless personalization of the dispute that the RfC initially got off to a start on. Now, to start off, can I please ask that someone diff the disputed edits and list the relevant sources? I think I know what they are from the edit history, but I'd like to be certain I am not missing everything before I settle on a final position. In the meantime, here are my initial thoughts:
The IP editor is, in principle, right about a couple of important points at least: as a general rule, we do not have to ascertain that [[WP:reliable sources]] have the right end of the stick about the facts. In fact, putting much emphasis on such an effort can easily run afoul of [[WP:original research]]. So long as a source qualifies as an RS (the exact criteria vary by medium and context, but usually come down to editorial controls for secondary sources), it is fair to use it in an article, although any content derived from it must satisfy other tests such as [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:ONUS]]. As editors of a tertiary source/encyclopedia, and especially under the express policies of this project, it is not our place to fact check the sources, but rather to summarize them [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]].
Notably, when we speak of NPOV, we do not mean the sources have to be neutral; by policy [[WP:BIASED|they do not]]. Rather it is our treatment of the sources that must be neutral. This means not using sources in a way which distorts the content of individuals sources or the consensus or aggregate views of sources generally. It also means appropriately [[WP:attributing]] statements to sources where necessary, rather than communicating claims in "objective" wikivoice (that is, as uncontroversial fact in our factual summary prose). When there are multiple views that are arguably mainstream to a colourable extent (even if individual claims are embraced by distinct groups of people and/or RS) then the appropriate approach is to present the dispute to the reader, provide adequate sources, and allow them to reach their own conclusions.
Finally, as a procedural matter, if there is a dispute over an addition or change to a long-standing, "stable" version of a part of an article, then the older version should be reverted to until consensus is found for the change or addition. ([[WP:BRD]]).
In the present case, I believe that the Ideology section as it presently reads is mostly appropriately neutral and accomplishes the goal of presenting the disputed perspectives on the subject. As I noted above, this is the preferred approach in such situations. Clearly, what we are looking at here is a nexus of intensely hyper-controversial topics imputing overlapping political, ideological, ethnic, and nationalist factors. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect storm for strong differences of opinion about such labels than this, where we are talking about a hard right political movement that crosses ethnic boundaries in the Levant. That this subject's position on the political map, and even the exact details of its history and motivations of it's leaders should be hotly contested is not surprising. But that does not mean it cannot be neutrally handled or that editors here have excuse for entrenched or hostile views.
In one respect at least, this is simple: if you have confidence that you have the right end of the stick, both in terms of the actual facts and the sources that tell that story, then you should be confident enough to present the full debate to the reader and allow said facts to speak for themselves. My present view is that the article is already in decent shape in this respect. As to the three disputed sources I could identify, I think they are all valid for inclusion; I do not judge the arguments that I have seen so far for why they are "bad" sources to be valid under policy. There are other arguments to be made about how to use them, however. Arguments such as those regarding weight and attribution. I will wait to make sure I have not missed any sources before I provide further input, but my basic advice at this point is that the discussion should be less about whether to use them, and more about how.
Both sides in this dispute have argued their perspectives on these sources so far on grounds that are partly out of alignment with policy: the IP user on the basis of "obviousness" and their rhetorical opponents on the basis that sources are "wrong". None of this is obvious and it is not our place to determine which sources are right. There is a middle-ground that is not being explored here and it runs straight through our policy expectations. I think a fruitful next step is proposing competing prose based on the sources, not arguing about them in the abstract. Anyway, that's my two cents. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 10:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305997919">diff</a>

