Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:33, 8 May 2011

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Another question removed

I have now twice removed a question posted on the science desk by an LC IP sock, in his usual M.O., obsession with the lower intestine. If anyone thinks that question should be re-posted, they can do so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link . As usual, I disagree with the removal of questions that can easily be answered with reliable sources, but I won't revert. Buddy431 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You enjoy feeding the LC troll, eh? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We feed trolls by removing their questions and arguing about it . We feed trolls by turning the reference desk into a general forum . We feed trolls by making crude jokes about serious subjects . We don't feed the trolls by answering simple questions with reliable sources. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So stop arguing about it already. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Op here/ Why does Bassbal bug keep rubbing my question. Its important to me that i get an answer. my freind has just had her lwer intestine removed (serious op). She wants to know how much weight this will lose as she is also trying to lose weight with slimming club. I just cant understand why you keep deleting my question.--92.29.195.245 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a discussion group on this operation: . From browsing through it, it seems like some weight loss is expected initially, but, in the long term, most patients gain weight. I suspect that this is because the food goes through more quickly, and this leaves an empty stomach, which triggers hunger. Here's an alternate explanation: . StuRat (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the removal. I endorse this product and/or service. Why do things get removed? One reason is trolls. Sorry if you are being unfairly caught up in this, but we have an ongoing problem at the Desks and this is an adequate solution. There are many other places on the interweb where you can get this answer. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To 92.29.195.245: This is a dumb question - what is the weight of an adult colon! Being an organ from the human body the colon will vary in size, volume and weight, depending on the size of the adult. We can't tell you the weight of an adult colon any more than we can tell you the height of a human adult - we are all different! You will find your question will remain on the Reference Desk, and you will get a sensible answer, providing your question is a sensible one. To get a high quality answer you must first ask a high quality question! Dolphin (t) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a "dumb" question. It could be answered in many ways, such as by giving the average for an adult male and female. The normal range could also be given, say between the 10th and 90th percentiles. I don't see anything wrong with this question at all. What's the proof that it's from a known troll ? StuRat (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not from a Tiscali IP address, and it doesn't smell like LC to me, either.

Perhaps it's Bugs being trigger-happy. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that Lc may have discovered the joy of open proxies, but not sure on that. As with any duck test, there is always a possibility of a false positive. An IP OP who is quickly able to navigate to this page, yet has never ever edited en:wiki before, coincidentally happens to go after out most IP-challenged editor - yeah, I'll settle with Bugs' judgement on this one, whilst still recognizing the possibility of collateral damage. The obscure nationalistic and/or moralistic removals that Bugs does sometimes, no I disagree with those and he's had a caution on that stuff. But Bugs is not all that bad at spotting socks on the wiki in general and I'm satisfied that he near enough hit the mark here. Anyway, StuRat heroically stepped in and provided a response under adverse conditions, right here on this talk page, so all seems to be well. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been some Liverpool-based LC-like socks in recent times. As I look at other science-desk entries from this specific subnet, it's possible it was a legit question that unfortunately happened to fit the LC MO. The question was restored by someone else here, and there were attempts to answer it, so I let it be. I'm not entirely convinced it wasn't LC, but one gripe in the past has been to not remove questions once there's been an attempt at answering them. So I didn't. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the question. Firstly, a relatively bland question about the weight of an adult large bowel when empty. Then the OP joins the discussion above and writes My freind has just had her lwer intestine removed (serious op). (To call this a serious op is an understatement!) Then the OP goes on to explain to all those gullible enough She wants to know how much weight this will lose as she is also trying to lose weight with slimming club. So the poor lady wants to know how much weight she has lost. That is extremely easy - she just steps onto the bathroom scales! But no, our OP explains that he is going to find out for her, not by providing her with convenient access to a set of bathroom scales, but by asking the question on the Science Reference Desk! And just to add a little extra authenticity, in case there is a skeptic like me hanging around, he explains why the lady wants to know how much weight she has lost as a result of this incredibly serious operation. It is because she is a member of a slimming club and, despite this life-threatening bowel problem and super-serious medical procedure, she is still focused on losing weight. However, despite being a member of a slimming club she is oblivious to the existence of bathroom scales and has never thought of using them to investigate her weight. And that is where our gallant OP steps in to help her by asking the Science Reference Desk to explain the weight of the lower intestine that his lady friend used to have, but has no longer. Seriously guys, before you go anywhere else have a look at skepticism. Dolphin (t) 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

