Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

There is one place at Wikipedia where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults. I do not ban an editor from my talk page merely because they criticize me here (I have banned one editor in my entire career). I try to consider all criticism fairly, but I may cease responding if I don't feel it would be constructive to continue.

I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65#Suicide, and I think you might be interested in looking over the discussions about potential RFC questions at User talk:Masem#Williams (warning: long). The main source of disputes is editors who want articles to reflect current recommendations (as embodied in, e.g., the AP Style Guide) and editors who want articles to use what they believe is a traditional idiom. The point of the RFC is to stop the disputes: either that phrase is okay, or it's not, or it's okay under certain circumstances, and we will write down whatever the RFC decides somewhere in the MOS, and then all future disputes can be responded to with the suitable WP:BBQ shortcut that says either it's okay here or it's not.

I think in the end, we are going to have the RFC ask only whether editors are permitted to use the phrase committed suicide. Notice that even if the RFC ends with "No, avoid that phrase" (which I personally suspect is an unlikely outcome), it's still a far cry from anyone declaring that All Articles Must Use The Same Phrase. One could avoid the phrase committed suicide and instead use the equally traditional phrase killed himself, which is also expert-approved.

If I were predicting the outcome, I think editors are most likely to say that any phrase used in a high-quality source is okay with them. Over time, as the language changes, that outcome could affect how often any particular phrase gets used, but it won't result in either a blanket ban or a total acceptance of the disputed phrase. Whatever the eventual outcome, the goal is just to stop the disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only strong opinion in this whole thing is that Wikipedia should not lead language evolution, on this or anything else. We should not discourage the use of a phrase that is still widely used "in the wild" (in reliable sources). I had the impression this is an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet.

If that is an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet, any RfC discussing anything other than use "in the wild" is illegitimate from the outset. I doubt it would be constructive to say that in the discussion on Masem's UTP (particularly with McCandlish involved). I assume Masem saw my comments about that at VPM. Let me know if you disagree with this reasoning.

If that is NOT an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet, (1) I'm disappointed in Wikipedia, but it's hardly the first time, and (2) I don't much care what we do regarding "committed suicide".

I would be more interested in confronting the foundational question head-on, but it's looking more and more like my impression has been mistaken, or what was once a principle has now been abandoned in favor of social activism. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confronting foundational questions head-on can result in poor decisions getting enshrined as The One True™ Consensus Forever. I think that a series of questions is often a better indication of actual consensus. It lets people talk, think, talk again, think some more, talk, and maybe even discover what they really think.

There are already many phrases used in high-quality sources "in the wild" that Wikipedia editors avoid anyway; if there weren't, then Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch would not exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to confront foundational questions head-on results in a lack of foundation. As a useful metaphor, Wikipedia (enwiki at least) is a castle built on a foundation of sand. In my experience, your "actual consensus" is an illusion as different editors read the tea leaves differently according to their immediate needs, desires, and opinions. That is not coherent governance. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the contribution history of the editor, this does indeed appear to be SPAM. [1] O3000 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Perhaps. Even if true, the word spam does not occur at WP:TPO and I'd be interested to know which of those bullets warrants this removal. Prohibited? Certainly not in the sense of the examples given there. Harmful? Ditto, and I don't know how spam does enough harm to justify removal. Basically I'm tired of editors thinking their edit count authorizes them to remove just anything that they deem undesirable. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, it becomes disruptive if an editor posts links like this: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] They are being reverted or immediately archived by multiple editors. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Then seeking a block is preferable to bending TPO guidelines. In my opinion. But hey, I don't care to die on the hill and you are welcome to revert me if your opinion is different. I probably wouldn't say that to most other editors, but I'd place you in the top 10th percentile on the reasonableness scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll let it play out and see if the editor gets the point from the other reverts. If not, maybe I'll make a polite comment on their UTP. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point has been proven.[10] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find that things look better after breakfast. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor made the error of bringing this up at AN [11] Playing out is often the easy path. O3000 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying this shows that bending TPO was ok after all, I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is bending TPO. That's a guideline set aimed at one type of page. Disruptive editing, blacklisting, NOTHERE (may be too strong in this case, but mentioned), trump TPO as they are more general in nature and apply to all pages. At least, four admins unequivocally said it must stop. O3000 (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled across this discussion, which I see is partly about me. WP:TPO provides a general rule, the observation that there are exceptions to the rule, and a long (but not comprehensive) list of possible exceptions. Widespread posting of op-eds by banned users in deprecated sources with no attempt to suggest how they might be used to improve the associated articles doesn't fit nicely into any listed exception, but that's because it's a completely bizarre form of disruption, not because it's actually ok. (As is borne out by the AN thread.) --JBL (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:ProcrastinatingReader/draft. I've been reading some older discussions and you made a lot of insightful comments there, so I thought you might be interested. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 09:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: Thanks for the post. I took a look at it and don't have much opinion about the details (or feel particularly qualified to weigh in on them). I'm far more interested in a cultural meta issue, to wit: deprecating risk-averse crystal-balling in favor of a progressive "try it and see" attitude. So I would support a trial of anything you guys come up with. I assume there will be an RfC at VP at some point, and I'll !vote there if I happen to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking forward to the RfC. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't recall deleting or editing any talk page comments, let alone legitimate ones. If my memory is failing me, please provide diffs. Otherwise thanks for stopping by. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you've been here a long time and you're usually a serious and tireless contributor. I'm sure you know that

this was incorrect. Jeppiz (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps inconsistent with common practice to collapse an AGF failure. I rarely do that. In this case I decided to make an exception per IAR.

In other news, may I point out that issuing a warning template when you're "sure" the receiving editor already knows the action was wrong is an improper use of warning templates? This is the basic point of the widely-accepted essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars as I understand it. In other words, warning templates are only for imforming editors who don't already know. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you just brazenly violated the discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump. The policy is crystal clear and impossible to miss "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. You reverted to your edit in just ten minutes, violating these discretionary sanctions. Kindly self-revert immediately, or a report will be filed. Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that this edit and this edit are the same, I suggest you take a closer look. They differ by 2,219 bytes if I'm not mistaken. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit[12] to Donald Trump is clearly in violation of the discretionary sanctions in place for that article. Please self-revert rather than forcing other editors to pursue this matter.

Many established editors clearly believe more content regarding the storming and related events is warranted. Even if you disagree with them, you may not revert multiple times during a 24-hour period. The appropriate venue to raise your concerns is the talk page. If other editors agree with your positions, they may reinstate your edits. --Tataral (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]