2025-08-15T09:18:03Z
Line 111: Line 111:
::::::::::Where have I ever taken that position. That is purely speculation and assumptions on your part. You doing that triple parentheses is anti semitic and shocking whether you intended to or not. I didn't understand what you meant at the time which is why I didn't address it, now I know I wouldn't have engaged with it anyway. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Where have I ever taken that position. That is purely speculation and assumptions on your part. You doing that triple parentheses is anti semitic and shocking whether you intended to or not. I didn't understand what you meant at the time which is why I didn't address it, now I know I wouldn't have engaged with it anyway. [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]] ([[User talk:JJNito197|talk]]) 13:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Because it's the consistent aspersion cast by editors who challenged the label in the first place, as evident throughout this page, the talk archives, and the edit notes. When you're casting nonspecific aspersions on my supposed conflicts and then refuse to elaborate on a page already rife with such accusations, why would anyone think you're suggesting anything else, particularly given the dispute on a page whose subject has had longstanding affiliations with neo-Nazis? [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 23:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Because it's the consistent aspersion cast by editors who challenged the label in the first place, as evident throughout this page, the talk archives, and the edit notes. When you're casting nonspecific aspersions on my supposed conflicts and then refuse to elaborate on a page already rife with such accusations, why would anyone think you're suggesting anything else, particularly given the dispute on a page whose subject has had longstanding affiliations with neo-Nazis? [[Special:Contributions/69.157.0.123|69.157.0.123]] ([[User talk:69.157.0.123|talk]]) 23:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm going to be honest with you, IP: from my review so far I think you might have a slightly stronger argument when it comes to the sourcing/content bit itself, but you've done immense damage to your own position with how you have approached this situation. Now that I am clued into the meme's meaning, I must tell you that the triple parenthesis thing in particular is a big problem and could possibly get you blocked. The only reason I haven't flagged it for an admin myself is that when I look at the full context and how you used it, I suspect it was meant to be ironic and demonstrate your opposition to antisemitism. But even if I am correct about that, you need to realize that, in a context like this in particular, that detail can get easily lost. You all need to stop speculating about what you suspect eachother's backgrounds, motives, and biases to be, and keep things focused on content, policy, and sourcing. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 09:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}} Ok, you two, back to your corners, please? AssanEcho did precisely the right thing in seeking outside perspectives to end this deadlock, so I highly recommend you both take a pause for the cause and wait for some of that feedback before re-engaging in more cycles of the circular argumentation you seem to be stuck in with one-another. I for one will need a day or more to find the time to review the sources to provide a firm opinion on this matter, so please be patient in the meantime: you might very well get responses before then. {{pb}}But as an initial matter, to address the ancillary behavioural bit here: I'm not super impressed by the nature of a lot of the commentary in the immediately previous messages above. JJNito, attempting to undermine your rhetorical opposition's argument by reference to the areas they have previously contributed to, your personal speculation about their motives, and the deficiencies you presume in their understanding of this topic are wholly irrelevant arguments in a content discussion on this project--and indeed, to the extent you have done it here and considering your specific verbiage, I would say it's crossed into [[WP:battleground]] territory. Please keep your commentary focused on the content arguments provided, and completely away from speculation about the capabilities and outlook of involved editors, as those are not appropriate topics for an article talk page. On the other hand, 69.156.104.108, you have hardly been a paragon in this respect yourself: JJNitto may have overtaken you in this department, but you got the ball rolling on the bulverism/[[WP:AGF|ABF]] party here, at least as far as this thread is concerned.{{pb}}This behaviour is frustrating because both of you have made salient points on the actual content issue, insofar as I can tell before digging deeper into the sources, but overall you are [[WP:DISRUPT|disrupting]] the discussion and muddying the waters by personalizing the difference of opinion. Both of you stand to possibly be removed from this sphere if you keep this level of animosity and lack of focus on the content up, but at a minimum you are currently bringing much more heat than light. Please try to adopt a more restrained approach like AassanEcho brought to their prompt. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 23:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
{{OD}} Ok, you two, back to your corners, please? AssanEcho did precisely the right thing in seeking outside perspectives to end this deadlock, so I highly recommend you both take a pause for the cause and wait for some of that feedback before re-engaging in more cycles of the circular argumentation you seem to be stuck in with one-another. I for one will need a day or more to find the time to review the sources to provide a firm opinion on this matter, so please be patient in the meantime: you might very well get responses before then. {{pb}}But as an initial matter, to address the ancillary behavioural bit here: I'm not super impressed by the nature of a lot of the commentary in the immediately previous messages above. JJNito, attempting to undermine your rhetorical opposition's argument by reference to the areas they have previously contributed to, your personal speculation about their motives, and the deficiencies you presume in their understanding of this topic are wholly irrelevant arguments in a content discussion on this project--and indeed, to the extent you have done it here and considering your specific verbiage, I would say it's crossed into [[WP:battleground]] territory. Please keep your commentary focused on the content arguments provided, and completely away from speculation about the capabilities and outlook of involved editors, as those are not appropriate topics for an article talk page. On the other hand, 69.156.104.108, you have hardly been a paragon in this respect yourself: JJNitto may have overtaken you in this department, but you got the ball rolling on the bulverism/[[WP:AGF|ABF]] party here, at least as far as this thread is concerned.{{pb}}This behaviour is frustrating because both of you have made salient points on the actual content issue, insofar as I can tell before digging deeper into the sources, but overall you are [[WP:DISRUPT|disrupting]] the discussion and muddying the waters by personalizing the difference of opinion. Both of you stand to possibly be removed from this sphere if you keep this level of animosity and lack of focus on the content up, but at a minimum you are currently bringing much more heat than light. Please try to adopt a more restrained approach like AassanEcho brought to their prompt. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 23:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305995288">diff</a>

