Talk: Limmiegirl

Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

Limmiegirl uses the Talkback feature If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{tb|your username}} on my TP. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{tb|my username}} on your TP. Please click here to leave me a new message.

I'm watching you! ಠ_ಠ

Activity

A review of all extra rights holder has been done. You have been moved to the inactive list and we'll allow a three month period for you to increase and maintain your activity before your administrator rights are removed. We do understand that people have other demands on their time and it is understandable if you can not. We all appreciate your contributions and hope that you will become more active and retain those rights.  The Gunny   16:42, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the threshold for inactivity is six months. Could you enlighten me as to why a shortcut was taken in this case?
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 13:38, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Since September of 2013, you have been largely inactive with most of your contributions being talk page messages and forum posts from Sept 2013 through Feb 2014. Your edits and use of rights has picked up slightly in the recent month or two, though. With the push from the community to hold extra rights users to a higher level of activity/accountability, we're no longer defining activity by a single or a few edits, since there was a loophole in the requirement that basically allowed rights holders to be barely active and make one single edit to avoid being placed on the inactive list or having their rights removed. We looking for a little more consistent activity now, more like what you've done recently. Please bear in mind the decisions made about active/inactive users was made by consensus among all the BCs, I'm not acting unilaterally. The Gunny   15:16, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not enough, you need community consensus for that, not bureaucratic consensus. The current rule is obviously broken, but any warranted fix must still happen through the proper channels. The discussion and voting shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks, I'm certain we can all contain our reformatory enthusiasm until then. I've reverted my placement on the inactive list as according to the current rules I'm still away from a forceful inactivity.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 15:57, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity was never to the best of my recollection actually defined, with the 1 edit thing seeming to fall into place by default... 1 Edit per six months clearly isn't active... We've got to be looking for more than just a token number of edits - some are choosing to make that occasional edit just to stay ahead of the line, and I don't think its enough. Agent c (talk) 18:56, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

And I agree, like I said the policy is obviously broken. Look, my issue isn't with tightening the standard. Or even my being affected by said tightening, for that matter. I take issue, besides the vague, obscure and arbitrary parameters ("more consistent editing"? That's like establishing the speed limit of a road as "not too fast"), with the proper procedure being ignored and shortcuts being taken for no reason at all. We already have a system in place with which to change our policies, one that invites the whole community to discuss and propose said changes. We do things in the open, not through determinations reached ad hoc by cabinet meetings of the bureaucrats. Refusing to recognize the legitimacy of this is a matter of principle to me.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:11, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Is the policy being changed though? The policy is

“In the event that an administrator or moderator has been inactive for an extended period of time, they will have their user rights removed by the bureaucrats and restored by a community vote upon a return to constructive editing.”

There is no change to the policy. We've looked, and we believe at the moment your current activity isn't enough to be said to be "active"... There is nothing defining "active" or "inactive", just saying that its our job to remove rights from those who are "inactive"... That would imply that its up to us to determine what is "active" or "inactive". Agent c (talk) 22:21, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I am actually going to step in here: Bureaucrats were never given the right to overrule the community on deciding what constitutes as active/in-active. The only power Bureaucrats were given in this event is to remove rights once the community established guidelines have been violated, and that was only given because only Bureaucrats can remove Administrative tools. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:27, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

As GB says, the determination of inactivity was never given to the bureaucrats. The policy merely states that they are the ones to actually remove the rights. Nothing more -- not even that they are the ones to place the name of the user in question in the inactive list.

Also, from Gunny's post, it's clear that you only considered article edits for this, which is a direct violation of the parameters agreed on the occasion of the vote of the inactivity policy. As you can see here, forum and talk page edits are as valid as article edits. The people who voted on the policy did so on the belief that this would be the interpretation that would be followed when applying the policy, and changing it requires a brand new vote.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:43, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Which is logically both incorrect and impossible as written. The rule merely states inactivity. "The Community" have never defined it. Such a reading of the rule clearly fails the literal rule as it results in an absurdity - The Burecreats are being asked to in this case enforce a rile that cannot be enforced.

This leaves us to the Golden Rule which means that it must be read in a way that makes it logical, but narrowly as possible. AS the role is for Burecrats to apply or not apply in the rule, it implies that it is within our discretion to define.

The other possibilities of Legislative Interpretation also support this conclusion - The mischief rule asks what was the intent of the rule - for bureaucrats remove rights from those no longer having a significant ongoing impact on the wiki, which is what these messages are doing, and the Purposive approach comes to a similar conclusion.

Ultimately, if we're being asked to enforce a rule that is logically impossible because "The community" was supposed to define a term and never did, I'd be compelled to undo every single "inactivity" rights removal (with the exception of perhaps Porter). If the term was undefined, then none of them could have been inactive.

