Talk:Return to office

Reverts by user Plasticwonder

I added a paragraph about how to avoid RTO, and user Plasticwonder removed it. Does anyone see the value in removing my paragraph? 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, such claims need referencing from a reliable source. Knitsey (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a "citation needed" tag for that. I don't believe that WP encourages users to go about deleting everything that could benefit from a citation.

If the edit needed a citation, then why didn't you add one? The claims you are trying to make do need o be substantiated. Rather than any potential edit warring, it would be best to gain concensus once those edits have been challenged. See WP:BRD. You've done that and started a discussion, the status quo needs to be maintained until it is resolved. Knitsey (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes let's have the discussion. Let's find and add those references that will make the article even better. But in the meantime, your position appears to be that we can go to every piece of "citation needed" content on WP and just delete it. I do not believe that this is a tenable position. 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you accuse me of edit warring, when it is user Plasticwonder who is going about deleting content without any discussion whatsoever? 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:BURDEN. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand that references are helpful. Now I have added references on this talk page that support my paragraph. The bigger issue is that user Plasticwonder deletes any edits that I make to the page, rather than tagging them first. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look at WP:BRD then it is part of the process. There isn't always a need for the whole process on an initial reversion. For example, if someone reverts your edit, then leaves a note (or warning) on your talk page as to why, you either find a reference or then come to the talk page to discuss it. I revert many edits each day as they are unreferenced. Not every one requires further discussion. As @Chrisahn has pointed out, the burden for referencing is on the editor making the edit.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is an essay, not policy, but it does explain some things. I do NOT feel that your edit falls under this. Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly the purpose of the Citation Needed tag is to avoid the sort of edit warring that Plasticwonder is engaging in. You say that my edit does not fall under the category of "explain[s] some things". Please explain why laying out basic RTO avoidance strategies is not valuable to understanding RTO (and the reasons for its failure)? 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Clearly the purpose of the Citation Needed ..." – You're wrong. "edit warring that Plasticwonder is engaging in" – You're wrong, there was no edit warring by Plasticwonder. "You say that my edit does not fall under the category of 'explain[s] some things'" – You misunderstood what Knitsey said. "is not valuable to understanding" – That's not the point. – In general: You'll have to learn how Wikipedia works. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Also you seem to take the position that deleting content (on an important subtopic for which there was otherwise zero content) constitutes "status quo". This position is IMO hard to justify. 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Status quo is that whilst discussions are taking place, content is usually reverted to the pre edit content. It can be restored with the press of a button if needed once discussions have ended. Knitsey (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See the Discuss part of the cycle for detail about not editing the article. Knitsey (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The key condition here is "whilst discussions are taking place". Plasticwonder has contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. I'm sorry to put it that way, but it's literally true: he has made zero edits to the RTO article itself and zero posts on this talk page. There was no discussion at the time that Plasticwonder reverted my edit. If Plasticwonder were constructive, he would add the Citation Needed tag to my content, instead of deleting all of my contributions. The only substantive discussion on my edit to the article came from your observation that it was missing a reference. I hope that (at least some of) the references now on this talk page suffice. Once user Plasticwonder's vandalism is stopped then we can get these improvements into the page. 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As you have been told before: There has been no vandalism by Plasticwonder. Also, your edit of the article was not an improvement. It was unsourced and badly written. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my contribution was missing the payscale reference. Instead of adding a Citation Needed tag, Plasticwonder deleted my entire paragraph and did not initiate nor respond to any discussion, including discussion directed to him via his talk page. That is vandalism. I understand that you feel that my contribution was "badly written". A constructive approach would be to suggest a better way to write it. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"That is vandalism" – You keep saying that, but you're just wrong. Stop it. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

For reference, here was my contribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Return_to_office&diff=prev&oldid=1316144538 and here was user Plasticwonder's reversion of my contribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Return_to_office&diff=prev&oldid=1316144641 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Economics discussion needed

RTO generally fails because of the pay gap between remote and on-site workers. Here is IMO a good reference:

https://www.payscale.com/featured-content/remote-work#module-4

A discussion should be added to the article once the vandalism issue is resolved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:b300:b900:adb6:5606:cb5b:54d5 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You added the following sentences to the article:

RTO is generally avoided by choosing to work on a project without strong geographic clustering, and which provides key value to the company. Attempts to relocate such employees generally fail. At worst, the employees collect large retention bonuses (as well as normal vacation payout) in exchange for working from a hotel room for a few months while they find another remote job.