IF you donr mind DOLFIN Actualy we were wondering how much of her weght loss at the slimming club since she had since the op was cos of the weight of the bowel, and how much was due to her being in hospital and not eating properly for 10 days. This was a proper question. you say you answer questions but its like too hard for me to get proper ansers cos of people rubbing questions thinking they are silly. what is this desk about anyway?--92.25.229.67 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If your lady friend has recently had a colostomy she will be spending a lot of her time with doctors, surgeons, nurses and similar. Why not ask one of them? The Misplaced Pages Reference Desks don't offer medical advice. Dolphin (t) 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not after medical advice. I would not take any from someone who doesnt know that you cant have a colostom if you had the wholw bowel remove. I was just askin the weight of a part of an average bodey. tHe other thing i said was to show why iwanted to know. so dont attack me on that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.229.67 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure LC comes in on Tiscali IP addresses anymore, and Opal Telecom rings a bell as being an ISP that there's been some problems with (although there are also a lot of perfectly legitimate edits through Opal Telecom). And LC sometimes asks plausibly innocent questions that aren't particularly bad, and then follows up with one or more further posts that makes things considerably worse. This particular question to me looks a lot like a set-up for a planned potential follow-up question like "...and what about the weight of a colon that's full of shit?". And if you look at this edit which is undoubtedly LC,, you'll see that LC spells the word "can't" without an apostrophe, and often spells the word "I" in lower case, both just like in the post from 92.29.195.245 above. One spelling idiosyncrasy in common might be a coincidence, but sharing two spelling idiosyncrasies when comparing short bits of text seems unlikely. I don't know what all clues Baseball Bugs used to conclude that the question came from LC, but my bet is that he was correct. Red Act (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If the "two spelling idiosyncrasies" were independent events, I might agree, but those are both common to the same rather large group of "casual spellers". StuRat (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This is not the first time that abuse of the apostrophe reveals more than a writer feels comfortable about. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been following the reference desks for a few weeks now and I am somewhat perturbed that one or two users seem to bee sole arbiters of what is and what is not acceptable to post here. In particular user:Baseball bugs seems to have a perverted interest in hunting trolls on the reference desks only to the exclusion of everything else. I mean, does he actually contribute to the Misplaced Pages at all, or is he just interested in finding skeletons in cupboards and ghost hunting? If so, i suggest he joins the police force or something similar. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for BB to accuse every poster with an unusual question of being a troll. Grow up Bugs!!! --LiquidVisage (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs does indeed contribute to Misplaced Pages articles . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is the kind of stuff LC contributes. Note the Liverpool-based ISP. He just wants everyone here to have no doubts as to his indemnity identity. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP just above, as well as Mr. Maturity three paragraphs above, have now been sent to Never-Never Land. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I missed some of this and it may be too late to fix, but in general, we don't need people removing questions, especially not based on made-up criteria and the infinitely adaptable criterion that someone "is a troll". I think most often, in life and on the internet, trolls are children wearing cute little plastic masks. The most effective way to deal with them is to answer their questions plainly and honestly. Hit them with stuff to think about and the confusion of thinking about it will stop them in their tracks. Wnt (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

LC is a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's not a "made up criterion", it's a rule. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that very sensible view point--78.150.228.185 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course you do, LC. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I've disagreed with Bugs on many a thing, he's absolutely right here. Banned users do not get to edit, and we do not answer medical questions on the RefDesk. Medical questions should get closed, questions from banned users should be removed. Full-stop. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current

All's I've been trying to do is enforce the rule that banned users cannot edit, and about all it's bought me is tsuris. It seems like very few here care about that rule, so maybe it's time to throw in the towel. I'd like to see a list of registered ref desk regulars who want to keep the LC ban in place, those who would like to see it lifted, and those who don't care either way:

Lift ban

Retain ban

Neutral

1. The user was banned before I ever heard of either that user or the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Revert, block, ignore. It's pretty simple. Threads like this just feed the troll. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   That approach doesn't work. I revert him, I get yelled at for it and the troll-feeders put the questions back. I'm getting tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the banned-user rules. So why even bother? They want him to edit. So let him edit already. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   I've been on Misplaced Pages for a long time and seen many editors get frustrated with the project over things like this. Making a big song and dance about how you've given up and vandals should edit freely isn't helpful. Take a break for a while, come back refreshed. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   I haven't actually given up. I just want the Wnt's of this crowd to put up or shut up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On what are people basing their conclusions that certain IPs are LightCurrent? They seem to jump to that conclusions based on one or two edits that could have been made by anyone. The IP addresses are from a large ISP, so you can't tell from that. I haven't been able to notice any particularly conclusive patterns in the types of questions asked or the writing style. What clues am I missing? --Tango (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the types of questions LC always asks: about the intestines, and about screwing dogs. So, do you want to lift the ban, or leave it in place? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a far broader range of questions declared as being from LC than that. So far, I'm not convinced that these questions are all from LC, so I don't consider LC's ban relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are the ones that come to mind. If you think it's appropriate to leave obviously trolling questions standing, then I don't what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't ask what to do with obvious trolling questions (the answer to that is: revert, block, ignore - the difficulty is that what's an obvious troll to one person is merely a misguided or ill-informed good faith OP to another); you asked what to do with LC's ban. That's a completely different question and not one that I'm convinced is relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

RBI DOES NOT WORK WITH LC. How many times do I have to tell you that??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence that this *is* LC. As far I know, LC stopped editing years ago. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You may not be keeping up-to-date then, scroll to the bottom. Lots of other stuff gets quietly vanished, as it's just routine admin work. I tend to think of these ongoing issues as "Lc-related cloud of disruption" so as not to conclude that it really is that exact person. It's always the same thing, it comes and goes like the tide. That's separate from Bugs' particular issue though, where my advice is generally if it's bothering you, then stop doing it. If you were right, someone else is going to notice. Franamax (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I can't speak for anyone else, but my impression is that people aren't on you so much for reverting banned trolls, but for the zealousness and belligerence which you bring to it. I get the impression that you're deeply invested emotionally in this, and any disagreement or questioning is seen as a personal insult and attack, which causes you to "double down" on the subject. For example, take this thread. I have a hard time believing you're seriously fronting the proposal to de-ban LC, and from your comments it looks as if you're setting up a strawman - either Wnt et al. come out in favor of the ban, in which case you can claim to be vindicated and can tell him to shut up, or he comes out against the ban, in which case you can publicly ridicule him and tell him to shut up. It's perfectly understandable as an action of someone seeking validation, but it is not a course of action that's going to minimize LC-associated drama/disruption.