2025-08-15T08:53:43Z
Line 1,338: Line 1,338:
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::Hey, shhhhh...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millenium! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Hey, shhhhh y'all...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millennium! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305994950">diff</a>

2025-08-15T08:51:56Z
Line 1,285: Line 1,285:
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that {{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that {{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exchange, which was about the question of how much leeway an editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305994289">diff</a>

2025-08-15T08:47:04Z
Line 1,336: Line 1,336:
::::::::something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things [[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things [[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hey, shhhhh...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millenium! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element? {{pb}} As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element? {{pb}} As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

* Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|dog]] 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|dog]] 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961]] ([[User talk:2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|talk]]) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961]] ([[User talk:2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|talk]]) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305993296">diff</a>

2025-08-15T08:37:37Z
Line 1,336: Line 1,336:
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). [[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element? {{pb}} As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|dog]] 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|dog]] 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961]] ([[User talk:2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|talk]]) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961]] ([[User talk:2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|talk]]) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305976833">diff</a>

2025-08-15T05:48:07Z
Line 1,278: Line 1,278:
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that {{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their overall approach to their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, the reasoning actually makes sense. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that {{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305976529">diff</a>

2025-08-15T05:45:05Z
Line 1,278: Line 1,278:
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that {{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their overall approach to their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, the reasoning actually makes sense. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that
*::::::::{{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their overall approach to their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, the reasoning actually makes sense. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305976395">diff</a>

2025-08-15T05:43:29Z
Line 1,278: Line 1,278:
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that
*::::::::{{tq|"Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors."}} is not only not a violation of [[WP:aspersions]] in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exhcnage, which was about the question of how much leeway and editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations. {{pb}} Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their overall approach to their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards [[WP:IDHT]] so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context ([[genetic fallacy]]). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, the reasoning actually makes sense. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305973876">diff</a>

2025-08-15T05:13:54Z
Line 1,210: Line 1,210:
*:[[User:Liz|Liz]], I've been reading this discussion and I'm seeing a pattern of uncollegial editing, to put it mildly. {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751%7Cname=This diff}}, for instance, found by another participant in this thread, is troubling and IMO would have been blockable, if it had been noticed at the time. I don't know yet what remedy, if any, is required, but from my perspective this thread is not completely without substance and, so, I'd like to let it run for a little while longer.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1755199990936:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> [[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]] [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]</span> 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:[[User:Liz|Liz]], I've been reading this discussion and I'm seeing a pattern of uncollegial editing, to put it mildly. {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751%7Cname=This diff}}, for instance, found by another participant in this thread, is troubling and IMO would have been blockable, if it had been noticed at the time. I don't know yet what remedy, if any, is required, but from my perspective this thread is not completely without substance and, so, I'd like to let it run for a little while longer.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1755199990936:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> [[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]] [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]</span> 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*::Well, the goal of my comment was to move forward rather than just have days of editors sniping at each other. If folks don't want to close this discussion than fine, I was trying to nudge things along because in my experience, discussions at ANI can sometimes go on for weeks without anything fundamentally changing. But this is all guided by consensus, of course, so thank you all for sharing your agreement and disagreement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|Liz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|Read!]] [[User talk:Liz|Talk!]]</sup> 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Well, the goal of my comment was to move forward rather than just have days of editors sniping at each other. If folks don't want to close this discussion than fine, I was trying to nudge things along because in my experience, discussions at ANI can sometimes go on for weeks without anything fundamentally changing. But this is all guided by consensus, of course, so thank you all for sharing your agreement and disagreement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|Liz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|Read!]] [[User talk:Liz|Talk!]]</sup> 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your approach here, Liz. In respect to both 1) that you raised the concern about the productivity of the discussion and 2) that you approached it from the start as an inquiry rather than acting unilaterally to close. Speaking for myself, I think the discussion has a lot of utility even if it doesn't result in a sanction (noting that I have just opposed one below). It can still possibly serve to reinforce for HEB the severity of the community's concerns and can clarify the community's aggragate perspective, creating a record for the (hopefully very unlikely, as I think better of them) event that HEB doesn't heed thoe concerns. I don't think it should go on forever, but I do think for the moment it constitutes valid and useful dialogue. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