Is that payscale.com link supposed to be a source for these sentences? — Chrisahn (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I believe that the payscale.com link supports my claim from an economic perspective. The following link explains why employees would outright decline a relocation: https://www.atlasvanlines.com/resources/corporate-relocation-survey/employees-declining-relocation In my experience there are also a lot of employees who take the relocation package (extra money is nice) but don't make anything beyond the minimum commitment to stay at the company. Legally, it depends on the contract as explained here: https://www.tcwglobal.com/blog/if-offered-relocation-assistance-can-you-refuse-to-move In my experience, the vesting period on the relocations has to be fairly short, or else the employees just leave immediately (for the economic reasons noted in the payscale.com reference). 2603:8001:B300:B900:ADB6:5606:CB5B:54D5 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The payscale.com article doesn't support your specific claims. Your personal experiences don't matter here on Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't think you're a good match for Wikipedia. For example, a phrase like "working from a hotel room for a few months" shouldn't appear in an encyclopedic article like this. Maybe Quora or StackExchange would work better for you. They welcome descriptions of personal experiences and are much less strict regarding verifiability. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't like my contribution to the article. However, you have not made the case that the article is better off without my contribution than with it. The payscale.com article shows statistics supporting the fact that people working from home are providing key value that is generally compensated more (as a group) than the average position in the same job sector. This also supports my statement that the relocation attempts fail. Even the Atlas Van Lines (a company that is obviously motivated to promote relocations) is admitting a success rate in the 60% range. My personal experiences may not matter on this platform, but they shouldn't hurt either. Your case seems to be that there's some part of the paragraph that you don't like, so it's OK to just delete the whole thing. So far as I can tell, the part you don't like is the fact that an employee can collect a relocation bonus by working from a hotel if the vesting period is short. I'm sorry, but this is just common sense and doesn't need a reference. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The payscale.com article doesn't support the specific claims you made in the edit I quoted above. Also, the sentences you added were written in an unencyclopedic and unclear style. You could use this talk page section to propose a more encyclopedic, clearer and properly sourced version of these sentences. If that version finds consensus, we could add it to the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I propose to put back my paragraph, as I wrote it and as you quoted it, but adding the payscale.com and Atlas references at the end. As currently written, the article is akin to an article on the plague that details the life cycles of fleas and rodents, without mentioning the effect of the disease on humanity, nor the fact that prevention is possible. Therefore the article is better with my paragraph than without it. The payscale.com and Atlas references definitely support my paragraph, even if personal experience doesn't count, and there is a reasonable amount of inference in my paragraph. If you have a better proposal, or maybe could even elaborate on what "unencyclopedic" means in application to the proposed content, then now would be a perfectly good time to present such details. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"RTO is generally avoided" – Who avoids it? General hint: avoid passive voice. – "by choosing to work on" – Who chooses? – "a project without strong geographic clustering" – What's "strong geographic clustering"? Sounds like something a management consultant would say. Please use common language. And explain what "geographic clustering" has to do with working in an office or remotely. – "and which provides key value to the company" – Again, consultant speak. You could simply say "which is very valuable to the company" or something like that. – "Attempts to relocate such employees generally fail" – Why? And what does "relocate" mean here? Why are you talking about relocation? That's not what this article is about. – "At worst, the employees collect large retention bonuses (as well as normal vacation payout)" – In which case would that happen? – "in exchange for working from a hotel room for a few months" – Why would they work in a hotel? – "while they find another remote job" – I guess that means they want to quit their current job, which doesn't allow remote work, and find another one that does, but it's a bit unclear. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you talking about relocation? That's not what this article is about.

RTO is practically speaking a relocation offer. Work-from-home employees have some kind of "virtual / remote" status. Removing that status, from an HR perspective, works the same as a relocation.

Sounds like something a management consultant would say. Please use common language.

I would think that management consultant language would be fine in an article on management consultant subject matter. Having said that, I agree that my contribution would be better if we could write it in common language.

And explain what "geographic clustering" has to do with working in an office or remotely.

It is common sense (to me at least) that in order for a Return To Office initiative to gain any traction, there has to be an actual office to return to. Contrapositive of that: To avoid RTO, avoid projects with geographic clustering.

Why would they work in a hotel? – "while they find another remote job" – I guess that means they want to quit their current job, which doesn't allow remote work, and find another one that does, but it's a bit unclear.

Your interpretation is correct. Having said that, I would support tweaks to my text that make it easier for the reader to arrive at the meaning that you inferred, provided that conciseness and bluntness can be maintained.

2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"RTO is practically speaking a relocation offer." – It usually isn't. "Return to office" implies that people used to work in an office, then started working remotely, and are now asked to work in the office again. When they worked in the office, they usually didn't live far away, and they commuted to the office. In most cases, they won't have to relocate to work in the office again, unless they moved to a new place. – "Removing that status, from an HR perspective, works the same as a relocation." – That doesn't make sense. What does "from an HR perspective" mean? – "geographic clustering" – You still didn't explain what that means. Who or what is "clustered"? Employees, offices, customers, or something else? You also didn't explain why employees would work in/from a hotel. It's unclear what you were trying to say when you wrote "working from a hotel room". Does that mean they live in a hotel and work in an office? Or does it mean they're working remotely, sitting in a hotel room? – "conciseness and bluntness" – Your contribution was neither concise nor blunt. It was unclear and employed some unnecessary buzzwords. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"geographic clustering" – You still didn't explain what that means.

I like your idea to spell this out. See proposed parenthetical sentence below.

"Return to office" implies that people used to work in an office, then started working remotely, and are now asked to work in the office again.

It doesn't matter if the employee worked in an office at some point in the past. When HR looks at RTO for an employee, their actions are based on whether the employee is currently "virtual / remote" status or not.

What does "from an HR perspective" mean?

It means that when HR looks at doing RTO, they apply a certain thinking and process. Come to think of it, we could word this without mentioning HR. See below.

"RTO is generally avoided" – Who avoids it?

Employees avoid RTO for the reasons noted in the Atlas reference. Companies avoid it for the reasons noted in the Payscale reference. For the purposes of my paragraph, I am specifically advising employees on how to avoid RTO.

Putting it all together, the proposed text is as follows:

RTO is, mechanically, a form of relocation: employees with current "virtual / remote" status are assigned to a company site. Employees generally avoid RTO for various economic reasons (Atlas reference here). They do this by choosing to work on a project without strong geographic clustering, and which provides key value to the company. (payscale reference here) (Geographic clustering, i.e., the existence of, or potential for, an office to return to, is a key requirement for a company to proceed with RTO.) Attempts to relocate such employees generally fail. At worst, employees avoiding RTO collect large retention bonuses (as well as normal vacation payout) in exchange for working from a hotel room for a few months while they find another remote job. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't working. You didn't address the main concerns. Most of what you wrote is still unsourced. Here's what you should do:

• Start from scratch. Forget everything you wrote before.
• Forget your personal experiences and opinions.
• Forget about the Atlas source. It's about relocation, which is only tangentially related to the subject of the article.
• Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Really read it. The whole page. It will only take 20 minutes or so.
• If you have questions, ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse.
• Read https://www.payscale.com/featured-content/remote-work. Think about which information from that source might improve this Wikipedia article.
• Forget anything else you think you know about return-to-office. Use ONLY information that can be found in that source.
• Write new content, using common and clear language without buzzwords, that can be directly attributed to the source. (But don't copy verbatim from the source.)
• Be prepared to justify every detail in your contribution. When someone asks how a certain claim in what you wrote is supported by the source, you should be able to point to a specific sentence or paragraph in the source.

— Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not understand how the proposed text is supported by the added references. You also appear not to understand how RTO relates to relocation but I did my best to explain it in the proposed text. I removed or explained the buzzwords. I understand that personal experience does not count on Wikipedia. I have not proposed to describe my personal experience in the article. Nonetheless, I am not going to forget what I know about return-to-office if it's just common sense. You seem to be suggesting that a contribution must meet exacting standards that IMO would make it impossible for the public to contribute to any Wikipedia article, otherwise these contributions should be deleted. I am not in agreement with that suggestion. Let me know if you have any other specific suggestions to improve the proposed text. I appreciate many of your more specific and constructive suggestions in this discussion section, but "start from scratch" and "forget what you know" are not specific nor constructive suggestions. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the economic impacts described in the Atlas reference, and whether you think that RTO applies to all WFH reductions or not, I think that the article needs to mention some economic impacts such as commute time, and distractions from dysfunctional office setups. This dysfunction predates the federal RTO currently referenced. For example, Google's idiotic "open collaborative workspace" (the cafeteria). 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If you can find sources about return-to-office that also mention commute times and dysfunctional office setups, we can add something about these issues. (And I agree that would be useful.) Without such sources, it's WP:OR. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course references would be better. A key test for WP:OR, that is discussed on the page you linked, is whether the claim is likely to be challenged. Say, for commute time, I have never heard a serious argument that commutes provide economic benefits (vs not having to commute at all). Managers talk about RTO benefits but when it comes to valuing this in dollars they come up short. In any case the "remote work" page already covers WFH economic benefits, so it stands to reason that RTO is going to be costly. The payscale article further supports this by demonstrating that WFH workers are valued more highly than average. And smarter managers understand that employees who are WFH are already doing this for economic reasons, such that RTO is likely to fail. Somebody might call this "original" thought to put 2+2 together, but are you seriously challenging it? In that case your statements require more elaboration. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Counter-trend

So far as I can tell, RTO is the opposite of the current trend in 2025. See for example:

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/companies-gauge-impact-of-return-to-office/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:b300:b900:adb6:5606:cb5b:54d5 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again ip. Blogs are generally not acceptable for referencing.

It sounds like you know something about this subject, so you probably have more resources at hand than I do. Expanding the article would be beneficial to wikipedia so I'm wondering if you are interested in doing that? If you do, it might be worth looking for sources outside of the USA? Knitsey (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Knitsey. Yes, the reason that I am leading the discussion page on this article is because I am indeed interested in improving it. As currently written, the article is akin to an article on the plague that details the life cycles of fleas and rodents, without mentioning the effect of the disease on humanity, nor the fact that prevention is possible. However, as you may have noticed, we unfortunately first have to deal with those who have vandalized the article, particularly when it comes to contributions around economics, and prevention from an employee standpoint. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC) 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has vandalized the article. Not even you. Your contribution was unsourced and badly written, but it wasn't vandalism in the sense of Wikipedia:Vandalism. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition that Plasticwonder's characterization of my contribution as "vandalism" was in error. I agree that my contribution was unsourced. There were many possible constructive options for user Plasticwonder. Plasticwonder might have initiated a discussion, or participated in any discussion, or added a Citation Needed tag. I understand that you don't call Plasticwonder's behavior "vandalism", but it is certainly a signal that contributions to this particular article need to be discussed on the talk page first. That includes any specific changes that you might propose in order to address what you see as "badly written". 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You're trying to twist and turn the facts to fit your rhetoric. Plasticwonder didn't characterize your contribution in this article as "vandalism". But you kept saying – again and again and again, despite repeatedly being told that you're wrong – that Plasticwonder "vandalized" the article. – Regarding your badly written edit, see #Economics discussion needed. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that you don't think that Plasticwonder characterized my contribution as "vandalism". However, when I view Plasticwonder's reversion, I see Tags: AntiVandal Rollback. So Plasticwonder believes that there was vandalism, and I agree with Plasticwonder on that very fine point. I have given my own reasons for why I feel that Plasticwonder's reversion was the vandalism. Most likely my reasons differ from Plasticwonder's thinking. I appreciate your more constructive efforts to actually refine the content, which is something that Plasticwonder did not do. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AntiVandal is the name of the tool that Plasticwonder used. That doesn't mean that Plasticwonder characterized your contribution as vandalism. – "my own reasons ... I feel that Plasticwonder's reversion was the vandalism" – Your "own reasons" and feelings are completely irrelevant. They don't matter. What matters is the definition of vandalism according to Wikipedia:Vandalism. Read it. You will find that Plasticwonder's reversion was not vandalism. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, so Plasticwonder used a tool to characterize my contribution as vandalism. My reasons for returning Plasticwonder's favor do matter if they are in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It says right on the page that you linked to just now that edits must be made in good faith. Deleting content from a Wikipedia page — even imperfect content — without any discussion, and without waiting for discussion first, is not role modeling good faith. A better choice would have been to add a Citation Needed or Needs Discussion tag, or whatever tag fits this user's good faith objections to the text. Removing the text altogether without any such good faith demonstration is an overall detrimental change that IMO fits Wikipedia's policy definition of vandalism. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