You tend to take a very black and white, either/or approach to this, and my impression is that you don't give much time for considering the possible merits of viewpoints which differ from you. That's where I see these conversations continually going around in circles: someone makes a point, someone raises a counterpoint, counterpoint is ignored and original point is repeated more forcefully, counterpoint is rephrased in an increasingly exasperated tone in hopes that it'll be understood, point is reiterated now with subtext that the person raising counterpoint is an idiot for disagreeing .... Eventually the conversation dies out without any conclusion, only to be reopened again next time because nothing really has changed. Cynically, I'd say that consensus process on the RefDesk is not so much "a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised", but more "whatever, just shut up already" (or as recently put, "Just... let it go."). All this because we're consistently talking past one another, and trying to beat down the opposition, rather than talking to one another and figuring out why we (seem to) disagree, and if there's some course of action which can address all of our concerns.

By the way, I should make clear that I completely support removal of inappropriate posts on masturbating dogs, etc. and fully support removal of any and all posts by banned users (while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users"). I'll also point out that I'm not a "drive-by" in the sense that I've been posting both questions and answers (more answers than questions), and participating on the talk page here on the RefDesk for many years (I check these pages more frequently than is probably healthy). I've just done so via different ISP on dynamic IPs, rather than with an account. One of the things I originally liked about Misplaced Pages was the implication that the content of what people post is more important than who they are - that posts should be judged for their content, rather the poster's standing in the community. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I have reverted a small number of edits from IP addresses that have been authoritatively linked to LC. My justification for doing so is the following postings by User:TenOfAllTrades. TenOfAllTrades has done a lot of good detective work to uncover the fact that LC now operates as a troll using IP addresses in the series 88.104.xx.yy. TenOfAllTrades has established that all postings from 88.104.xx.yy have been from LC. TenOfAllTrades has asked all Misplaced Pages Users to delete (on sight!) any posting to a Reference Desk from IP 88.104.xx.yy. See HERE 1 and HERE 2. Dolphin (t) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Dolphin, I'm not trying to pick a fight here (I'm actually trying to get to a point where we can defuse these things once and for all, however misguided that might be), but this is sort of what I was talking about when I made my comments about "talking past one another". Your post is indented as if it's a reply to my post, but I don't see where it addresses or touches on any of the points which I brought up. It completely ignores the main thrust of my argument, and the bulk of the rest of it. The only point I made which I think might be related, and what I presume is the impetus for your post, is the "(while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users")" bit. Which you don't really address or acknowledge directly, instead you just make the point, effectively, that the guideline you used for determining "posts by banned users" is "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users", where X=TenOfAllTrades (or that's how I read it in context). So not only have you effectively ignored the main point I was making, but you've sort of sidetracked the discussion by bringing up a highly charged ancillary point (I've seen the rabbit hole that discussions of ToAT's directive leads down, and previous such discussion have informed the GP post), and have done so in such a manner where you haven't even really acknowledged the opposing viewpoint as presented (whether or not we believe that ToAT's guideline is a useful heuristic to follow, that doesn't mean that we're agreeing that "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users" are identical). To reiterate my original point, to get anywhere with these conversations, you can't just shout talking points at each other until the other side throws up its hands in frustration, you have to at least acknowledge you read and understood what the other person wrote, even if you disagree with it from the bottom of your soul. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@174.31.219.218: No offence taken. My posting was intended to provide information relevant to the initial posting by Baseball Bugs, and to the general theme of the thread as it has evolved so far. My posting was not a reply to you, or a response to your comments. Often when we make postings that are directed at a particular editor we preface our postings with the @ symbol and the User's name or IP address, as I have done here. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you all want to continue allowing LC's socks to edit, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, this is what I'm talking about when I said you tend to take an either/or approach to things. Just because people think you're being overzealous doesn't mean that people aren't in favor of removing troll posts. To blow an analogy to extremes, people can be opposed to death squads roaming the streets looking for terrorists without being in favor of another 9/11. Likewise, in a much, much, ..., much less extreme case, just because people don't agree with the tactics and attitude you've taken doesn't mean they're pro-Light Current. There is at least a possibility for a solution which addresses everyone's concerns, a solution where LC's posts are removed, but where we can assume good faith about IP edits and not have a week long argument every time someone asks a question about the colon. But we'd need to discuss it instead of getting offended that people disagree. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on an admin's off-wiki advice, I'm done defending the ref desk against LC. He's all yours. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:X sprainpraxisL

X sprainpraxisL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Out of interest, is there anyone other then Wnt who really wants this person's questionable 'question' (in light of their 'enlightening' followups) on the RD? I mean of course Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The guy is either a troll or a moron, it's hard to tell which. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

His original diatribe says "Don't give me the 'race is a social construct' BS" and then "My question is do you think race is a social construct?". If he's only going to accept one answer, then there is no point in him asking the question. It should be removed. --Tango (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And idiot questions about screwing dogs should stay??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I thought we already had gone over this before, and that these questions should be removed on sight. But it seems Wnt is on some militant AGF-mission, despite ref desk consensus, which is extended to even the most obvious of socks. This is, in my opinion, getting to be more disruptive than the trolls themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We have been over it. Time and time again. But Wnt and some others here will not accept it. There is a rule that banned editors cannot edit. No exceptions, no compromise. But they won't accept that rule. I revert an obvious trolling question, they put it back, they yell at me for trying to enforce the rule. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that. However, if you want my view on that particular question, I don't have a problem with it. If it is really from a banned user, then the usual policy applies, but if it isn't (and I see no evidence that it is) then we should just answer it. I find giving a short, simple, accurate answer to such questions works far better than acting all outraged at them. Trolls do what they do in order to get a reaction. Someone taking them seriously and answering their question in a polite and helpful manner isn't the reaction they are after. --Tango (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions about him screwing his dogs are OK, then??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" is escaping you??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of "There is no evidence that this is a banned user" is escaping you??? --Tango (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your lack of attention to editing patterns. We have been through this many, many times. It's in the archives. If you think it's OK for LC to post his moronic questions about screwing his own dogs, then unban and unblock the guy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remind me, was the question about penetrative sexual intercourse (slang: screwing) with an OP's multiple canines or about mastrubating a single dog of unspecified ownership? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not look anything like LC to me. It's crude and offensive, and it may be revertworthy, but not because it's block evasion by a banned user, because there's no evidence that it is. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular question (by X sprainpraxisL) does not appear to be LC's MO. LC comes up in this section because of the debate on whether to remove junk on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please be more clear in your arguments, dude! If it's a debate on whether to remove junk on-sight, then why do you keep dragging in irrelevant arguments having to do with banned editors? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are actually forums, such as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, that deal with things like figuring out whether an IP is a banned user. The way I see it, it can't be obvious that an IP is a banned user, if he's not actually blocked. Either the admins blocked him for a finite duration, indicating either that his ban might have ended or that they aren't sure that IP will still be the same person - or else they have not blocked that IP, leaving no evidence at all. But if you think there really is evidence against the IP, then go to the proper place and get him banned from posting, instead of deleting question after question that people have already looked at and responded to, based on your theory that he's not a legitimate questioner.

As for the questions themselves, they surely seem worth responding to. I think some people, who haven't given the thought much consideration, would be surprised that it is common for professional breeders and some individual owners to masturbate dogs for economic reasons. And the nature of race is certainly deserving of discussion - I think racists survive largely because people are afraid to discuss these ideas more dispassionately. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, there's too much black and white and not enough gray here for my taste. The moderate ground here is much better. The question about the Syrian president and his race seemed innocent enough (though ill informed) and has generated some good discussion. So it stays. However, I feel no need to preserve questions about jerking off dogs merely on the off chance that the question asker is trying to get into animal husbandry as an ernest business venture. No. Just no. We remove the shitty stuff, we answer the good stuff, and that's fine enough for me. We don't need to preserve AGF in the face of obvious trolling, and we don't need to remove questions which are not obvious trolling and which have generated enlightening discussion. In summation: Syrian presidential questions stay, canine wanking questions go. The next question, and everyone after that, will be adjudged on its own merits, and answered or deleted as needed. --Jayron32 05:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If AGF is going to be questioned, I have to wonder whether people are really more disturbed by the question, or by my sourced answer that in fact the practice is quite widespread and not regarded as unethical (at least if done by the 'right' people)? Wnt (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To the dog loving OP's credit, they used the correct word masturbate (albeit with a forgivable spelling typo) and did not indulge in vulgar synonyms such as screwing or wanking. BB and J may have different standards of decorum. However the question asked for an opinion and the only response needed is the standard if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the other comments from the OP about the Syrian president, it becomes clear that they have some kind of white nationalist agenda and were just looking for a soapbox to rant about it, post links to hate sites, and so forth. The guy doesn't care about the answer to the question. That makes him a troll in my book. I have no problem with questions about the biology of race and so forth. I do have a problem with feeding trolls and giving them a soapbox to spout off purely racist claptrap. (I don't think all discussions of race are purely racist, but this guy is off his rocker.)

And I fundamentally disagree with the assessment of "In general, if you let a little off-topic blather close off a thread, you make trolls more powerful than honest participants." It wasn't OT blather, it was the OP making it clear what their agenda was. It was entirely on topic as far as the OP was concerned — that's how you know they are a troll. Feeding a troll makes them more powerful, not shutting down their forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You really think a troll is fed by a straight answer? No, a troll is fed by discussions like this. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and your feeding of the troll in that way has been substantial. Congratulations. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Bugs on this one, for once. Preparing a long "serious" response, wasting your own time, and then having a long debate over whether long responses are better or worse for trolls... gotta say, the total amount of net wasted time seems higher in your approach than mine. Giving any response is feeding the troll. Giving a non-response (by zapping it) is the only way I know of to not gratify them. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect a troll is fed by both, perhaps more by arguments but more generally (depending on the kind of troll) by the amount of time they can waste of contributors time. Particularly on the reference desk. Having said that, I don't actually care whether they are a troll, I'm not even convinced they are. It's just that I quite doubt they are interested or will be in any way influenced by a serious answer if they even wanted an answer (as opposed to just coming here to soapbox which is different from trolling BTW). And since little contributor time had been spent up to the time you re-opened the 'question' and no one other then the OP had said anything that required a response or followup I didn't see much point in us carrying out another long discussion (most of which was obviously going to be unreferenced) on race, social constructs, etc in the RD. While I do often go off on a tangent and we do tend to have a lot of borderline (given our purpose to be an RD) discussion including a lot from me, I do feel it's best to avoid starting it from nothing (when we are basically debating ourselves or starting a discussion out of nothing since the OP wasn't interested in any answer if they even had a question). P.S. I admit ever since their Japan question I've been a bit sceptical that they are really interested in any answer, checking out their contrib history didn't help. Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk Talk Page

Troll questions removed

FYI, I've removed this question and this question as trolling. The chance either of them is an honest question looking for real information rather than a simple attempt at being provocative is zero. Pais (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. The first thing to do is to look at their contrib list. The first one has made only this one post, and the question is actually kind of funny and satirical, and most likely not a serious question. The second one's contribs indicate all previous entries were trolling, so that's a no-brainer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that User:Euschrine deppler and 92.25.100.75 (near Irlam, Manchester) are the same person? If the question about Hitler had not been deleted, I would have been torn between choosing to ignore it or giving a dispassionate reasoned answer that the ref. desk is fully capable of doing. Religion in Nazi Germany#Catholicism Relations between Hitler and the catholic church were complex. Hitler was never formally excommunicated but the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge issued by Pope Pius XI makes any expectation of a future Beatification of a "saint" Hitler premature. As the Pope said when asked whether clergy could be released from their vows of celibacy, "No, not now but maybe in our childrens' time". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same guy. The IP is LC. The red-link could be anybody, but it doesn't really fit LC's MO. Have we fed it enough yet today? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the first seems a bit too obvious to bother with. But the second "trolling" question is, once again, valid, if a little imprecise. The answer is connected to the Ottoman Empire and colonialism, for example; it is actually interesting, and I don't know the full answer. This "troll" asks better questions than many of the regulars, though with some regrettable imprecision. Your conception of "trolling" has been and remains a purely subjective opinion about what should not be talked about - but it is just such things that might benefit by examination. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother to note the IP's ISP and contribs? Of course not. You enjoy feeding the troll, so why should you care? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The first has some valid points, and screams for at least a little reasoned discussion. The second question is based on blatant generalisation and racism, and should be dismissed summarily. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, you're more generous than I. Calling hitler a "saint" pretty much sets off my troll alarm; without that, it might've been a reasonable question. Of course, then they label the Holocaust a simple "mistake," which puts me right back at Troll... — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, a "mistake". Like when General Turgidson says to the President, in reference to the insane General Ripper's attack on the USSR, "I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire program because of a single slip." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I said "some valid points". Some of it was rubbish, either ignorant, or bigoted, and/or trolling. He sure wasn't a saint. But it has always intrigued me that Hitler was so anti-smoking, when the current health risks were unknown. (Why ARE so many evil Nazis in the movies shown with a smoke in hand?) And he led a country that, despite massive financial issues, still led the world in so many areas of technology. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Another racist question about Arabs removed. This question is not "valid, if a little imprecise"; it's posing a question that contains an invalid, racist presupposition with the clear intention of propagating anti-Arab sentiment. RefDeskers have enough serious questions to be looking into without wasting time on trolls who are just stirring the turd. —Angr (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the poster of that question is now blocked for vandalism. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He's back. Is there some admin who could block him? Pais (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted it at WP:AIV. It's becoming clear that most anything, if not everything, from that subnet is either LC or someone doing a good imitation. A range-block would seem to be worth a try. They did it for a month to LC last summer or fall, and it shut him up for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I removed it this time with the edit summary "rvv", but strictly speaking neither trolling nor violating an editing ban is vandalism, so the AIV request may get denied. Pais (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They will usually take care of it when it's pointed out that it's from a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Which they did. It doesn't hurt to post something at AIV. The worst they can do is say "No". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A few of them

Here are a few of the recent trolling IP's:
78.150.228.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.243.131.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.243.137.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.25.100.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.25.111.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.25.229.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
They all emanate from a Liverpool-based IP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And 92.29.206.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just caught trolling here and deleting random posts on the RD. -- kainaw™ 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that edits from some of these IP's that date to January appear to be legitimate. So the troll's move to those IP ranges appears to be recent. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few more from the above subnets. This is by no means an exhaustive list:
89.243.136.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.25.233.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.29.192.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.29.195.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And this one from a few minutes ago:
92.28.84.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Still broken

For me, the Reference Desk pages are still semi-permanently broken, usually apearing in a version hours or days old, and sometimes incorrectly displayed as read-only. This problem has been ongoing for many weeks. It may be that the logged-on users do not see it, so regulars here are not aware of it. Unless it is just some weird local quirk that only I see, it really does need looking at guys. I have reported it before, but I have never seen any indication that anyone in a position to actually fix it either knows or cares... 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens to me as a logged-in user too that the RD pages sometimes (not usually) appear in a version hours or days old. For me, hitting Refresh usually fixes it. Pais (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Displaying old pages is probably just an issue of your browser caching old pages. Read-only happens when the database gets backed up and the system needs a few minutes to catch up. That's been happening a lot lately, given the recent news (Obama's birth certificate, William & Kate, bin Laden's death), so it's not really an error as such. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a local caching issue. Page refresh makes no difference. 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's a problem with Misplaced Pages, I've tested on a completely clear browser cache and experience the same thing as the OP. Many others have see it too, some of the recent discussions on it are here here and here. Purging Wikipedias server cache usually fixes it. Perhaps someone should start a thread at WP:Village Pump 82.43.89.63 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PS from OP: Sorry, I should clarify that I don't actually know that the constant stale page problem is specifically an issue with the RD. It could be that I only notice it here because the pages are so obviously time-sensitive. If I went to article X I'd probably never know... 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Village pump wouldn't be able to help much. Hit up WP:BUG for how to file a bug report, the developers might be able to do something. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible you've gotten into the transcluded archive section? I just logged off temporarily and to me, things look as they should. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This happens to me as well, as of the last couple of weeks. I get a version that is not the most recent. It did not use to be that way, and has started to occur both on Windows/Firefox and iOs/Safari at the same time. In Firefox holding Shift and clicking Refresh always fixes it. I was sort of waiting for it to return to the good old way by itself... Jørgen (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Never happened to me, and I visit the ref desks on an almost daily basis. I'm on Firefox, btw. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens to me all the time. Refreshing the page with control-F5 seems to get the latest version. Clearing browser cache doesn't do it. I'm guessing Ctrl-F5 may send different stuff to the server (cache control headers or whatever), but I haven't bothered wiresharking it so I don't know. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the browser, but I believe both Firefox and IE simply refresh the cache with F5, while Ctrl-F5 forces it to reload the page from the server. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the last several weeks, I have needed to clear the cache (Firefox, shift-ctrl-R) to get the most recent version. This is a new issue (I've visited the refdesks regularly for the last five years). I use both Windows and Ubuntu, from three different locations, all in Oslo or Bærum, Norway. I have not experienced problems with the edit-link disappearing (whether I'm logged in or not). --NorwegianBlue 22:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer

Participants (askers and answerers) in discussions about language may be interested in Google Ngram Viewer.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I hated?

IP blocks

How many IPs are the Admins prepared to block to stop what thwey term as disruption, trolling or vandalism on these pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.84.18 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As many as you've got. There are a lot of us, and only one of you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current's ISP and IPs

There's been some doubt expressed here recently as to whether the recent problematic edits here that show up on geolocate as coming from Liverpool via Opal Telecom DSL are actually the banned user Light current. I, too, didn't recognize those edits as being LC at first, because I'm familiar with LC as having an ISP of Tiscali UK, and an IP within the ranges 79.75.*, 79.67.*, or more recently 88.104.* or 88.105.*. In contrast, the recent edits not only show up in different IP ranges, but show up as having an ISP of Opal Telecom DSL, so at first glance it looks like a completely different user.

But what I have just found out, that some other editors here might not have noticed, is that in July of 2009, Tiscali UK was acquired by TalkTalk (see TalkTalk#History), which also (in 2002) acquired Opal Telecom. So Tiscali UK and Opal Telecom are actually the same ISP; they're both at this point just different brand names of TalkTalk.

I also until recently didn't recognize Liverpool as having anything to do with LC, because doing a geolocate on one of LC's old IP addresses doesn't show anything for the city. But geolocate on one of LC's old IPs does give a latitude and longitude, which if you look on a map is on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is an island with a population of about 80,000, that's about an 80 mile ferry ride from Liverpool. Liverpool is the closest city to the Isle of Man on England's mainland with a population of more than 150,000. So the older LC edits and the Liverpool edits geolocate to the same basic area.

Perhaps the strongest link connecting the new ISP name / city name / IP ranges with LC's historical ISP name and IP ranges is that the string of questions about sexually pleasuring your dog started out coming from LC's previous ISP name and IP ranges on January 11, and continued on coming from the new ISP name and city name starting on January 13.

I did a search through the histories of the Science, Miscellaneous, Humanities and talk pages, and there have been no edits from LC's historical IP ranges to those pages since January. And although I searched less extensively, it looks like the edits from Liverpool didn't start until January. So there apparently was a complete switchover from LC's historical IP ranges to the current Liverpool via Opal Telecom stuff in January.

LC's IP unfortunately appears to draw from a somewhat larger pool now than before. In addition to IPs from the ranges 78.150.*, 89.243.*, 92.25.* and 92.29.* as pointed out in the "A few of them" section above, there's also at least 78.148.* and 92.28.* (see 78.148.137.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 92.28.43.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

While looking into this, I also noticed that it's not uncommon to get perfectly legitimate questions here from the 92.29.* range, so range blocking that range, at least, should presumably be avoided. But the good edits in that range at least don't show up as coming from Liverpool, so at least it's possible to distinguish LC manually that way.

Perhaps the most certain way of identifying LC might be by doing a traceroute. For the moment at least, if you do a traceroute on any of LC's new IPs, the last router on the list is always 62.24.255.78 . Using that criteria would limit any false positives to TalkTalk's DSL customers that connect to the same router that LC connects to, which I'm guessing is a smaller group of people than TalkTalk's DSL customers that geolocate to Liverpool.

Yes, I know I'm doing a really horrible job of WP:DENY and the "ignore" part of WP:RBI with this post. But I'm hoping that this post may help make the reverting of this banned user proceed a little more smoothly here. Red Act (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that it would have been better to talk about this off-wiki, but he knows what he's up to in any case. The Isle of Man, eh? Interesting. Is there any way to block the router's IP for a short time and see if it has any effect? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for all this good detective work. It's what we needed, and is a bit beyond my technical know-how. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the Traceroute is an interesting thing, while I've never bothered much with LC, I have tracked other users before but a Traceroute isn't something I've used. Now that you mention it it occurs to me it may be useful as you will often get something similar. Incidentally re: the recent Nazi/Arab/etc posts it's worth remembering LC does watch the talk page so may have been influenced to start posting along those lines by the recent discussion I initiated. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

62.24.255.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are, of course, no actual contribs from this IP, so this is just FYI. So, could that IP be blocked for awhile, or is there too much risk of collateral damage? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a block would have no effect; an intermediate address like that is not normally visible to the MediaWiki software. (Blocks act only on the actual address you post from.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a place for this kind of discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. This isn't the place to evaluate evidence and ask for blocks. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your demonstrated willingness and eagerness to feed trolls renders your opinion on this matter irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This baby-talk is a plague on Misplaced Pages. Sock puppets, feeding trolls... any kind of crazy talk to keep people from thinking in straight lines. If a question is answerable, it's not an abuse - and if it's not answerable, it's not a temptation! Wnt (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, I appreciate your willingness to answer all questions and AGF, but really, the thinking is in decently straight lines here:

• Banned users are not allowed to edit, period.
• This is Misplaced Pages policy and (I believe) strong RD consensus.
• Being not allowed to edit means not being allowed to post questions, even "reasonable", answerable ones.
• Being not allowed to edit means one's posts get summarily removed, even if they're questions, and even if that sometimes means removing well-intentioned answers, too.

I doubt you'll find much interest in reopening any of these points for debate. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet in the process this page has been turned into a second ANI, and 1/16384 of the entire IP namespace is deemed to be a single user, if they ask questions at the Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can either help or you can get out of the way. At present, you're doing neither. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that I've come close to saying the same to you on some occasions. I think we have entirely divergent purposes here. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's a suggestion on how you can help: SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Don't ever again discuss the subject of trolls here. Then you'll be helping. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please do not operate this way. Have strongly held viewpoints, by all means. But please never tell fellow editors their opinions are irrelevant, merely because they happen to diverge from yours. Telling other editors to shut up is completely unacceptable. You have been the self-appointed Trollfinder-General for ages now, but that doesn't give you any of the special rights you seem to think it does. What's the point of having a Glorious Quest against the disruption caused by trolls and their ilk, if you're going to act in an uncivilised manner yourself? That's just swapping one evil for another. The Taliban are similarly misguided. -- Jack of Oz 21:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What Jack said. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll support JackofOz's first 4 sentences entirely, then it tails off into a bit of a rant. How did the Taliban get involved here, is Bugs against flying kites and playing chess? As far as "self-appointed" anything, umm, I forget when anyone ever appointed me to do anything here, we are all self-appointed to whatever we choose to do. And I haven't seen Bugs claiming any special rights at all, though I've seen him get both plaintive and defensive at times when others disagree with his viewpoint. I've got a long list of places where I've completely disagreed with Bug's judgement, on the Desks and on other en:wiki pages, but I'm pretty comfortable with his spotting record on this particular area of disruption (though it's not perfect). But yes, I would be much more comfortable if Bugs would pull back a bit on the "you're either with us or you're with the <xxx>" attitude. Franamax (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I got a bit rantesque there. I wasn't suggesting that identifying trolls and dealing with them is not a good thing, and of course I support Bugs's and anybody else's work in that regard. If he wants to spend a large amount of his time on that activity, good luck to him. But his extreme language here, and his shouting in the thread below, which he knows as well as anyone is not OK behaviour, needed to be brought back a notch or ten. I was trying to find a good analogy for doing bad things in the name of righteousness, simply to suggest that no amount of righteousness can make a bad thing a good thing. I thought of Torquemada, but the Taliban are more topical.

And now here I've gone and broken my own rule: Give trolls no air at all, by being completely indifferent to them. Which is why I generally prefer not to get involved in these discussions. But sometimes, something needs to be said. I'll go and crawl back into my cave now. -- Jack of Oz 05:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

)I think you were right to call Bugs out on the language and shouting they've been using here and elsewhere. It's certainly a tempting target for trolls of any stripe if someone can be wound up that easily. There is no Inquisition here though, this is a well-defined years-long pattern of behaviour. Enable the .js thing on Special:Contribs that let's you scan an IP range and take it for a spin on some of the CIDR ranges mentioned lately. Draw your own conclusions. Franamax (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At ANI they've concluded there would be too much potential collateral damage to do a range block. So we'll just have to swat the fleas as they arise from that mangy Manx. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kci357

Kj650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kci357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wdk789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see User:Wdk789 was blocked, one of the many incarnations of Kj650 and whatever they've gone with before. If we're starting to get serious about blocking them they're back as Kci357. While not an RD issue, I see from their latest talk page they're still causing problems in the encylopaedia proper so perhaps a good reason to enforce the block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is time to expose Kj650's latest sock. I initiated the investigation in Feb; Jayron32 initiated it in April. See HERE. Feel free to initiate a new one. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Arabs

"Arab" isn't any more vague a word than other ethnicities. It is often misused, but that doesn't mean the word itself is bad. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

I propose the following compromise to deal with questions from banned users.