The rule, as stated, is being enforced. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet your satisfaction Limmie, and Leon, as a former admin, I'm not entirely sure what you think your role is in this. Agent c (talk) 22:38, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I want to see the discussion/vote where the community approved of voting for Bureaucratic power to host meetings between themselves and only themselves to determine whom is active or inactive without community consensus. Otherwise, I can guarantee you such actions will be vetoed, and I know I will call upon community veto if I ever see this enforced without community approval. You know my stance on this: I am against users abusing their inactivity. But at the same time, I am not going to sit idly should any member with Special Rights pretend they have power that was never given to them by the community. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:47, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

The community did define it. "Definition of inactive is six months of a lack of editing". That means no edits in six months. Is it a good rule? No. But it is clear. Should we change it? Definitely. But through the proper means.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:48, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

(←) You gave it to us when you asked us to enforce the rule. We cannot enforce the rule without a definition of "inactivity" or even "lack of editing". If you want to define either, please do so because we have no idea what you think its supposed to be. To me inactivity means "Not Active", a token edit every 6 months is definatley not Active, and a token edit every 6 months isn't "editing" either. How do you expect us to enforce a rule when a term is undefined, other than by coming up with a definition? Agent c (talk) 22:51, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I want to see where we gave the Bureaucrats that power. The community voted on inactivity being defined at 6 months of little to no edits, with rights removed shortly after should they fail to pick up their activity (Limmie does not fit this bill, as she has over 500 edits this year alone). The community never discussed giving Bureaucrats the power to hold non-transparent meetings. The community never gave the Bureaucrats the ability to pick and choose who is inactive or not. The community never discussed the Bureaucrats being able to bypass what the community voted on. Limmie is absolutely correct: the inactivity policy is horrid, and we all know that after seeing it in practice. If anything is to be done, the policy should be amended. If the Bureaucrats want extra power in determining what constitutes as inactivity, then they need to gain community approval first. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:56, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

• You gave us the power when you gave us a rule to enforce. Do we stop enforcing rules where the community hasn't defined every word? You're being absurd.
• We need community approval to hold meetings and discuss things now? Leon, you are such a hypocrite, I'm calling you out on this one as YOU asked for one of these meetings. YOU have been in many admin PMs and Meetings and have even called them in the past. Did you get community consensus before talking to Skire and 69?
• Then please do amend the policy. If you don't like how its enforced, get off your backside and do something. We're trying to follow the "Awful" policy as best we can. Agent c (talk) 23:04, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that the reason the policy was voted in the first place was to deal with the pre-Nukapedia admins who had no interest in coming back. Hence the obviously lenient threshold, it was never designed to deal with people who actually considered themselves active. If the rule as is is unenforceable, then you don't enforce it at all, and start drafting a new proposal to be submitted to the community. What you DON'T do is shoehorn a way to enforce it from the top of your heads, and most definitely not in a way that raises your own power base in detriment of the community.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 23:07, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you that Chad is neither gaining power from this, nor is the community in detriment with the loss of your admin rights. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:09, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Raises our power base? Ok, whatever. If you wanna turn this into a drama, then I'm just not going to play. Our job in that policy is clear. Last time we dared question the policy and asked for discretion not to remove rights, we were shouted down. I'm sorry if you're not happy about it. Agent c (talk) 23:13, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take things down this way, fine, I'll be blunt. You do not have the authority to put me on the inactive list. If you want that authority, then write up a forum asking for said. Until then, stop bothering me with this empty nonsense.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:40, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, a rule to enforce - declare inactive users as inactive, and remove them should they remain inactive. Should I again remind you that Limmie has almost as many edits as you this year? More edits than Clyde? More edits than a large amount of our other special rights users?
• I never said meetings cannot be held without community consensus. I was referring to the Bureaucratic meeting that was brought together with the sole purpose of coming to a non-transparent decision. Decisions are supposed to be transparent. You will notice that everything I ever said in our inactivity meetings? Released on a public forum.
• You are not going to force this on me. I might be able to frequent Nukapedia still, but my time still does not allow for me to follow forums daily and dedicate the time to see such a controversial forum through. That question instead needs to be directed to the community as a whole. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:16, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

How is it that I am Leon's go-to gauge for inactivity? And for that matter, you do seem to have time to follow things through on here as you were championing the campaign to overturn Fireburn's ban yourself personally. When you were an admin you acted like a bc and now as a non admin you act like an admin. As for the "obvious lenient threshold", you can't expect to enact a rule to remove rights of people and then when the rules come around to you say that the rules don't apply or that they are broken. I for one wasn't for this particular rule. In my opinion, anyone who has special rights and doesn't abuse them even if they are inactive is fine. It's not like a store with a finite amount of keys. And if their account gets hacked, the wiki can be fixed, account blocked and rights removed. Not hard. This rule was by definition a bunch of silly bullshit.--Kingclyde (talk) 16:36, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

Don't twist it KC. I don't give a damn about being in the inactive list, I even added myself there several times already. My problem is with the creative interpretation of the rules you guys took upon yourselves to champion. The rules tell you that a user is considered inactive after 6 months without editing, and to remove their rights after 9 months without editing. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere did they give the BCs the power to arbitrarily decide through secret backroom meetings who you guys fancied inactive, using whatever shady and obviously biased parameters you felt like. My beef here is exclusively with the violation of proper procedure and nothing else.

For all my time here I always stuck to the rules as faithfully as possible, and demanded others to do so. In fact I often paid quite a price for that. Remember when I found out about the signature picture limitation rule? The one that said they couldn't be more than 10 pixels high? I hated it, thought it was an absolutely stupid and unnecessary rule, and it completely butchered my sigpic. Yet I immediately changed it and started telling others to do the same. I had to endure being constantly badmouthed and ridiculed by so many people, including by fellow admins, all because I wouldn't compromise until the rule had been properly and legitimately struck down. Because I believe that I would have no right nor moral to enforce the rules if I myself skirted or turned a blind eye to one of them, even if it was a minor or poorly conceived one, or one that wasn't convenient to me. So don't you even dare to accuse me of doing this just to guard myself, you have no right to do that. That's dishonest and outright sordid.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:54, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Right now as I see it you are active. I honestly think the rule is a bad lemon. It seems you do as well. Why don't you formulate a better solution and post a forum topic? Right now all I see is complaining from everyone about how bad this policy is but no one is taking action to fix it.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:52, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

I no longer use you as an example of inactivity. The community declared that your level of activity was enough, and now I respect that. I used Chad, you, and also my general statement that Limmie has more overall edits this year than about 80-90% of our Special Rights users to prove a point. Not a point of inactivity, but a point that she has been just as active as everyone else, even if that activity has not necessary extended to mainspace edits. As for me acting like a Bureaucrat/Admin, all I have to say is that I do what is necessary. I do not need rights to magically gain the confidence needed to speak my mind and stand my ground. I would be quite a hypocrite if I stopped being blunt simply because I am no longer an Administrator.

As for the inactivity policy deal, you are a bit mistaken. First of all, I was staunchly against this policy since the beginning, and only voted for the greater evil when the vote came around. So we are in the same boat when it comes to our personal feelings on this subject. Secondly, I did not champion Fire's unbanning. That would be AFollower. The only reason I got involved was because Fire was talking to me on Community Central, and then I simply stated my opinion when the forum went up. I do not want to bloat up Limmie's page any more, so if you have any additional comments, leave them on my TP and I will get back with you (would have missed this if you had not just responded). ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:05, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm posting a forum to fix this now.--Kingclyde (talk) 00:16, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Untitled 01

Hi. You removed my edit of hairy deathclaw page, which was more or less backed by in-game facts. I'm pretty sure they based on early(hairy) deathclaw concept(with addition of horns and some reptilian traits) and aren't related to chameleons closer than to, say, rhinoceroses, alligators or platypuses(and your restored reference was about F2 anyway), and that unlike cham-claws they thrive in snowy climate and can perform human tasks like fixing stuff, driving vehicles and use claw-handleable weapons like grenades. Sure, nobody uses them for that as ghouls and geeks are much better at that business, but they still much different from cham-claws, as even enclave-modified sentient ones were unable to do anything at all without voice command receiver on their tech. Of course you are more experienced than me in wiki-editing, but do consider checking edits for facts before erasing them altogether.````(my IP is likely different from the one recorded in Changes history) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.169.10.224 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

While those arguments have merit, we only accept info that comes either from the games or from the developers. Since we have no actual proof from canon sources for any of those claims, we cannot accept them, no matter how plausible they may be. I understand it may be a bit frustrating to have your work removed due to the anti-speculation principle, but we enacted it for a reason -- you'd be surprised at how much perfectly logical and plausible theories turned out to be disproven by later games or the devs themselves. But rest assured I tried to salvage as much as possible from your contributions.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 00:52, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Again, all aforementioned stuff was in game or around it, and 'speculation' about hairy Deathclaw appearance was somewhat confirmed by the developers of original, there was even brief mention in the Bible on several occasions.

And as far as I know, nothing of an edit in question were salvaged unless it went somewhere else, though worth of an edit itself remains questionable.

What I do care about, however, is that you use quote of F2 character, which was an in-game speculation itself about not normal but enclave-modified Deathclaws, to justify something about Hairy Deathclaws of FT, which may as well be animal of an entirely different biological order. They certainly are related somewhere along the way judging by reptilian traits and oviposition, but they look more related to monkeys than each other, considering significant size, intelligence and physique difference. Doc may be qualified, but he never even seen nor heard of hairy Deathclaws. That rubs me in a very wrong way.

Speaking of Fallout and Fallout Tactics differences, there is another similar problem in the matter of Power Armor and Advanced Power Armor. In many places there are 'speculations' about the fact that neither old Brotherhood nor Enclave are possession of relevant technology, so FT Brotherhood shouldn't be too, completely forgetting it entirely different look and the fact that even by first half of the game resources of FT Brotherhood included several towns, vaults and military bunkers with all necessary technology, and near the end it captured unique facilities of advanced technology, thus placing FT Brotherhood far ahead its other counterparts. And there were early missions to obtain some of advanced parts to reverse-engineer them, so FT Brotherhood technological competence is quite confirmed.

Shall I indulge myself in rectifying this misconception, or it will prove to be equally bothersome?

Thank you.````