RTO didn't start with COVID

The article currently begins with:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses instituted remote work policies.

While this is true, remote work and RTO have both been fairly common since well before COVID. I realize that we can't have personal experience in the article, but in 2013 I and several of my coworkers were working remotely, and management was constantly yapping about RTO. Especially when a company was being acquired. By 2018 the WFH trend had exploded. So it seems worth pointing out that WFH/RTO is not merely a response to COVID. Do we need references to support this? 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence already links to Remote Work which has plenty examples of early WFH. I have fixed the intro. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

RTO became a big deal after COVID. That's an important point. You replaced that sentence by other phrases that simply don't make sense, i.e. "Following this trend", "After this trend", "After remote work started". All of these are simply erroneous. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

RTO became a big deal after COVID, yes. But it definitely is as old as WFH. I've proposed the following neutral compromise:

At the same time as these policies, and especially after the pandemic, businesses recalled their workforce...

2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I see that Chrisahn has removed the "at the same time as these policies" part. The problem with this is that it suggests that RTO grew at a different rate from WFH. It is not true in my experience, so if RTO is specifically correlated with COVID more than WFH per se, then a reference would be needed. The current references do not cover it completely. The Forbes reference doesn't mention COVID. The Bloomberg reference is only about temporary WFH situations, so the relevance depends on whether you think that RTO is only about temporary WFH workers, or all WFH workers. (see subsection below about this) 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

First sentence of first source: "COVID-19 undeniably shifted the way we work." First sentence of second source: "Remote work has been a hot topic since the COVID-19 pandemic" Second sentence of fourth source: "Five years after Covid pushed most staffers into temporary home working" — Chrisahn (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"The Forbes reference doesn't mention COVID" – What are talking about??? Really... — Chrisahn (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

From source : "Before COVID-19, working from home was rare." — Chrisahn (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I was wrong about the Forbes article - you are correct that it references COVID (maybe I previously had the wrong link). Re: "Before COVID-19, working from home was rare." Yes the Boston News article says that, but we know it's not true for the US economy more generally. See WP article on remote work. Also the boston news article itself states that 5.7% of US workers worked from home in 2019. I wouldn't characterize that as "rare".

You are correct that RTO is correlated with COVID. However, WFH is also correlated with COVID. There is no evidence that the growth in RTO is due to COVID, rather than due to the growth in WFH. (And you will not find such evidence, for reasons that you're not interested in.)

Therefore it is misleading to say that RTO is due to COVID. It is as old as WFH itself - unless you take a very narrow definition for RTO that ties it to COVID, but then let's mention that in the intro, and support it with a reference.

2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"I wouldn't characterize that as 'rare'" – Nobody cares what you would or wouldn't characterize as anything. Your opinion doesn't matter. You are not a Wikipedia:reliable source. Neither is any other editor. If reliable sources say it was rare, that's what our article says. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added 5 references to the article that hopefully now refute the "Before COVID-19, working from home was rare" claim, or at least qualify any notion of "rare". 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources you added were useless. They didn't support the claim you wanted to add to the article. One of them was completely unrelated to the subject. I really wonder what you were thinking. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Is RTO about employees with an official, functioning site... or about reducing WFH more generally?