===Propose Indefinite Block of HEB===
===Propose Indefinite Block of HEB===

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305972885">diff</a>

2025-08-15T05:03:04Z
Line 1,316: Line 1,316:
*oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


*Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. {{pb}}Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

::And just to be clear, given my reference to the IP proposal above: no, I am not per se opposed to such proposals at ANI. In fact, I find many of the comments on that subject by Levivich in particular above to be utterly asinine, and their proposal that editors supporting this proposal should be sanctioned for "disruption" is itself so problematic that it probably justifies a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] warning at least. I honestly think that their own habitual approach to ANI behavioural discussions is probably a subject all its own for another day, but we don't need to muddy the waters here any further by opening that can of worms just now. I'll say only that I feel their "support" for HEB here is a double-edged sword at best. In any event, my point is that IP proposals are of course perfectly within our rules and as others have noted above, should be weighed on the value of the cogency of the arguments in support or opposition, not the identity of the proposer, whoever they may be, as is this project's (entirely rational) protocol. It's just that this particular IP's proposal really, to use the charming American idiom, shit the bed. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


== User:Gymrat16 uncivil behavior and personal attacks ==
== User:Gymrat16 uncivil behavior and personal attacks ==

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305972541">diff</a>

2025-08-15T04:59:51Z
Line 1,314: Line 1,314:
* Support 6-month-block I think that's enough time to fully reflect on this incident. I think HEB's behaviour in this thread really solidified this choice. Doubling down, refusing to accept your mistakes, and accusing me of transphobia, completely unrelated to this discussion. This isn't an oopsie made once every 1.5 years as previously claimed above, this is a consistent pattern of disturbance. HEB's discussions with other people show this. I reject the notion that experienced editors should be able to get away with things that an IP or new editor would instantly be blocked for. Also, trouting for the people suspicious of the IP; it's assuming bad faith. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* Support 6-month-block I think that's enough time to fully reflect on this incident. I think HEB's behaviour in this thread really solidified this choice. Doubling down, refusing to accept your mistakes, and accusing me of transphobia, completely unrelated to this discussion. This isn't an oopsie made once every 1.5 years as previously claimed above, this is a consistent pattern of disturbance. HEB's discussions with other people show this. I reject the notion that experienced editors should be able to get away with things that an IP or new editor would instantly be blocked for. Also, trouting for the people suspicious of the IP; it's assuming bad faith. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

*Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. {{pb}}Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


== User:Gymrat16 uncivil behavior and personal attacks ==
== User:Gymrat16 uncivil behavior and personal attacks ==

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305785196">diff</a>

2025-08-14T02:43:46Z

 Content unavailable: Missing content for revision ID 1305785164.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305744883">diff</a>

2025-08-13T21:37:04Z
Line 259: Line 259:
:Keep in mind most all bean varieties are developed from just a handful species, and that varietal differences can be huge.
:Keep in mind most all bean varieties are developed from just a handful species, and that varietal differences can be huge.
:As a point of reference, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and kale are all [[Brassica oleracea]]. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:As a point of reference, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and kale are all [[Brassica oleracea]]. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::Kale too? I didn't realize. Hey Semanto-Manto: good to see you--I wasn't sure we would again! [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)


= August 13 =
= August 13 =

User talk:Snow Rise

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1305742016">diff</a>

2025-08-13T21:13:33Z
Line 786: Line 786:
:::Oh, I see; I didn't realize the sources were already employed in our local article. Sure--that shouldn't be too difficult. I'll plug away at them as I get opportunities; looks like there are only a little over a dozen, so it shouldn't take long. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see; I didn't realize the sources were already employed in our local article. Sure--that shouldn't be too difficult. I'll plug away at them as I get opportunities; looks like there are only a little over a dozen, so it shouldn't take long. [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 05:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you most sincerely. In the meantime, I will be making the changes noted in [[Talk:Rei Ayanami/to do]]. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 12:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you most sincerely. In the meantime, I will be making the changes noted in [[Talk:Rei Ayanami/to do]]. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 12:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Z. Patterson}}: happy to help! Does this look consistent with the current ref style of the article and what you want added? [[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]] 21:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)


== Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service ==
== Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service ==
Close

</body>

</html>

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI