User talk:Mandruss/Archive 5

Hi Mandruss, thanks

Hi Mandruss, hope all is well! Thanks for coming to my defense; that is truly appreciated. I hope you think the Davis article is doing well; the Germanwings Flight article too. Hey I may be up for Administrator later next month; if you feel like it, keep an eye on the RfA page then. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I hate that imperious tone and see red every time I see it. Especially if they're wrong. I can't help it. Haven't looked at Davis or Germanwings in ages, that's so 2015. ;) I've never visited an RfA and I don't know what I would contribute to yours, beyond "He seems like an ok guy to me, don't know of any reason to oppose." lol. Is that what they want in an RfA? Non-opposes? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Soham321 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, already familiar with that. If you have a certain edit or edits in mind, feel free to refer to them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing NPOVN posting

Did you see my post about the missing NPOVN posting? It's the next one after my "Help Please" posting on the AN talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - I did, and I looked into it briefly. If the comments were collapsed, they obviously wouldn't be visible to you, and they wouldn't be seen by your browser Find function, if you use that to find things. But I didn't see any new collapses. I also don't see any recent large removals in the page history. We should consider the possibility that WP stress is affecting your mind. :D (It's beginning to affect mine!) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually I did! I have been so frustrated today!

I remembered almost word-for-word my posting and couldn't find it anywhere. And, then I remembered it was in response to comments by Bastun - went through his and my postings til I found this posting.

Do you think my mind is playing tricks on me and I'm reading something on that diff that isn't really there? LOL.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I posted it on the article talk page - I just didn't think it was right to post it on the NPOV page. And, you saw it on the AN talk page. Maybe someone can help out. In the meantime, I'll view versions in increments of 20 or so and see if I can pinpoint when it happened. I didn't see a big chunk removal either - so I thought that there could have been an offsetting addition.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - That content is in the collapse at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#List_of_sources. Your mind appears to be ok (as far as we know). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. I did collapse sections in this area because they had gotten so long and it seemed important to capture RfC votes than keeping up this conversation. Well, now I can say where they were posted at. OH MY Goodness! Thanks so much for finding them!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Close

What did you think of the closer's comments at Scott? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - Hadn't seen it until now. Since it's fairly close to my !vote's reasoning and gives me the outcome I wanted, I obviously like it and agree with it! What do you think of it? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane Doe lawsuit

Hi, could you please add links to relevant sources in the RfC? If there are a whole bunch then you could put them in a collapsed pane. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Good idea. @CaroleHenson: You're more familiar with the sources on this, can you help me with assembling those links? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm being tasked?

I don't know what you mean about me being more familiar with this, but you helped me find my missing comment last night— and that was a huge relief— so here are the sources from the Jane Doe section immediately before you removed that sectiont:

References

@CaroleHenson: Thanks! @DrFleischman: Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Thanks for submitting the temp block request for Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations!

I'm cleaning up citations, and I see you are, too. I want to fill in some missing info and, as an FYI, I'll start at the bottom of the article and work my way up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I don't think we'll get in each other's way. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Whenever vandalism is occurring with really high frequency (too high for it to be worth reporting at AIV and waiting) as occurred just then, you can ask for an admin via #wikipedia-en ^connect as I did. The response was really quick. That's not to say you should always do that (you shouldn't), but with high-frequency vandalism, it can be a good way of quickly halting vandal sprees. Dustin (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't have an IRC client, and I'm reluctant to install one just for that purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but while I have an IRC client, I have found that just clicking "connect" in the above link allows me to open IRC in Internet Explorer / Chrome without having to download any external applications. I don't know if that would work for you on your device, but it works for me. If you just don't want to bother, I understand. There's not really much more to say about it. Dustin (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was clicking on the wrong link, duh. I've bookmarked the target of the link, now if I can just remember it when I need it two months from now. Thanks for the tip. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. Dustin (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Just tried this to get a user blocked for clear vio of ArbCom remedies at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

#wikimedia-overflow: You have been forwarded here because the channel you tried to join is temporarily closed, too many people are trying to join it, or your connection is malfunctioning. Please try to join again in a few seconds. If that doesn't work, try registering your nickname (http://freenode.net/kb/answer/registration), or /join #wikimedia-ops for help.

So I tried to join again in a few seconds, same result. Totally stumped, gave up. 1980s computer-geek technology, ported to the Web. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, that can occur sometimes. It seems to be working now, though. Dustin (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

For you, perhaps. :D Could be I have to "register my nickname", but I looked at that and opted not to take that on at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what the deal is, just that it kicked you out again. Perhaps there are too many people in the channel. Dustin (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

I withdrew from the article tonight. It's just not worth it to me to continue to struggle on this and I think my greatest value was in the beginning as the article was getting established. There are a lot of good people, though, that watch and work on the article - so I know you'll have good support.

I want to thank you for having become my mentor this time - and I am glad we reconnected through this article.

If there's anything that I can do to support your points through the ANI process, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC double vote

Thanks -- I moved my other post at Trump RFC to show as update to my position; best to leave it out, and if not then ~2 lines and use the bigger cites not the dailybeasy or cosmo ... Either one will be fine, so long as the wiki mania ceases ... Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments obliquely related to the Trump sexual misconduct dispute

My comments here are probably best addressed to you here rather than on the Trump sexual misconduct talk page. It strikes me that you are sincere in your aims. I think you might want to start rethinking the application of the five pillars, though.

It is my contention that the original intention was never to prescribe rules, or to enforce a singular interpretation instead of offering some guidance to nevertheless individual and contextual judgement. Hard work each time, and not at all to be guided by previous decisions.

It is my observation, hotly disputed by some administrators, that over time the pillars have become a stick with which to beat editors, and mostly along ideological lines invisible to most American editors, including administrators, because the underlying assumptions are American.

Those assumptions include the ones that for 30 years have seen an acceptance of a culture of white collar corruption, the mendacious proposition that religion overrules the laws of the land, and that celebrity excuses misconduct. I’m not proposing to say more than the world already has, through innumerable news reports and commentaries, about the shameful debasement of American politics evident in the current election cycle. But I ask you to consider now whether the debasement is not partly due to the tolerance for idiocy and malevolence embedded in some interpretations of any set of principles.

We see the outcome of ‘civility’ and ‘soapboxing’, for example, as buttressing the success of enforced cretinism, so long as it is phrased politely.

If you care about an encyclopaedic mission, I commend to you some deeper thinking than reliance on conventional interpretations of Wikipedia policies and principles: is it facts we’re after here, or compromises that Americans are comfortable with, but which bend the rules of rationality to accommodate the ignorant, the insane, and the trolling lawyers (some of whom are undoubtedly paid to pursue particular outcomes).

Make of this what you will. I don’t require a reply and I have no agenda save making people here start to think differently enough to save a project that has become a monument to ideology in itself. Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peterstrempel: Thanks for the comments. Your argument here, and that in the RfC, appear to be long on personal perspective and short on policy basis, and I will always oppose that. I don't suspect you of an agenda, but I believe you are misguided. Wikipedia policy is the only objective guide we have; if we start questioning its very legitimacy, the whole thing falls apart and surrenders to personal bias (and none of us is without personal bias). You propose to radically change the rules of the game, and you are arguing at a higher, philosophical level that belongs somewhere like WP:VPP rather than in a single-article context. If you wish to pursue it, I would suggest taking it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: My mistake. I had thought of you as a thinker. Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This man's scorn should be worn as a badge of honor. g@rycompugeek  talk 19:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh. He is entitled to his scorn and I don't need any badges. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC

I'm all for having an RFC, and kudos to you for starting it (even though I was hoping to gather some of the stats I have suggested myself, which is now not likely to happen before the end of the RFC).

I think it's important to tread very carefully in these fora. The narrative that either "side" may advance is often flawed - and it takes detailed knowledge or research to establish this - if indeed you can at all.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Rich, I'm not exactly sure, but I think you're suggesting that I am making claims of bad faith without sufficient foundation. I would disagree, and I think I articulated my reasoning well enough in this comment. Good faith would be exceedingly easy to demonstrate, simply disable reordering temporarily pending consensus to include, per standard Wikipedia process. If reordering has as much merit as you claim, it will be reinstated within about 30 days and we can move on at long last. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So firstly this was not a highly controversial change. I have not necessarily seen all the discussion over the years, but what I have seen, until the present case, only one editor has vigorously opposed this.