Perhaps the fundamental misunderstanding in the economics discussion above is whether RTO refers only to employees with a currently functioning and officially assigned site, who are asked to return to that site, versus general calls to get reduce WFH. From what I've seen, general calls to reduce WFH are more frequent. For example, every time there's a new manager, they get bright ideas about this, and they always market it as RTO. While I can't find a reference, can we agree that RTO should refer to WFH reduction more generally? 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

When you say "No", do you mean

(a) The definition of RTO is not the misunderstanding we have in the Econommics discussion, or

(b) RTO should not refer to ending WFH more generally?

Note that if you select (b) then you cannot select (a) because in that case, the definition of RTO was the misunderstanding. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You asked "can we agree that RTO should refer to WFH reduction more generally". I answered "no". Partly because it looks like you want to bring in your personal experiences again, e.g. "From what I've seen" and "While I can't find a reference". Again: You have to read, understand and follow WP:V. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that we don't put personal experiences into the article. However, we still need to use the correct terminology. As currently written, the article suggests that RTO is a general reduction of WFH policies. If this is accurate, then RTO applies to employees with current "virtual / remote" status. This is the case even if I happen to have experience confirming that the term RTO is used in this way. And even if you seem to want to prevent the article from having content that agrees with my personal experience.

So if you agree with the current intro - which frames RTO as a general response to WFH - then RTO is often a relocation: the company assigns a site to an employee who was "virtual / remote". And companies will typically offer a relocation package in this case.

If you do not agree with the current intro, then you should support clarifying text such as:

RTO refers only to employees with an official, functioning site. It does not refer to other kinds of WFH reductions, such as assigning a site to an employee who was "virtual / remote" or working at another, dysfunctional site.

and if this is the case, a reference would be nice too.

Also you removed the content about WFH being white-collar, which might have helped illuminate the difference between these WFH cases. (I think the white-collar jobs are the ones that get the relocation packages.)

Finally, references are nice, but not having a reference is not an excuse for keeping the article in an inaccurate state.

2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"you seem to want to prevent the article from having content that agrees with my personal experience" – Bullshit. Are you really too dense to understand what several editors have been trying to tell you? I guess you still haven't read WP:V. You really need to learn hwo Wikipedia works. Nobody here gives a damn about your personal experience. Your personal experience does not matter in any way. I do not care whether any content agrees with your personal experience. Or the personal experience of any other editor, including my own. It doesn't fucking matter. All that matters is that article content can be verified by reliable sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your personal experience does not matter in any way.

It is good to hear that my motives don't matter to you. In this case, please stop writing things like "Partly because it looks like you want to bring in your personal experiences again".

All that matters is that article content can be verified by reliable sources.

I understand that you say that this is your chief metric. However, there is plenty of good content on Wikipedia that is not sourced. We don't just go around deleting it. We add tags like Citation Needed. I would postulate that accuracy is more important. "reliable sources" is not the only way to arrive at accuracy, assuming that you have logical reasoning skills. (You at least are familiar with this concept, having written and amended some sentences without any references yourself.)

Are you really too dense to understand what several editors have been trying to tell you?

Yes, apparently, I am not following everything that Chrisahn, Chrisahn, and Chrisahn have been trying to tell me.

2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

JFC. You're trying to twist the facts into pretzels again. Ugh. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I would rather characterize my efforts as trying to understand what Chrisahn is telling me. You seem to have a specific vision for what I'm going to write, or how I should approach writing it, or are bothered by something I've already written, but it can be hard for me to get the details out of you. You quote lots of WP policies as if they are absolute rules, when the exceptions (that are essential for WP functioning, and also apply to the case we're discussing) are noted on the pages you send me. 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I've had enough. I won't bother trying to explain the details to you anymore. You keep misunderstanding what people are trying to tell you, and you keep distorting the facts. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In any case, if you can find a reference supporting the more narrow definition for RTO, then that would IMO eliminate some of the most serious economic issues with RTO. (I'm just doubting that you will find such a reference, for reasons that you're not interested in.) 2603:8001:B300:B900:7DAF:CA30:9E9:905 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)