User talk:Isaacl
Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted
[edit]You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Aligning WMF direction with community priorities
[edit]@Clovermoss:: I don't want to interrupt your conversation with Maryana Iskander (or distract from its purpose), so I'm starting a reply thread on my talk page. Regarding your statements I think that forced cohesiveness is actively anti-ethical to our values as a movement. Arguments are made stronger when people disagree with each other and there's so many voices you miss if they aren't even in the room. ... The problem isn't that people are disagreeing but what's causing that conflict in the first place. I don't think our board of trustees should be in conflict with the underlying communities because there just shouldn't be that disconnect in priorities to begin with.
: The key problem with trying to avoid a disconnect is that the community does not force cohesiveness upon itself. Those who participate on village pumps and other forums are just a small sampling of the community, even just considering those who contribute the most edits. Most editors are not in the virtual room where community discussions occur, and community discussions tend to be endurance contests rather than a measured evaluation of pros and cons. Plus contributing content to an encyclopedia has proven to be sufficiently attractive to many editors in itself, aside from any common mission that might be held by Wikipedia or Wikimedia proponents, that it's not clear to me that there is a majority view of priorities in the Wikipedia community. (The lower popularity of some of the other Wikimedia sites may mean they are more likely to draw participants from those who support Wikimedia objectives.)
I agree that a healthy volunteer organization needs to have a mission compatible with its volunteers, but there's both push and pull involved. Leadership will try to get a sense of what volunteers want, with the full knowledge that it's impossible to get a true sense of consensus from such a large group. And volunteers will decide if the direction set by leadership is what they want, and choose to continue to participate or not.
Note I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from expressing their concerns with the WMF. I understand why some people feel that community dissatisfaction with the WMF is a large concern that risks diminishing the editor population and triggering Wikipedia's failure, and it's great that they're advocating for change. I appreciate your drive to sway the foundation's plans. I get uneasy, though, when people start speaking on behalf of the community as a whole. There are too many voices in the community to reduce their opinions to a small number. isaacl (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how what I said conflicts with the fact that there's many voices within the community. My entire point was that almost none of it was ever being heard and the problem is only going to get worse if things continue in the way that Maryana thought was a good track with that imposed unity. She literally said that you can't have cohesive discussions about complex issues without it. I think it's dangerous to have that mentality. Arguments get stronger with a diversity in perspectives. It is not a downside for people to disagree with each other. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update#Value of an election where candidates are vetted for unanimity might better express some of what I was trying to say here that I'm not sure is clear contextually without that background. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- My comments were specifically regarding there being a disconnect in priorities. As I stated, I think leadership should be listening to its volunteers. Even so, though, there will still be disconnects with the community's priorities. I'm not commenting on how to have effective decision-making in an organization, particularly at a board level. There are a lot of considerations that make hypothetical discussions about the topic difficult. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at, but I also think maybe I'm missing something about your argument or we're talking past each other somehow. The past few days have been stressful as hell. If you're saying that sometimes people will disagree about what is best no matter what, I agree with that. But I think it's important that as many people as possible feel heard and like they had a fair chance to contribute to these discussions. No one should be wielding their authority to shut down that internal dissent because it's what makes our projects so beautiful. When I talk about "the community", I'm talking about those broader values and how our governance should reflect them. I'm thinking of hard working people who put their all into everything they do, not necessarily that they have the same ideas. But I do think there's a broader disconnect between the governance side of things and people who are actually doing the work, if that makes sense? Like yes, of course people will have different levels of what they prioritize, but I think broadly "the community perspective" is about increased transparency, communication, and autonomy. I realize some smaller projects want support in different ways, but I mean in the sense of you tell people what you need and are listened to... if that's we can't handle this because our community is too small, that doesn't mean leaving them to flounder. For larger projects, that might mean not interfering with self-governance except in extraordinary circumstances. When I talk about "the community", I'm talking about those broader values that people tend to agree on more or less, even if there are drastically different ideas of how to best implement those in practice. But when it comes to the board, "fiduciary duties" often seems like a cop-out for why the BoT shouldn't follow through and also why they don't have to. There's broader disconnects, too. What I'm about is creating a space where everybody feels like they can engage and it won't just be shut down. Because there are many different reasons people stay out of things like this. Some people just aren't interested and that's okay. But other people have given up hope that it's even worth trying and that's depressing. Obviously I'm trying to lift the spirits of the latter. Long held grievances don't just disappear, they build into further resentments. People need to feel heard and to not have their trust betrayed in all sorts of little ways for anything to get better because it doesn't just go away on its own. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- When you spoke of a disconnect with the community's priorities, I was thinking of how it prioritizes what it wants the WMF to do. Based on your expanded discussion, it sounds like you are thinking about the community's preferred mode of governance and engagement. Like I said, I agree with better communication and more engagement, so the community can express its wishes and desires. Governance is a big thorny problem, though. Because the community has many different, incompatible views, whatever the WMF does will make a significant number of people unhappy, even if they listened to them all. (And that's not possible, since most people don't have the time to engage in decision-making.) English Wikipedia's decision-making processes already struggle on Wikipedia; they aren't well-suited for an organization to make a decision and build further decisions and plans upon it. I don't think there is a universal community perspective on governance. I think there are many editors who are happy to edit in their niches and aren't concerned about directing the WMF's mission.