I invite you to re-read the 2009 discussion - the most negative of those contributing said effectively "You are wasting your time, but if you want to do it, go ahead."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

I think I'm now out of this. I apologize for making the situation worse in the sincere belief that I was making it better. Best of luck as to a resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nail/head

Re: "it's the political obstacles to such change, and that's the result of being self-governed" - yep, indisputably. And "alternate between (1) WMF intervention is required, and (2) the problem is intractable, so we should stop wasting our time discussing it" - I swing between those same thoughts myself. Best, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, kindred spirits. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mandruss. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

The Washington Post article does state that the gun was cocked. I haven't looked for other sources, but WaPo is widely respected. I understand if you don't want to put that in the lede. Is there a better place to put that rather than removing it? Natureium (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Natureium: The WaPo article does not say the gun was cocked, which would mean that the hammer was drawn back making for an easier trigger pull. It says a round was already chambered. If any more detail is needed I think it should go in the Police account section. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward

Choosing an image as the lead image is discussed at the talk page. You were involved, so I invite you there. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg

You were involved with the image and death of Eric Garner. I invite you to the ongoing FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Paige Matheson and 2601:483:100:CB54:65D1:D947:6835:84D3 are the same person. She explained at the talk page that she lost her old account that she created ten years ago. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then I won't complain if she reinstates the edit. But someone else might complain since it's impossible to know it's the same person without already being familiar with the situation. It might help if she declared in her editsum that it's her IP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see your revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see talk page Donald Trump on your edit to "mock tudor." I specifically left off the links because it does not at all look like the actual house. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

President or president

Hi Mandruss, thanks for correcting my spelling of "President" into "president" in the lead section of Donald Trump, however I am not sure this change is correct. MOS:BIO#Occupation titles says Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns and gives "Emperor of Japan" and "British Prime Minister" as examples. I believe that "U.S. President" is such a "commonly used name of an office" and therefore should keep the uppercase P. My edit summary because no president was ever richer used "president" as a regular name, hence the lowercase p. Wouldn't you agree? Strangely, MOS:JOBTITLES is more vague, saying that a title should be capitalized when the correct formal title is treated as a proper name, but giving no hint of which titles should be treated as proper names. Sampling a few random pages in the Wikipedia corpus, I found "U.S. President" most often capitalized in article prose. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's "President Barack Obama" and "wealthiest U.S. president". I agree that our guidance is very confused on this question, and I've heard tell at Wikipedia that even the major style guides disagree. So the issue will continue to give rise to an endless series of little skirmishes like this one. I won't make a big issue of it, but I won't stop making edits like mine either. Someday, in some far-off galaxy, a Wikipedia may learn that it's counterproductive to live with unclear guidance on these things, no matter how minor they seem to many. Thanks for the post. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia may learn that it's counterproductive to live with unclear guidance: you're so right! Now the "oldest" and "wealthiest" mentions have been combined again so that the expression "U.S. President" doesn't appear any longer. Issue resolved by avoiding it! — JFG ^talk 04:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

With you on this one as a copy editor... proper noun in that sentence, my foot. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There's one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus section at Donald Trump

(Trying again - darned unfamiliar hotel computer!) Your new "consensus section" at Donald Trump seems to be working well, and people are starting to use it. Good idea. I have one suggestion: instead of putting (link 1) next to each item, which can be confusing, how about putting just (link) next to each item? And then if there is a second one, do it as (link) (link 2) What do you think?MelanieN alt (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN and MelanieN alt: Thanks, I have high hopes. Sure, all link 1s could read link instead. I have no objection if you think it would be an improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, we already saw someone misunderstand the numbering and try to do them as "link 1", "link 2", "link 3", etc. This would eliminate any confusion about what the "1" refers to. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Gofer it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeking input on issue at the page for 2016

At the page for 2016 there is currently a discussion/disagreement over the international notability of national elections, specifically the election of Donald Trump as President of the US. The main guideline being cited in opposition to its inclusion is WP:RY, which states that "national elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country", along with saying that including national elections gives a bias non-worldwide viewpoint. I'm in support of its inclusion, along with the elections of other major offices worldwide, for two main reasons: 1. the election of Donald Trump does represent "significant change in the country"; 2. many developed nations, especially the United States, are constantly involved in major foreign policy issues/conflicts in many different parts of the world, unlike minor nations, and as a result the election of leaders in those countries carries more weight and has farther-reaching implications, thus their inclusion is reasonable. This seems like a minor issue on Wikipedia, but for some reason it annoyed me. With the justification I had, it seemed that using WP:IAR was appropriate, but others are still contesting it. How do you feel about this issue? What steps should I take to update flaws (if any) in the current guidelines, along with resolving this particular issue? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@WClarke: Hello. I don't feel competent to weigh in on that content issue. As for relevant guidelines, I can't speak to any flaws for the same reason. Procedurally, any proposal for change to a guideline (or a simple discussion about it) should take place on the talk page associated with the guideline, with notifications in appropriate public venues such as Village Pump. I realize this is not the assistance you sought, but I didn't want to just ignore you. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll probably create a proposal on WP:RY and add an entry at the Village Pump. WClarke (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump lead

Hi Mandruss, User:MelanieN wrote this recently: "the simple fact that he got fewer electoral votes than someone else is dramatic and rare enough (fifth time in history) that it needs to be in the lede". I assume she meant popular votes rather than electoral votes. So I infer that MelanieN opposes versions D and E in the survey. Accordingly, do you have any objection if I go ahead and install version A or B? In other words, do you think version A or B would make the lede worse?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I will change it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Any objection Mandruss?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not sure what you want me to say. I !voted for E with no secondary choices, and my view hasn't changed. I think the detail should be below the lead. Procedurally, there wouldn't be a consensus for change even with my endorsement. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

People can edit the article when no one objects. Since no one has objected to the word plurality, I don't see why I can't put that word in. There is no consensus to remove from the lead that Trump got less of the popular vote than Clinton, given the views of people like MelanieN, so I don't think Version E will succeed even though I supported it. No one has objected to Version A or B, as far as I can tell, or said that they prefer the present language to Versions A or B. If you prefer the present language to Versions A or B, I'm giving you an opportunity to say so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I have no opinion on status quo vs A or B. Thanks for the opportunity. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry if I came across as angry. I'm a big consistency buff, concerning the US President bios & US Vice President bios series. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: No problem as far as I'm concerned. Lots of editors seem to be big consistency buffs, even where there is no policy, guideline, or other community consensus supporting said consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: For example, the rationale for this edit is not inter-article consistency, but rather MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph, the latter representing a community consensus, the former representing nothing but one editor's personal opinion. Thus your edit summary was incorrect and there is no reason to expect your edit to stand. Furthermore your rationale suggests that you wouldn't object if another editor re-added the "smalls" at both Pence and Trump, and you should object. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many rules, for my taste. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you would rather impose rules that lack community consensus than observe rules that have it. That's backwards in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I blocked the IP. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yeah, I just noticed that, thx. I thought it was blpvio more than true vandalism, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It was both. The edit on your talk page was the nail in the coffin. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Did we get a consensus on the Russian thing for Trump's article? [1] SW3 5DL (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I may have missed something, but I don't see much of a consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Come to think of it, that's just about the lead. I don't know of a challenge to content below the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's different then. But reading it, I'm not sure the agencies are actually making those claims. They seem vague, and imply the Russians had something to do with the actual election, voting machines, etc., which they have denied saying. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: You may have identified our next heated controversy! :D ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sadly, yes. Looks like a time sink, as well. I'm not even going to touch that one. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I predict that the next four years at that article will not be boring. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You could take that to Ladbrokes and do very well. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Hello, I am having a similar debate on Talk:2017_Chicago_torture_incident#Names_of_suspects where, despite clearly showing the Wikipedia policy specifically allows the naming of suspects in high profile cases, I can not get through to a couple editors. If you could please, bring your knowledge of the subject to the talk section and help either correct me, or bring consensus to the dispute, thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Sorry, that feels a bit too much like a WP:CANVASS violation. WP:DR outlines dispute resolution paths and I would recommend WP:BLPN. If you start a thread there, be sure to then post a link to it in the article talk thread. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, well that was not my intention, and I was not asking you to be in favor of my side. After looking at WP:BLPN, it does not look like it is the appropriate place for this. Thanks anyways.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the heads up about signing my posts --Moses (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your input on User_talk:Jayron32#Concerning_the_troll_at_Ref_Desk_Humanities. The Transhumanist 08:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, do you know JavaScript?...

You wouldn't by any chance know JavaScript, or know someone on WP who knows JavaScript?

I'm asking everyone I know/meet these days, because I need any and all help I can get on scripts I'm working on. I'm definitely in over my head.

The current script I'm developing, User:The Transhumanist/anno.js, to which I'm trying to add view port positioning, has me stumped!

Any guidance or leads would be most appreciated. The Transhumanist 08:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Transhumanist: I don't know it, but I'd recommend WP:RDC. No doubt the Web is teeming with JS help resources including human ones, but RDC is the Wikipedia go-to for all computer-related questions not involving existing WP software (that's WP:VPT). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been posting my queries to WP:VPT and links to those queries at WP:REFDESK/C. If you come across any JavaScript nutsos, please send them my way, or give me a heads up. Thank you. By the way, that's an intellectually stimulating user page you have. Cheers, The Transhumanist 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

What are your favorite subjects?

(In the encyclopedia...) The Transhumanist 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well are you asking what I edit, or about my general interests? For the former, see this. For the latter, see my user page, in particular the userboxes. I'm curious why you're curious, as you're the first to ask such a question in 3+1⁄2 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always assumed that an editor's general interests are reflected in their edits, but in your case this may not be so. Fascinating.

I'm curious, because you are very discerning, and I'd like to see if and where our interests intersect...

Also due to my curiosity, I'm a generalist at heart, who likes to see the big picture, which has drawn me to try to create an overview of knowledge and of Wikipedia. Thus, my main interest on Wikipedia is outlines, which as a project overlaps with all subjects and subject-based WikiProjects. This of course has spread me very thin. I've never done as good a job as I'd like on any particular subject, because I'm interested in most of them equally. But I learn a lot along the way, which is what I enjoy.

I'm not very good at psychoanalysis, but I will attempt to guess your interests from your edit stats and userboxes...

Your userbox collection is rather vague, as it mixes data about you with your interests (for example, emphasizing where you've been, rather than what regions you enjoyed most or that you'd like to further explore/read about/write about). But it does show you've traveled a lot, and may have a strong geographical orientation. Your edit analysis on the other hand shows that you are drawn to morbid topics. You may have a preoccupation with death.

I've tried to describe death and every aspect of it, by creating an overview of the subject (or subject-based site map) in the form of the Outline of death. While compiling it, I was very surprised by just how extensive that subject is, and even more so by the extent of Wikipedia's coverage of death. But I'm afraid I haven't done death justice. The outline is a bit sketchy, and would benefit from somebody more intimately familiar with the subject taking a crack at it (the outline, not death itself). :)

I hope I've piqued your morbid curiosity... The Transhumanist 11:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Transhumanist: That's an astute observation, and one that had not occurred to me. I'm quite interested in science and history, but I don't edit them. You might say I don't take an academic approach to them, which is probably connected to the fact that I never went to college beyond a bit of night school, which is due to difficulty with studying and heavy reading, which is due to focus problems that I attribute to a probable autism-spectrum condition. I have always enjoyed watching documentaries and that's primarily how I learn about science and history. I like Ken Burns.
I love the land and am particularly fond of the American West, which I guess is my "geographical orientation". I like cats and dogs up close, wild animals at a distance.
You may be right about a preoccupation. I thought I gravitated toward that stuff because of the sociological aspects, but it could be I'm just hooked on the violence fed to us by Hollywood. Lots of people are, which is why Hollywood keeps producing so much of it. But again I can't muster an academic interest in death. Basically I'm just a high school grad with verbal skills that make me seem smarter than I am. So I'm afraid I'm not the guy you're looking for, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Autism spectrum? Unlikely. Seeming smarter than you are? Unlikely. You obviously have the skills needed to understand and communicate about anything you are interested in, and have progressed way beyond high school via autodidacticism. So don't sell yourself short. Some people really get into lists. Others don't. Maybe you favor auditory learning. Go with your passions. It's like food. Sometimes a person gets bored with eating the same old thing prepared the same old way and tries something they used to hate, and likes it. I used to not be able to stand sardines, and now I gobble them up. I used to dislike chemistry and biology, and now I like them as much as most other subjects. If you get bored with the samo-samo, and would like to explore, keep in mind that the outlines are knowledge maps that show the layout of many subjects. We have an Outline of animals, an outline of film, and if you are really into violence, we even have an outline of James Bond. And although we have an outline of war, for some weird reason we don't have its parent outline of violence, yet. Someone started an Outline of dogs, but it is still in draft space, and we have a bare skeleton for outline of cats, in case you ever feel like tossing some cat topics in there.

Academic? Well, we cram everything we have on these subjects into their outlines, whether it's academic or not. (Chuckles). But whatever you do, have fun. Cheers, The Transhumanist 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you delete something for me?

Hi, Mandruss! I see that you are online right now. Could you take a look at my message at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Addition of the dossier to the article? There is something that needs to be deleted from that article because it violates BLP, and I shouldn't do it per 1RR. Nobody else seems to be around at that article. Would you be willing to remove it? I have already explained to the author why we can't have it there. If you'd rather not that's OK. I suppose I could do it myself and call it an emergency. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The item that needs to be deleted is the file at the top of the section called "Briefing on alleged Trump dossier". --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Love to help you out, but BLP is one of those things that continue to baffle me. You're probably right, and I could just take your word for it, but then I would just be a MelanieN proxy, which would be the same as you doing it. Why not WP:AN? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually somebody took care of it almost as soon as I posted this. I was sure I had posted here to tell you never mind. It must have edit-conflicted. Sorry about that. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No problem. Come to think of it, if WP:3RRNO item 7 applies to the content, 1RR was not a problem for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That's probably what I should have done. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin nomination?

Hello Mandruss. Owing to our interactions at some political pages, but also by reading some of your commentary elsewhere in mainspace, on user talk pages and in noticeboard discussions, I would be supportive of a nomination for adminship, if you ever wish to go that route. — JFG ^talk 12:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Wow, I appreciate the vote of confidence. For the foreseeable future I'm way short of the policy knowledge needed for the job, and I feel I'm getting enough unpaid stress from Wikipedia as it is. I also have strong feelings about handling of behavior issues that do not seem compatible with prevailing views (e.g. I feel that "preventative not punitive" is a really bad utopian idea, but I see no one else saying that, let alone anything approaching the numbers that would be required to change it).
I favor unbundling of admin responsibilities, and I would consider taking on a small piece of the mop if I didn't have to run the RfA gantlet to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality of Wikipedia

Was not familiar with those guidelines, thank you very much for sending them to me. IF you look at many of the recent edits on Meryl Streep's page, Donald Trump's page, Hillary Clinton's page, you'll see that there have been a lot of users, who are clearly biased and with the intent to manipulate the readers' opinion on those subjects, instead of providing them with a neutral point of view. Most of these semi-vandalistic edits were in favor of the second page.Radiohist (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Radiohist: - Thanks for the note. I didn't mean to ignore you, but I needed some time to think about a response. I'm still not sure a good response is possible, but I'll do my best.
Wikipedia neutrality is not as simple as many editors think. For example, many said that, to be neutral, Trump's infobox should show a photo of him smiling, since Clinton's does. That's just wrong. And neutrality policy is not even black-and-white but rather full of gray areas where experienced and reasonable editors often disagree. WP policy in general often seems to self-contradict, to be in conflict with itself. I have yet to sort all that out for myself. So if you're asking for my assistance, I feel I'm probably the wrong person. An admin would be a better choice, and I'm not aware of any reason you couldn't approach one for advice or help. Also you should be very familiar with WP:DR and use the resources described there. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

One Click Archiver

On the talk page for Donald Trump you wrote One of these days I'll get around to getting set up for that one-click archiver thingy. I just set it up and it appears to not work on that page as it uses a different archiving system, however this one User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver appears to work. Just thought I'd let you know in case you were interested in setting it up. Messaged you on here instead of replying on the talk page in order to further increase its size. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks for the note. After writing that, I set up User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver yesterday and successfully archived four sections using it. I noticed that later user Scjessey successfully archived one section using it. All of this can be seen in the recent page history. I don't know why it wouldn't work for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move notification

Hello,

All 7 pages have been moved successfully per your request.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 08:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

photo thing

Hi Mandruss, this is on his Facebook page. What do you think of it? [2]. I like how they crop it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: My subjective opinion is that I feel a portrait should be a bit taller than wide, this the result of a lifetime mostly before the digital age, when virtually all portraits were 8x10s or 5x7s, at least in my country. A square photo doesn't seem like a proper portrait to me.

If you're asking how I feel about the possibility of using that at the Trump article, I would be opposed anyway. If we cross the line into cropping, we not only have to reach a consensus on the right cropping but it opens the door to any kind of modification, and we're off and running again. As I said in talk, I think we have to be prepared to say "that's good enough, even though it might be a little better". I think the status quo is good enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's best to keep things stable, too. Thanks SW3 5DL (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page

Hello Mandruss.

I wasn't trying to escalate your concern when I moved your post on the Trump talk page, however it's plainly off topic for its original position so I suggest you consider the most appropriate position on the page and move it there yourself. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - I submit that an offhand comment tangentially related to the topic, consisting of two short sentences, is not an impediment to the discussion there. It wastes approximately 10 seconds per reader, even if the time is completely wasted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I have filed a DRN case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump - please add your summary of the dispute there. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC Template

All of the open RFCs at Trump talk have templates, except the first, and I think such a template needs to be restored for that first RFC. Moreover, the list of open RFCs does not indicate whether there is a request to close at WP:Requests to close, and I think that should be indicated. Taking these steps might help to get the RFC situation under control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Legobot removed the template and de-listed the RfC on the 11th, which is routine for an RfC after 30 days. The only reason to re-add the template would be if we felt it hadn't received enough attention and needed to be re-listed, and that's not the case here.
As for the indication that a close has been requested, wouldn't that be more useful as a note at the top of the RfC? Not everybody looks at the list, and many aren't even aware it exists. Feel free to add any such notes yourself. I'll probably do the same, sporadically, but I've yet to be elected Talk Page Clerk. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping Anythingyouwant. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I added said note to that one. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for adding that note. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For coming up with the idea of a List of Consensuses, and maintaining it as a very helpful addition to Talk:Donald Trump. MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Aw thanks, Mel. I think the jury's still out on that, but my heart was in the right place. Anyway I stole the idea, remember. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And then I and JFG, CFCF, and others refined it a bit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, stealing other people's ideas is the secret of success! --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, IBM made billions of dollars doing that. But nobody awarded them a Brilliant Idea Barnstar for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good artists copy, great artists steal. — Steve Jobs

Well done, Mandruss, here's to teamwork! (And Jobs didn't say whom he stole this quip from…) — JFG ^talk 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support barnstar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Test ping

Test ping to User:BoredBored. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What the...? Whats a test ping? -- BoredBored (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

See your talk page, last thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As a side-note, redlinked usernames can receive pings, if they are active under that username but have not bothered (or do not intend to bother with) creating a formal bluelinked userpage. However, my understanding is that in cases where a username-change per WP:CHU has happened, pinging the old username may not necessarily echo-notify the person, under their new username. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

wp:crystal

...health is a legitimate topic for a sitting president. We also refer to his age, and for the same reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ioci#Example_of_Ioci suggests you are incorrect about the legitimacy  ;-)    And the reason we refer to his age, is because RS tend to mention 'oldest person elected potus' in exactly the same way that RS nowadays like to talk about 'oldest person launched into space' and the 'oldest highly-documented human still living' and other kinds of trivial records. Whereas if the universe were a better place and life was fair, the RS would instead talk about "highest quality edit to wikipedia ever measured" and also the "most well-informed vote ever cast during a presidential election" and other such currently-nonextant concepts :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump

Donald Trump is subject to discretionary sanctions, which states that an editor "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page". Please self-revert and discuss on talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Handled. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, not to belabor the point, but no other president has an external link to his character on SNL. Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: WP:OSE. There is no community consensus as to a need for inter-president consistency on use of "IMDb character", nor any reasonable need for such consistency that I can see. Not to belabor that point, but the link shows all apppearances of a Trump character, not just SNL. As I said, SNL is only one of 120 entries in the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

question

Did I delete something here? If so, thanks for fixing it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: MelanieN forgot to sign her hat, so I added {{unsigned}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That was nice of you, You're very thoughtful. SW3 5DL (talk)

Not really. Just providing important tracks of who-did-and-said-what. I use {{unsigned}} a lot for any kind of unsigned edit in a talk space. (This is not to say that I'm not very thoughtful. ) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing like it

Clueless is so sad. No doubt you can live with it. So sad you didn't do some research. MarnetteD|Talk 06:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If the removal is as obviously righteous as you claim, a consensus for it will be a matter of WP:SNOW. I reiterate that trolls should be allowed to change their behavior, which means we shouldn't effectively ban them from the desks based solely on past behavior. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trolls don't change their behavior that is why smart editors don't feed them. When you've been successful in achieving a change pat your self on the back. MarnetteD|Talk 07:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: That's where you're wrong. Anybody can change their behavior, which is why, for example, most blocks are temporary. I'm preparing the ANI complaint for disruption and personal attacks and the notification will be forthcoming shortly unless you self-revert before then and seek consensus as requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI really - mountain that molehill. Make sure to include examples of where you have been successful pf changing trollish behavior. MarnetteD|Talk 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: That is beside the point of the ANI complaint, as you will read there. Even if you are 100% in the right on that, you don't get to ignore a good faith challenge to an edit, let alone call people "enabler" and "loser" in edit summaries. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

section close

Mandruss, can you close this section [3]. Apparently, someone took it upon himself to remove the section from the article. It does appear to have consensus for removal. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Two paragraphs remain in the article as of this moment.
I declined to !vote there because I felt I lack competence in that area. If I lack the competence to !vote there, I certainly lack the competence to close it. Closing is not about counting !votes, you have to be able to weigh the merits of the arguments. Maybe someone else would be willing to close it.
While there may be a rough consensus there, I don't think there's enough to merit an entry in the consensus list, which needs to be fairly unimpeachable to be effective. (Even MelanieN hedged her statement not once but twice: "I think that is probably supported by consensus based on the discussion here.") If it's not a good candidate for the list, a close is less important. If we see a lot of ongoing dispute around the size of that section, it may be necessary to RfC it and hope for a stronger consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think it was ready either, and I'd have reverted him but for Melanie's tepid acknowledgement. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PT-109

You don't own the article, and I don't much appreciate reverting edits that are legitimate, just to satisfy your ego. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 00:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't claim to own that article or any other. There's no reason to get upset here. There is a guideline somewhere to the effect that, if there are two ways to accomplish the same thing, x and y, we shouldn't go around changing articles that consistently (or almost consistently) use x to use y because we personally prefer y. I can hunt that down for you if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hydrargyrum: Your link change in this edit is incorrect per WP:NOTBROKEN. I generally revert those when I see them, but I'm letting this one go because you seem to react emotionally to being reverted. I would hope you would read that guideline and self-revert that as well as your other recent such link changes, but I'm not going to make an issue of it. If you don't fix it, I'm sure someone else eventually will. Please don't bypass any more NOTBROKEN redirects. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I often correct links or change links incidental to other copy-edits, primarily to fix punctuation, syntax, grammar, and so on, but in your seeming fixation on WP:NOTBROKEN, it appears you haven't noticed. That's what I do, and it costs you nothing. Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with how tool tips work on Wikipedia, to you'll have a better understanding of why direct links to articles are worth more to the reader than redirects: We edit Wikipedia for the site visitors, not for self-edification of editors. If you think changes are "unnecessary", why do you even bother spending time at Wikipedia at all? It is voluntary work, and as such, it is all "unnecessary". Moreover, what you have been doing in recent days appears to be Wikistalking, and is neither appreciated nor condoned under Wikipedia rules. Finally, if you're looking for someone to kiss your ring, you're asking the wrong person. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• User:Hydrargyrum, I might could understand your reluctance to follow NOTBROKEN, though I think it's mistaken, but what I can not understand is the tone you take here--all this talk of ownership, satisfying ego, wikistalking, and this condescending nonsense about ring kissing. I consider those personal attacks and I will not hesitate to block for that. Please adjust your tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: ANI comment

Sorry I missed that one. It's hard to keep track of which were replying to his 'votes' and which were actually voting. Feel free to move it to the proper place. --Tarage (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it has done its job and isn't needed for the record. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is edit warring to close RfC just started two days ago. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Brain

Hi, I noticed that your WP:VPI thread, which I moved there from WP:VPR, has received no response after four days. Since I think VPI gets less attention, I feel somewhat responsible. Since the VPR/VPI distinction isn't widely understood and only rarely enforced, you could move back to VPR with my blessing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Revised and reposted it here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22#Intelligent Wikipedia that talks to you interactively. The Transhumanist 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's getting quite a bit of input now. Thanks for the heads up. The Transhumanist 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching that for the time being. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lost RfC

Hi Mandruss, I see you're busy archiving some threads at Talk:Donald Trump. I noticed that we lost an open RfC to the archiving process. Would you mind reviving it and perhaps asking for a formal close? I'd do it myself but I don't want to interfere with your work and I don't have much time right now. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 12:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 13:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Fordham

I switched back to yes because you're right about the definition. And I noticed other BLP's do include all the schooling. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Oshwah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. April fool! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Almost missed the last two words. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Stability @ Trump

Look: only 10 threads are open at Talk:Donald Trump, we had not seen this in two years! @Coffee and MelanieN: Happy Easter to all consensus-enablers! — JFG ^talk 12:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Who knows, we might eventually get this article stabilized to the point where it could credibly be considered for GA! --MelanieN (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Unusual IPs

I agree with your statement on AN/I but wished to comment re: IPv6. Until a month or so again when NijaRobotPirate wrote an enlightening treatise on the subject, I had no idea what an IPv6 was, and generally associated them (in error) with Asiatic regions. L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you previously call them "unusual" and cite that in ANI complaints? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No. L3X1 (distant write) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Contribs link