- In short, effective governance is hard. Making people feel like they've been heard while not doing what they want is hard. The organization and community should keep trying if it wants a chance for progress, but the reality is that progress is slow and sometimes takes steps back. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- In regards to
I think there are many editors who are happy to edit in their niches and aren't concerned about directing the WMF's mission
, of course I wouldn't be trying to force people to do otherwise. But there are plenty of people across projects concerned with the state of governance that should be listened to (it's not just enwiki editors signing my reform petition). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)- Sure, I've already agreed that all these voices should be listened to. I think that they are strong enough to represent themselves, though, rather than attributing them to be the common viewpoint of the community. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- So what do you think everyone can broadly agree on if you don't think my way of doing it is right? I'm trying to understand your specific points of contention but I'm not sure I'm quite getting what you're trying to say here because broadly I agree with you and don't think my actions conflict. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we agree on many things. The only small thing I'm raising is that I'd prefer not setting an end goal of avoiding any disconnection with the community, as the community wants many contradictory things. Unfortunately, I think governance structure is one of those areas where there isn't broad agreement on a preferred alternative. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think avoiding any disconnection whatsoever is probably unrealistic, but I also don't think the vast gulfs in priorities taking place right now is a good state of things to be in. I'm under the impression that this is is something broadly supported by others so it's hard to understand why you don't think that's the case. I want to understand, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's clear what "this" is, with respect to a preferred alternative governance structure. Also, being broadly supported by others is different than broadly supported by the entire community. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is this about the membership organization thing? Because I realize that is not something people universally are interested in and would probably be somewhat contentious. I'd want anything on that level to be voted on globally and not just have any sweeping massive changes because I'm under the impression people might broadly support them. The "this" I'm referring to is about the values and the actions that could be taken that reflect those values such as increased communication and transparency. It would be an alternative form of governance when it comes to how the way things currently operate, but on paper it wouldn't necessarily change much. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- When I said "I think governance structure is one of those areas where there isn't broad agreement on a preferred alternative," I was referring specifically to how the Wikimedia Foundation is organized to take responsibility for and make decisions, both strategic and day-to-day. (This includes the legal responsibility of managing the Foundation's assets.) The current discussions were kicked off by the result of the vetting process for board of trustee candidates, and in my view, a lot of dissatisfaction is being expressed about the decision-making structure. I agree that everyone is for better communication where feasible. But I think there is a divergence of views on what is feasible, and also a divergence in views with those who want specific changes to the governance structure itself, beyond improved communication. isaacl (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is this about the membership organization thing? Because I realize that is not something people universally are interested in and would probably be somewhat contentious. I'd want anything on that level to be voted on globally and not just have any sweeping massive changes because I'm under the impression people might broadly support them. The "this" I'm referring to is about the values and the actions that could be taken that reflect those values such as increased communication and transparency. It would be an alternative form of governance when it comes to how the way things currently operate, but on paper it wouldn't necessarily change much. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's clear what "this" is, with respect to a preferred alternative governance structure. Also, being broadly supported by others is different than broadly supported by the entire community. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think avoiding any disconnection whatsoever is probably unrealistic, but I also don't think the vast gulfs in priorities taking place right now is a good state of things to be in. I'm under the impression that this is is something broadly supported by others so it's hard to understand why you don't think that's the case. I want to understand, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we agree on many things. The only small thing I'm raising is that I'd prefer not setting an end goal of avoiding any disconnection with the community, as the community wants many contradictory things. Unfortunately, I think governance structure is one of those areas where there isn't broad agreement on a preferred alternative. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- So what do you think everyone can broadly agree on if you don't think my way of doing it is right? I'm trying to understand your specific points of contention but I'm not sure I'm quite getting what you're trying to say here because broadly I agree with you and don't think my actions conflict. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I've already agreed that all these voices should be listened to. I think that they are strong enough to represent themselves, though, rather than attributing them to be the common viewpoint of the community. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- In regards to