Thank you very much for commenting and especially for your kind offer! In fact, I'd really love to follow your proposal and develop this together with you. However, I must admit that I am really not an expert in programming and/or realizing technical devices for Wikipedia. Writing from Germany, I'm also not a native user of en-Wiki. Thus, my hope was actually to set in motion a discussion process on Phabricator about this issue that could finally be of benefit to the community as a whole. But if you are still interested in a cooperation – I would indeed, of course! –, please let me now, and we'll get things going. Best--Hubon (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: Is German your first language? If so, why aren't you proposing this change at de-wiki? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but unfortunately, I've made the experience that by now, proposals for strucural changes shuffle along or rather just come to nothing on German WP... Unlike that, you do receive some feedback at least and sometimes even a Phab ticket here.--Hubon (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: I don't think this would benefit from much more discussion. Any reasonably experienced editor can understand the costs and benefits. They will weigh them differently, and very few if any minds will be changed by debate (which never stops us from debating anyway). As for Phab, that is not the place for discussion and consensus among the general community, as very few editors are familiar with it. As PrimeHunter said at the Help desk, "There is only reason for a Phabricator request if you want to the change the default for all MediaWiki wikis or all Wikimedia wikis."
Considering both reasoned opposition and the usual inertial resistance to change, I estimate the chances of this passing at about 1 in 4 (25%)—and I will be in the opposition. Do you still want to proceed? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I just learned a new way to get to contribs from a signature. 1. Click the user page link. 2. Click "User contributions" under "Tools" in the sidebar.
Thus, exactly 2 clicks and about 5 seconds (compared to 1 click and 2 seconds after the change), and the benefit of the change is even less than I previously believed. I now estimate your chances at 1 in 6 (16%). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot for your hint! In this case, I'd agree with you and say we can drop the issue now. But still, many thanks for your willingness to cooperate! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: Of course, what might still be interesting though would be an optional gadget that adds the link... But I haven't found anything alike yet. Have you by any chance?--Hubon (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hubon: I am not aware of anything besides the previously mentioned Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, which is not exactly what you mean although it would save one click. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Alton Sterling

Over the last few days I've considered our exchange several times. "Victim of a stray bullet", "victim of the AIDS epidemic", "victim of cancer" – which uses are appropriate. Not directly relevant to that discussion but it's prompted stimulating questions. Thank you. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: You're welcome, although I'm not sure you noticed that I reversed my position since that exchange. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did. I think many people argue to prove they are right. I'd rather be proven wrong. If my position was wrong before and now it's correct my understanding has improved. Otherwise there was no improvement, which is desirable only if my first answer to every question is the right answer – highly unlikely. Cheers. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Agreed, as per my "mini-essay" here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well said. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Woops

Did I mess up the TP quotes? If so, no idea how! Arkon (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon: Feeling guilty? It happened in this edit, with the removal of the }} along with a ref preceding it, 2x. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I blame uhh, magic wikignomes....yeah. Seriously still not sure how that happened haha, thanks for fixing it! Arkon (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia likes your style

I understand that you are not "supporting Henia Perlman." Still, I thank you for posting. I read your page. I like: No human can be that certain of anything in this infinitely complex world. The words "in my view" are golden. In my view, you were a kind person to bother posting your views. Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Current Consensus" mechanism proposed at AE

Greetings Mandruss! As a co-creator of the "Current Consensus" mechanism, you may want to comment in this AE thread: WP:AE#Consensus Required restriction in American Politics. — JFG ^talk 17:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Reading the existing comments, I think my experience is too limited to contribute anything. All I know is that Donald Trump appears to be working just fine. I trust there is enough experience there to reach the right conclusion, or at least an acceptable one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for addressing that storm in a teacup thing at ANI/Steve Bannon relatively quickly and clearly. I really do appreciate you stepping in and helping me keep the better of my impulses. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I tried, anyway. It was reopened due to remaining untapped drama potential. I'm out of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruption on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus

Please take a look at recent back-and-forth about item #21. As the edit notice says "Edit with extreme caution" and "any disruption caused to this list will result in an immediate block", I'm inclined to file an AE complaint. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 07:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: B R R (oops) - In my view you should have taken it to talk right there, regardless of the nature of the edits (I didn't even feel the need to look at them). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Tataral removed item 21 entirely, I restored it with a warning, then he removed it again, asserting there was no consensus despite the clear link to the archived discussion. My prior edit removing one word is not related. — JFG ^talk 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I see your point, but he's saying that the linked discussion doesn't show a clear consensus. After all, the discussion remains open. I knew this would happen eventually, I just didn't think it would take this long. We're in untested territory now. I think the only option at this point is to remove 21 and start an RfC. If an editor makes multiple challenges that end up failing, or challenges one where the consensus is clearer than that one, I would call that sanctionable disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The prior discussion, archived at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65#Psychological make-up, showed unanimity to not include such information, even with support from people who are usually critical of Trump. The current discussion, whenever it concludes, may create a new consensus or reinforce this one. In the meantime, prior consensus must be enforced, or we are making a mockery of the process. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm up way past my bedtime and I had forgotten about the earlier discussion. Issued friendly warning and I'll do the revert now. Sorry for the confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries; sweet dreams! — JFG ^talk 08:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Oops, no TE. I told him you would do the revert unless he beats you to it. I've got your back, FWIW. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No need for TE, and I see you've settled it now. Good night! — JFG ^talk 09:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

At the talk page, when I suggested to stop replying: I meant it in the sense of "don't feed", but I didn't want to imply that he is a troll. I just meant that sometimes the only way to end a hopeless discussion is for everyone to unilaterally stop replying. And then wait a few days and archive it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. Having added my one comment, I expect to go silent. If he touches the article in this area or continues his disruption of the list, we will obviously have a problem, and will likely need a trip to AE (about which he has already been warned). But he's free to talk until he's blue in the face, with anybody who likes spending their time arguing with uninformed brick walls. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but as I understand it, user:MarkBernstein is strictly prohibited from editing these types of articles due to past NPA and BLP violations (most regarding anti-Semitic comments). If I am wrong that's fine, but if I am right I'd like to know where to take this complaint. 2602:301:772D:62D0:ED56:A0E4:CCA5:22C3 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to take it either, but I expect there were enough experienced eyes on that ANI thread (it's an admin noticeboard after all) that somebody would have raised the alarm. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

that's a libel and a personal attack. It's also untrue.MarkBernstein (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's enough , user:MarkBernstein. This isn't about you. 2600:1012:B056:4C9A:B850:9E04:D703:CF34 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Who is it about, then? On my talk page, this silliness ends now. MB, just let it go. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your warning

This talks specifically about the "External links" section. It says fuck-all about Infoboxes.

1. Per the ArbCom restrictions shown near the top of the talk page, all disputed edits at that article require prior talk page consensus.

No it doesn't. It says All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).

In addition, even the correctly stated version doesn't appear to have much support.

2. Per the discretionary sanctions provision shown there, any admin may block on sight for a violation of the ArbCom restrictions.

Given the above -- and the fact that admins can pretty much block for anything whatsoever if they can justify it -- a very pointless sentence.

3. I see you were alerted to this situation by user Dervorguilla on 7 August 2016

And I see you were alerted to the shaky rationale of #1 by user JFG on 22 July 2017. Did you overlook that?

So your clumsy attempt at intimidation has been noted. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on travel ban wording

Howdy Mandruss! I just implemented the rough consensus reached in Talk:Donald Trump#Muslim ban or travel ban? As you were uninvolved in the discussion, I'll let you judge whether this is good enough to add to the established consensus list and/or close the thread. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 20:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Took a third survey… Thanks for closing! — JFG ^talk 16:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Tutoring

I appreciate your patient explaining to me, Mandruss. Please don't detect any resentment in my replies on my talk page. As you likely know (and I can understand), I'm somewhat a pariah on Wikipedia given the topic matter I usually devote my attention toward. Genuine thanks; I'll try and heed your advice. Kieron.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I wasn't sure as to resentment, which seems to be the default reaction in Wikipedia editing and so can be assumed absent evidence to the contrary. No, I wasn't aware of your pariah status or said topic matter. I did recognize your username as a non-noob. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We need specialists and editors, with all their biases intact

I just noticed your comment and thought I'd share some thoughts about it. Here's the part that raised a slight red flag: "I feel that an editor who consistently takes one side or the other is not serving the encyclopedia." I fear that those words could be construed in a manner which would discourage specialists, and really any editor who has a real POV and bias in real life. That must not happen, and I doubt that is your intention. We all come here with POV, and it's natural that we will tend to come from one side or another and be most familiar with arguments and RS from that POV.

It is not a problem that we bring the POV and RS from the side with which we are most familiar. That's what we are supposed to do. That isn't a problem if we don't prevent the proper inclusion of an opposing POV. That's where "writing for the opponent" comes into play.

You may find this section from one of my essays interesting: #Writing for the opponent

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. (Oh, I forgot to mention that I have read this Good! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading your comments and your essay, I'm having trouble seeing where we differ. I haven't edited much in areas where there are specialists, so that's outside my universe. Also I don't bring much RS of any kind as I don't consider that one of my editing strengths. The issue as I see it is:

• Content policy necessarily requires editor interpretation in each situation. I regularly see one or two editors asserting a policy basis against a majority asserting nothing but editorial judgment, and they invariably lose. A policy-based argument is not a trump card, and I think that's a good thing. In my experience this holds true even when there is an uninvolved closer; they very rarely go against the numbers regardless of the arguments, provided the editors in the majority have some experience and show a little intelligence. We use policy to try to sway other participants, not to win debates. (I'm aware that some experienced editors disagree with that and feel that their policy-based argument should be a trump card; we've seen that within the past few weeks on the Trump page; that editor lost.)
• Therefore the quality of a consensus relies heavily on the participants' ability and willingness to start from policy and choose their position from that. The editors I'm saying are not serving the encyclopedia are those who always start from a POV and go searching for some policy interpretation - or just some convincing-sounding editorial judgment - to support it. The mark of such an editor is always taking the same side.