- Okay, I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at, but I also think maybe I'm missing something about your argument or we're talking past each other somehow. The past few days have been stressful as hell. If you're saying that sometimes people will disagree about what is best no matter what, I agree with that. But I think it's important that as many people as possible feel heard and like they had a fair chance to contribute to these discussions. No one should be wielding their authority to shut down that internal dissent because it's what makes our projects so beautiful. When I talk about "the community", I'm talking about those broader values and how our governance should reflect them. I'm thinking of hard working people who put their all into everything they do, not necessarily that they have the same ideas. But I do think there's a broader disconnect between the governance side of things and people who are actually doing the work, if that makes sense? Like yes, of course people will have different levels of what they prioritize, but I think broadly "the community perspective" is about increased transparency, communication, and autonomy. I realize some smaller projects want support in different ways, but I mean in the sense of you tell people what you need and are listened to... if that's we can't handle this because our community is too small, that doesn't mean leaving them to flounder. For larger projects, that might mean not interfering with self-governance except in extraordinary circumstances. When I talk about "the community", I'm talking about those broader values that people tend to agree on more or less, even if there are drastically different ideas of how to best implement those in practice. But when it comes to the board, "fiduciary duties" often seems like a cop-out for why the BoT shouldn't follow through and also why they don't have to. There's broader disconnects, too. What I'm about is creating a space where everybody feels like they can engage and it won't just be shut down. Because there are many different reasons people stay out of things like this. Some people just aren't interested and that's okay. But other people have given up hope that it's even worth trying and that's depressing. Obviously I'm trying to lift the spirits of the latter. Long held grievances don't just disappear, they build into further resentments. People need to feel heard and to not have their trust betrayed in all sorts of little ways for anything to get better because it doesn't just go away on its own. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
A conversation about a special EDDY award
[edit]Can you provide input at the nomination page Thanks, Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The long line at the Eddy
[edit]Can you visit this ((User talk:Rafaelthegreat)) page at the "A barnstar for you!" thread and help me convince him that 6 nominations at one time is a bit Much! and creates an unfair backlog. Thanks Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- It sounds like they're amenable to pulling their accepted nominations? isaacl (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Nomination for discussion of Template:Hockey season stats note/sandbox/styles.css
[edit]
Template:Hockey season stats note/sandbox/styles.css has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MikeVitale 14:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Notice of new RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs
[edit]Hi Isaacl: You previously participated in this April 2024 RfC on community contentious topics and their relationship with ArbCom's contentious topics. There is now a new RfC on this topic that you may be interested in. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Re: Montreal Canadiens edits
[edit]Wanted to let you know as it's possible some of your edits were caught up in it - I recently reverted a large slew of WP:LTA/HABS' edits to Montreal Canadiens. If there's anything worth salvaging from them, feel free to re-add in your own words. The Kip (contribs) 19:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- My edits aside, I don't see anything wrong with the edits you reverted, and I think there are improvements and corrections (Price's records for games played and wins). I understand the rationale for reverting changes made by those evading blocks. Nonetheless, in cases where the edits are straightforward to review, it would be nice if productive edits could be left in place. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Isaacl I generally prefer to revert all edits to more properly communicate the message that regardless of whether their contribs actually improve the encyclopedia, their mere presence on the encyclopedia should not be tolerated whatsoever; they were given multiple opportunities to be a constructive contributor and instead decided to be a hostile, know-it-all asshole that’s since evaded his blocks multiple times with dozens of sockpuppets while repeatedly engaging in edit-wars. They’ve forfeited their right to edit.
- I don’t have prejudice towards other users re-adding the content in their own words. The Kip (contribs) 02:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, as I said, I understand the rationale. And I understand firsthand the burden of screening contributions from block-evading editors, having done so in the past and now. In this situation, I had investigated the edits, and made what I felt to be appropriate modifications to the formatting. I appreciate some might prefer to revert the changes and then re-add them. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)