I am a staunch Trump opponent, but you would never guess that from my behavior at that article. Actually I have been accused more than once of being a Trump apologist POV-pusher. That's not to say that I always take a Trump-favorable position, but it seems to be well over half the time. Why? Either I'm so concerned about this that I push the balance too far in the other direction, or that article receives more anti-Trump POV-pushing than pro-Trump. I choose to believe the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. I just wanted to share some thoughts. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your stong defense of a newbie

Sir, thank you for defending me against harassment at the hands of some miscreants. I never thought making a simple edit that is well supported by citations would be so difficult. I was a very strong votary of Wikipedia, but I saw it in altogether different light on account of my edit to a very simple edit on Infinity page of Isopanishad. We humans are so imperfect. :-)Wilkn (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wilkn: Please don't interpret my comments as support in the content dispute. I know nothing about that, and you may be blocked for all I know. I simply object to people saying someone will be blocked when they can't possibly know that. It's not only irresponsible bluster but fairly dumb as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was not interpreting it as anything other than what is written. I am not into edit warring. I have been patiently discussing my addition on the talk page, in spite of the harassment and insults. It does not make a difference to my health if that edit is not added, I am just doing my ethical duty to suggest a change that I think will add to the body of knowledge. Making my infinitesimal contribution to the great contribution by others, including possibly, people who are trying to harass me. Wilkn (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

AN your rebuke your error. I forgive you. I come in peace.

Hi this [4] is mistaken. The other editor was making ad hominems against a slew of editors in classic fashion, i.e. attacking the messenger to undermine the analysis. I however was directly criticizing that editor's behavior. Yes it was a personal remark, but it was about the person. And of course I went on to rebut the nonsense about court of appeals, common law, presumption of whatnot and so forth. Anyway, no harm done. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You were criticizing behavior that had nothing to do with the case in question, for the sole purpose of discrediting the other editor's comments in the case in question. That's what turns these things to shit, time after time, so I strongly disagree with "no harm done". In this specific instance, the harm was minimized only because the other editor chose not to respond in kind, thereby inviting you to continue and probably sucking more editors into it and further expanding the scope into irrelevant areas, with no limit or end until an admin shuts down the entire thread, once again. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you really care about this you'd best review the thread and see Darouet's repeated ad hominems there. You are looking up the wrong end of the rat. Peace be with you. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I see multiple occurrences of irrelevant personalization by the other editor, and it appears that I suffer from the same tendency as everybody else to more readily forgive bad behavior from those on my side of an issue. That's something to which I will give some thought, since I thought I was better than that. I also misread your comments as referring to unrelated behavior outside that thread, probably because that happens so routinely at AN(I). I apologize on both points. In my defense, your comments could have been clearer as to their scope. She is also one of the editors on this page who seems unable to discuss issues without personalizing them and ignoring the underlying evidence and policies isn't clear that you're talking about comments in that thread. You could also focus your remarks on specific comments rather than making general criticisms of other editors. "You said" is better than "She is". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see SPECIFICO attacking Darouet here. For what it's worth, Darouet is an unusually level-headed and polite editor, but has unfortunately been the target of hounding by SPECIFICO. Just take a look at User_talk:Darouet. It's littered with warnings and accusations by SPECIFICO, including completely unfounded accusations of misogyny ([5]), which SPECIFICO has never (to my knowledge) apologized for. For SPECIFICO to follow Darouet around claiming that the latter is personalizing things is a bit rich. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've about reached the conclusion that hypocrisy is part of human nature, very difficult to overcome completely even for those of us who try. I suspect a psychologist would back me up on this. The best thing we can do is keep reminding ourselves of this, being less quick to criticize others for their hypocrisy, and continuously make the good faith effort in ourselves. When others fail to do those things, criticizing them for it isn't likely to make them do them; in fact it's more likely to have the opposite effect. That's another part of human nature, and I reached that conclusion about 40 years ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, you get a bonus appearance by this editor, Thuc, on your talkpage -- in case you hadn't got enough of him venting on the AN thread. The point about misogyny seems really to irk Thuc because he's followed me all over WP repeating more or less what you see above. (The other thing that fascinates him is some editor who used the word "ass" on a talk page recently!) Anyway, back to misogyny: Of course there are 1000 words in English one might choose to express disapproval of a female editor's work. When I see words like "unappealing" come utterly out of the blue and thrown at me out of context with anything else in the discussion, I have learned on WP and in life that the charged language is not innocent. It always carries a loaded message of gender bias and intimidation. But of course that's just how I feel -- and what Thuc refers to is my statement about my feelings, a fact that makes his appearance here doubly unfortunate. Anyway Mandruss, you are an editor of rare tempered judgment and we can use more of your thinking around here. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody called you unappealing. Darouet cited your previous sanction, which faulted you for creating an unappealing editing environment. You've intentionally twisted that into some sort of misogynist slur about your personal appearance (I doubt Darouet even knew you were female), and have refused to apologize. I told you at the time that that was manipulative, and you then chose to double down and call me misogynist. It seems your previous sanction was correct in what it said about your effect on the editing environment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm paying any attention to whatever you may have "told" me? Guess again. Not sure why you'd come butt into a constructive conversation here that had nothing to do with you. Maybe now you'll go chase down the other half dozen editors who have objected to Darouet's ad hominem nonsense at that AN thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I came here because you're spreading false accusations against another editor, who you've been hounding for some months now. As someone who follows me around Wikipedia attacking me, you can hardly complain when I show up and point out you're distorting the record. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

You seem experienced enough to advise me on this. I'm involved in a slow edit war here with a recent "flare up." A "dispute" tag's being removed out of process, at least it appears so. Am I misunderstanding the Template:POV#When_to_remove guidelines regarding when to use and when to remove? If not, how should I proceed if editors (I think only two so far) continue to remove it? D.Creish (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is low-participation, indicating low interest. It doesn't show a consensus either way. I would personally drop it as I consider those tags to be fairly inconsequential, generating far more heat than light. I choose my battles carefully. But, if you wanted to pursue the issue further, I guess you could do that at WP:NPOVN. If you can make a strong case and your own hands are clean, you can report editor(s) for edit warring - WP:ANEW - or disruptive editing - WP:ANI, considering the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG. This is a content dispute, and complete guidance for resolution of any content dispute is at WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There's reasonable participation in the RFC but a small group is determining content (for example the graph) and now even tags, by edit warring. An editor like Carptrash, who's been editing the article since 2012, is being chased away by the same group. There must be a better option than letting them continue, or leaving and validating behavior to be used on the next unfortunate editor. D.Creish (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You'll get varying views on things like this. Mine is: There is often no "better option". This is Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's terrible, but thanks for being frank. D.Creish (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wise words. Basically, without consensus support there's nothing an editor can do to change the tide. Advocacy is of almost no use and nearly always will degenerate into a whole world of problems. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@D.Creish: BTW, I'm pretty sure I saw Carptrash try to edit the article (remove the graph?) to reflect the RfC !vote counts while the RfC was still open. There is no consensus while an RfC is open, and it wouldn't be strictly tied to !vote counts anyway. We don't do anything until an uninvolved closer assesses the consensus, period. Editors who greatly overestimate their own competence are going to be continuously frustrated, and they are quite appropriately "chased away". In my view Carptrash should be doing less talking and more listening at this point in their editing career.
Add: After 33,000 edits, Carptrash has exactly zero excuse for that level of ignorance. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll let Carptrash speak for himself, but for background, he objected to the graph and removed it the same day it was added. The dispute progressed, with others (including Carptrash) removing and Marek restoring until (and after) I opened the RFC. I was told at AN "status quo" should remain during the RFC, but what's "status quo" in this case is debatable. For comparison, status quo regarding the use of the same graph in this article is not debatable, and yet: 9/12, 9/14, 9/14, 9/15, 9/15, 9/17, 9/21, 9/21, 9/23, 9/23, with all but one of those edits following the RFC. When rules are ignored so blatantly, that's a real problem. D.Creish (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, you can take that stuff to WP:ANI, but your own hands need to be clean or you can be the one who ends up sanctioned. Separately from that, the other side invariably attempts to derail the complaint by discussion of you (and anything else they can discuss other than their own behavior) regardless of the amount of dirt on your hands. They know nothing will come of your complaint if they can drag things out forever, throw a lot of diversionary smoke, and create a thread so large that no admin cares to read it and try to comprehend it. This can't be anything but bad faith behavior, but it happens routinely because there are no consequences for it. I recommend a large amount of resignation for one's mental health.
Disclaimer: These are general comments about how things (don't) work at Wikipedia. I haven't looked very deeply into your specific situation. I did browse the talk page of the list article yesterday, and I see bad behavior on both sides there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I am sorry to see that you are apparently feeling some frustration. I hope that you will return from your break feeling recharged and energized. On second thought, maybe a cheeseburger wasn't the best means to accomplish those ends. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that taking a break from Wikipedia is like trying to quit smoking. Just one edit won't hurt. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI

The allegations made against my appearance at the List of monuments RfC couldn't have been further from the truth. As a photographer and active member on Commons, I initially arrived there for a much different reason. Thank you for hatting the garbage allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: My aim is to remain neutral, as that's what avoided an edit war over the collapse. I'm not particularly interested in your conflict with VM. Therefore I'll take the FYI with a grain of salt. But I will comment that the best response to out-of-venue accusations is not more out-of-venue accusations. That merely invited more of the same—in fact the obvious-sock IP couldn't resist jumping in—and I have zero doubt that VM would have continued it if nobody had collapsed that (he is not one to allow the appearance of being backed down). All of that distracts from the matter at hand, further turning up the heat in a heated situation, and does nothing for the project. I would have preferred to see a brief comment similar to "Your accusations are baseless but I am not going to defend myself against them in this venue." If you felt the need to voice a counter-criticism, not that it would've had any positive effect, you could've done that at User talk:Volunteer Marek. And then there's always ANI, although I understand the reluctance to go there. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Refuting your reversal - 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Please provide some logic as to your recent reversal of adding the marine's name to "A recently discharged Marine veteran who was working as a bouncer..." Adding his name has no negative connotation, is not mere opinion, and only enlarges the facts of the event. If his action was relevant enough to mention, then so is his name. AHampton (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The logic is in WP:BLPNAME, which I linked in my edit summary. In particular, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You lost me on "low-profile" because his action was singularly high-profile in regards to that incident. AHampton (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In my experience that includes everybody but the main players, and we err on the side of privacy. If you were the guy, would you want your name in that Wikipedia article for the rest of your life? I wouldn't.
In this case the main players were Mateen and his second wife.
I'd suggest raising this in article talk. It's low activity but there's one guy who usually shows up and his !vote is enough to break this impasse.
Failing that, there's always WP:BLPN or WP:DRN. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Would a Marine want his act of heroism noted? Obviously, you do not speak for him, or for those he saved. Naming the killers, but not the heroes, in any scenario, creates an informational bias and deprives the heroic of their public due.AHampton (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If I don't speak for him, neither do you. Anyway, this rationale in your last sentence simply has no basis in Wikipedia policy and I've seen it fail, oh, a dozen or so times and succeed never. It appears neither of us is going to sway the other, so please take it to a different venue or drop it. (I think most editors would tell you it should have been on the article's talk page to begin with, even if nobody else showed up, so that the discussion would become part of the archived record there.) I'll claim status quo ante as to the article content in the meantime. Thanks for keeping it civil. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving comments to the threaded comments section

Hi! I apologize for one of your comments getting caught up in my "Moving comments to the threaded comments section" move. If it was just you, I would` not have bothered, because you don't WP:BLUDGEON. Alas, we have at least one editor who does bludgeon, and if we allow him to insert replies into the straw poll section, that section will quickly become a huge mess with that one editor's comments taking up over 90% of the space. I may very well be wrong, but I am making a good-faith effort to insure that all voices are heard without one aggressive editor dominating the discussion. Again sorry for the inconvenience. I couldn't think of any better way to deal with the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: My approach, which I think is fairly common, is to move a series of replies when it exceeds the "manageability threshold", not before. Opinions obviously vary as to where the line should be, but most editors wouldn't feel it was crossed by those two replies. The thing on my mind was that eyes on the thread have been requested at AN, and I didn't want Jayron's (and Valeyard's) comments to go without any counter at all. There's no guarantee that said eyes will make it to the bottom of the Discussion section before forming an opinion that is then hard to change. In the final analysis, not a "cat astrophe". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

Do not be rude and consdescending to others in your edit summaries, such as "You are outnumbered 3 to 1 on this question - is that enough?" Please educate yourself on WP:CIVIL. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You have continued your inappropriate comments to others. Saying "I suggest you calm down and collaborate" is not acceptable. Please refrain from doing it again. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See applicable policy, guideline, and common practice. All experienced editors routinely say things like that when they apply, and it's not only allowed but encouraged as necessary to make the project work. I might as well make the same ridiculous claim that "Please refrain from doing it again" is an inappropriate comment. It's not inappropriate, it's just clearly in error. I've seen thinking like yours eventually result in indef blocks far too many times to begin to be convinced by it, so please stop cluttering my talk page with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Assault allegations

I already have consensus at the article talk page, given that I started a discussion there already, and no one responded or objected there. I have no idea what the basis for the revert is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No you don't. Come to talk and see whether anyone buys this. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I think SPECIFICO stated the basis clearly enough. Changes too massive to be made without prior discussion. It's a legitimate objection that I've seen from multiple experienced editors. Surely you didn't expect SPECIFICO to debate the specifics via edit summary. And the non-response to your brief talk page comment hardly constitutes an implied consensus for all of those edits, in my view. I know it sucks at low-participation articles, I know it will take forever to debate each and every one of those changes, but ArbCom remedies are ArbCom remedies. I don't see any way around it, but feel free to solicit other opinions.
SPECIFICO, could you perhaps try to chill a bit? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing policy says (See WP:Editing policy) to “Preserve appropriate content”. How is that consistent with blanking even the correction of dead urls? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See article talk, let's keep it there pls. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

They call me the ice-woman. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

They've called ME the ice-woman. And I'm not even a woman. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

May I please call you both that? 🤡 Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Just don't call me late for supper, nyuk nyuk. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"heading war"

Mandruss, I appreciate your stepping in to try to end the violation of talk page rules on that page. It's hardly "shout" to add a subheading there, but at any rate I hope that your change will put an end to what was clearly an attempt to misrepresent the content of my comment and concern, per the subheading you removed. In case you're not aware, the other editor declined my polite requests that she stop refactoring the caption. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: All that upsized bolding most certainly was WP:SHOUT when used to express your point of view. Added to that, it was a heading, which put a ridiculous 57-word entry in the TOC. Added to that, imperatives like Do not refactor this heading again. only serve to add fuel to the fire, and are no different from "Do not revert this edit" edit summaries or "Do not x" hidden comments. Nobody gets to issue orders around here.
"Recent series of edits" was 100% neutral and this was unhelpful in my opinion. There is no dispute that there was a series of edits, or that they were recent. Now I'm wishing I had reverted to that instead, but I'm backing off for the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed that the other user has only now -- after your intervention -- repaired his talk page stuff to conform with the restoration of the separate section on this separate subject. You, more experienced than I, may have found a better way to deal with her refactoring but the fact is that I made numerous direct appeals on her talk page and on the article talk page to no avail. And even you, if you had intervened the first time talk page guidelines were violated with the Jane Doe subsection thing, could have been an even better helper to cut short this unfortunate manipulation. Maybe I could have asked you to join sooner, maybe I could have gone to AE, maybe I could have asked an Admin to review...who knows?

But the initial disruption was certainly not by me and if you think I could have stopped it sooner or more effectively, that's entirely possible. It appears to be done now. Unfortunately this article has become rather inactive and we are not getting other editors to share their views, on a weekend at least. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Initial disruption". Are you a mother? Do you have more than one child? If so, what did you do when your kids got into a fight that disrupted the peace in your home? Did you spend half an hour listening to testimony about the sequence of events to decide who committed the first offense, agonizing over what kind of offense justifies what kind of counter-offense? I hope not, for your kids' sake. I hope you sent both of them to their rooms to cool off. Another person's misbehavior does not excuse yours in my opinion, and your behavior was seriously flawed per my comments above. That's my view, take it or leave it. I'm not taking a side here, I'm speaking of your behavior because you're the one on my talk page attempting to justify it with a "she hit me first" rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I went to her talk page politely. I went to the article talk page politely restoring. Your comments about your out of control kids are bizarre, presumably intending to be condescending but just, frankly TMI. I did not come here to "justify my behavior" -- I came here conceding that there may have been better ways for me to have handled it and thanking you for stepping in to put a stop to it. Enjoy your day. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting Victim list removed

Saw that you removed the list of victims I made for the Las Vegas shooting. I was not intending it to be a memorial but other shootings have a comprehensive list of victims such as the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Blysbane (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Blysbane

@Blysbane: I have already started the talk page discussion. Please go there and !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Not smart, and you've been around long enough to know better. The baiting from the user has been seen by a few people and his increasingly off topic comments are becoming disruptive. Well done on being an enabler for that behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the heading here, it appears you also lack familiarity with WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You edit warred. You uncollapsed a section done correctly that you didn't need to, and you are enabling a baiter. Excellent work all round. SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Per careful reading of EW, we were both edit warring. "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." But only one of us hypocritically accused the other of edit warring in an attempt to win in a dispute.
As for off-topic, the thread is about Rotten Tomatoes and the comment was about Rotten Tomatoes. That's enough to preclude a hat under TPO. If the comment had been about Hitler, it could have been hatted as off topic.
Provided you respect my right to remove the hat under TPO bullet 4 in good faith, and it appears you are doing so, and I thank you for that, we can agree to disagree on the rest. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I have not attempted to make any defence of my edits;

2. I am not trying to "win" anything, and to accuse me of acting "hypocritically" is a bad faith, contemptible slur;

3. You have missed the point of the baiting and, rather like the editor on the page, have done no more than let your eyes light on the same words used, without understanding the context.

4. Feel free to reply with whatever you want, I won't be back: I see I am dealing with someone who cannot see that their actions have been sub-standard. Your desperate defence of your actions says more about you than your ill-advised initial uncollapse and edit warring edits. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: More selective reading over policies? Interesting. And comments about you are slurs but your comments aimed at everyone else are permissible? This is becoming a trend with you. You'll also see that WP:TPO states Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I suggest being a little more careful with what you say going forward as Mandruss did nothing wrong. Nihlus 16:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

FFS.... stalking? Do not ping me again, and take the time to learn the various policies and guidelines on this site. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I figured that would be your only response. I have this page on my watchlist from a previous spat I had with Mandruss. I found it interesting that you were demonstrating the same behavior twice on my watchlist, so I was compelled to comment. Don't consider yourself so special that I would resort to stalking you. Nihlus 16:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Which bit of "Do not ping me again" needs explanation? I will not correct the inaccuracies in what you have to say, but will only say again: Do not ping me again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deflect away from criticism; yet another trend you are showing. If you don't want to be pinged by someone, either stop baiting contributing to the discussion or mute them. Nihlus 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Nihlus#October 2017 --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. See archived version:[6] Also see User talk:Guy Macon#Suggestion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My comments there stand. Seriously? An ANI threat for unwelcome pinging under any circumstances, let alone those circumstances? You are on the wrong side of this molehill, sir. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping

It looks like the "notification" verbiage has been in that template documentation for several years. I've asked on the talk page to be more explicit that it will ping the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Well the "official" term is notification, not ping. Hence the title of WP:Notifications. It might help to link the template doc to WP:Notifications, but I would oppose using the colloquial word there. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It would definitely help to provide that link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ... and some musing ...

I appreciated reading User:Mandruss#Mini-essays and concur with much that you've put forth therein. Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps there might be found additional fruitful musing in considering something like "producing an encyclopedia as a gift to be shared with others" foiled against "competing to influence/direct/guide/defend/maintain a top five website". Not sure exactly what that means just yet, but maybe the words will serve in some way to nudge contemplation.

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I just wandered into a piece that brought my mind back here.
  

"If we can move the debate to a place where, instead of fighting over the truth, we’re collaborating on a search for understanding, then we can recoup a lot of wasted resources."[7]

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s.—Yeah, I'm probably about due to pick a username ... Maybe call me 'fellow editor' for now. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow editor. I'm not ignoring you either, but I'm Not sure exactly what that means just yet, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The p&g paradox

Mandruss

Love your userpage! Also the first version of it. A fellow IBM sysprog no less! Good to meet you.

I particularly like the Micro-essays and Changing your mind, changing your !vote, which I think is similar to my view at wp:creed#wrong and the intro to wp:rantstyle.

But what I'd like to take further is the p&g paradox, which says in part Some will say that p&g guide behavior, so we can speak of violations of it. Others say that p&g reflect behavior, and a p or g should be updated if there are enough editors ignoring it or unaware of it (in that case it follows that speaking of violations impedes the community's ability to change consensus). Ample support for both concepts can be found in policy and common practice. I have never understood how both can be true...

I think that both are true, but that in that case it follows that speaking of violations impedes the community's ability to change consensus is false. See wp:creed#rules and wp:5P5.

Some time ago as Manager Configuration Management in a large software project I had the following conversation...

(Name suppressed), because of what you did yesterday the whole project has gone back at least a week, maybe a fortnight. The modules you lodged into the pre-production libraries did not have signoff and are non-complying so they won't get it. I've spent all morning backing it out and notifying other people that they need to back out and reperform most of what they did yesterday, and I'll spend the rest of the week at least arguing with them and their various managers. 
Andy, I am meeting my objectives.
Yes, but didn't you hear what I said? When you break the rules like that you impact our project very badly indeed.
Andy, if my objectives are wrong then go to my boss and get them changed. But I do not think he will. Because if we do what you propose, he will not meet his objectives.

If you multiply that attitude by five levels of management your two-year project will now take ten years and be obsolete before it is implemented. Which are exactly the statistics of that particular project.

Attitudes are extremely important. The rules can encourage good attitudes, and if they don't we're sunk. Because they are no substitute. Which is wp:5P5.

As an aside, there's a difference between a guideline and a policy in business which we don't use in Wikipedia and IMO should.

Any policy or guideline can be overridden by whoever authorised it in the first place. You don't need to go any higher but you do need to go that high. (Delegations of authority make it a bit more complex but the underlying principle holds, it's just that some authorisations are direct and some indirect.)

In the case of a policy, you need to get that authorisation before the fact. In the case of a guideline you need to be able to get it after the fact, if challenged. It's that simple. So following neither is optional. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No comments on that yet? Maybe it was a bit of a dump, sorry! Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Sorry, not deliberately ignoring you. I decided to let that percolate, and it's still percolating. And somehow I missed your follow-up inquiry.
Basically my problem is this. Others often cite p&g in opposition to my arguments. When I cite p&g in my arguments, the response is often that the p&g is out of date and doesn't represent actual community consensus. I'm expected to just take their word for that and concede the point. Alternatively, they can play the "Wikipedia is not about rules" card. My mind doesn't work that way. If one set out to design a system that would keep editors permanently confused and therefore vulnerable in a debate, it would look a lot like en-wiki. Most longtime editors will say the system is just fine; you just have to understand it (and some of them will helpfully explain it to you, if you ask nicely, in words that don't make any sense to you). If few people understand the system, it is not just fine, full stop. If a lucid explanation is written down anywhere, it can't be in an essay that is just someone's opinion. And I'm not sure what relevance there is in how off-wiki systems work; I'm trying to understand the system we have, not reform it using outside examples. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A short piece I read recently, Beware Isolated Demands For Rigor, seems to touch on Mandruss' opening conundrums. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As does wp:5P5. You might find this essay of mine interesting too, but be warned it's a rather heavy read. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's both very simple and very complicated! See 5P5 (linked to above). I am wrangling with the same thing, see User:Andrewa/silly ideas#Personal attacks.

I was once told (at a seminar on theology would you believe) that the only rule of mental health is never take responsibility for what you cannot control. Years later I realised that the psychologist who said this was quite wrong, there is a rule two, always take responsibility for what you can control, and that it's possibly even the more important of the two, in that it's the one that the people I meet with serious mental health problems have most often tragically violated.

But for Wikipedia he was right. Maybe Wikipedia will survive the current violations of NPA, and even thrive because of this. Or maybe it will go the way of Kodak, and just as unexpectedly. We can neither predict nor control that. We just do our bit. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, a mode of thinking that can only be grasped by editors with an IQ of 130+ after years of experience—one completely different from anything we experience or learn about in the real world—is not a useful mode of thinking. This is the essential point that most experienced editors completely ignore, and I can't help wondering if they ignore it because an almost-incomprehensible system increases their value to the project, as one of the few who understand it—a sort of high priesthood. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Where do we go from there? Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, we recite the Serenity Prayer and go on. Most of Wikipedia's more serious problems are rooted in human nature, which we are unlikely to repeal any time soon (this is why the rest of the world has managements and representative governments). I've already backed off my investment considerably for the sake of my mental health. But it helps to know there is one experienced editor who doesn't think I'm crazy. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I had never noticed how closely the Serenity Payer matched my two rules for mental health! The remarkable thing about Wikipedia is that it works at all. It wasn't designed to work, it was designed to feed Nupedia. But somehow it proved fitter than Nupedia. That does not guarantee its immortality. Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, I assume you have done the IBM aptitude test at some stage and scored at least an A- to become a systems programmer, which indicates an IQ well above 100. I'm sure Larry Sanger would also score well (and without him there would probably be no Wikipedia). As do I. And while a mode of thinking that can only be grasped by editors with an IQ of 130+ after years of experience is not useful here, agree, one that can only be grasped by one with an IQ of 95 or less is even less useful IMO. And frankly I think I've seen examples, but wp:attack prevents me from citing them. While intelligence isn't always an advantage, stupidity is almost always a disadvantage. (Name supressed) above possibly being an example of stupidity wrecking a project. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)