1. Remove anything that the banned user says, which is not part of the question (e.g. "I don't want to hear any bull about...", "It is well known that..."). If there is no discernable question at all, then the whole thing can be deleted.

2. Reformulate the question to be more encyclopedic where possible - correct misspellings, remove gratuitous assumptions. Thus, "Why are ____s so stupid?" becomes "Are there any measurable differences in intelligence between ____s and other races?"

3. Preface the question with a simple header saying that the question appears to have been made by a banned user and has been refactored; it should cite the diff. This could be done easily with a simple template that takes the diff as a parameter. The header should not say that the questioner is definitely banned, since if it were clearly so, he couldn't post. You're typically assuming an IP is banned because it is shared with or near to that used by a banned user, but it could just be a school, for example, where any of dozens of people are asking sometimes juvenile questions.

4. Preserve any answers previously made as they were, and add answers normally afterward.

Now some may ask, why preserve a question from a banned user? Well, if it is a question, it has value; this is the Refdesk after all. The Refdesk should answer even juvenile questions, and especially provocative questions, since these have the most social relevance and are most in need of reasoned attention. WP:IAR says that if something benefits the encyclopedia then the rules don't prohibit it. There's also no policy against removing answers, which have been made by people not banned. Policy clearly allows any of us to ask the same question previously asked by a banned user, whether by coincidence or not. But by removing/reformulating the question we have still denied the banned user his limelight. I think this could deal appropriately with concerns by all sides. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

NO. NO, NO, NO. BANNED USERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. The alleged quality of their edits IS IRRELEVANT. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. IAR DOES NOT APPLY. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→

I'm not sure I agree with Wnt, but why doesn't IAR apply? People shouting that rules should be followed no matter what is exactly why we have the IAR policy in the first place. Staecker (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then UN-BAN HIM and let him edit freely. Because if you allow a banned user to edit anytime, then you have effectively de facto unbanned him. So just make it official. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Wnt and other enablers of the LC troll, you got your wish: I have taken this question to WP:ANI. Go there and make your case, as to whether banned means banned, or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, before racing off there, you might have given the argument more than 52 minutes here to run its course!

(And are you sure that there are enablers plural?) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wnt, I disagree on almost all counts. I disagree that a provocative question from a known troll, "even a juvenile one", has any (positive) value. I disagree that such questions should be preserved; I especially disagree that they should be "reformulated". I disagree that doing any of this would benefit the encyclopedia. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is harmful to the encyclopedia to confuse banned users by giving them the impression that they are allowed to edit the encyclopedia. It's important to be clear, so that banned users understand what it means to say that they are 'banned.' The encyclopedia can bear the loss of a few questions better than it can bear banned users who don't understand that they are not permitted to edit Misplaced Pages. We have plenty of interesting questions from non-banned people to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Steve, the rewriting part especially is a bad idea as it's not our job to reword the question to what we wish had been asked. But the whole approach to taking questions is wrong too in what Wnt is saying, the desks are not the place to invent questions just for the purpose of answering them We want questions from people who are genuinely interested in the answer, no matter the quality of the question. Those we can handle with the usual range of responses. We don't need made-up questions to either "stump the Desk" or get editors arguing about whether or not it was a legitimate question, nor do we need to rewrite questions to have more interesting answers. We just need to answer questions from the actual curious public. Franamax (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The key issue is what purpose is the RefDesk serving. If it was the same as the stated purpose of WikiAnswers, that is, to accumulate a database of questions and answers, then I would be prone to agreeing with you - an answerable question is an answerable question, regardless of where it comes from. However, Misplaced Pages's RefDesk isn't about accumulating question/answer pairs, it's about providing references to those who have questions. The goal isn't to answer questions in an of itself, it's to assist people - and not some hypothetical person in the future, but the person who's asking the question now. So when it's blatantly clear that the original questioner isn't interested in the answers to the question they posed, there's no point in keeping the question around, even in revised form. There's no one there to assist, and the question no longer fits the purview of the RefDesk. - That said, if a banned user asks a question that you *genuinely* want to know the answer to, or that prompts you to have a related question, I believe it should be permissible to (re)ask it in a new section. Topics shouldn't become tainted solely because they're touched by a troll. But when reasked, you are then the person we are assisting, and the answers are for your benefit. Reopening questions for the benefit of some nebulous third party is really out of the scope of the RefDesk. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I really had thought that composing such a database was the point, or at least a point, of the Refdesk, just as it is the point at Ask A Scientist, for example. I realize no one has gone through the effort to make an organized index of all the past questions, but I've assumed that this was purely a matter of laziness. If we aren't aiming someday to generate a useful public domain database of questions, then this whole project seems unrelated to Misplaced Pages's purpose. But it is my belief that, with a bit of advance in natural language software processing, that in a few years people coming to Misplaced Pages will be able to just type in a question to the search box, and get not only a Refdesk answer but recommendations on the most relevant articles to look up.

Because I see it this way, I see the "troll" questions as being more likely to be looked up by such future questioners than the serious questions.

But I should also repeat that I would assume many of these "trolls" are children. We should not view them as some faceless evil; anything we say to them might help them find enlightenment. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

LC isn't old, but he is a man

He lives in the banned, in the Isle of Man

The ref desks were created several years ago as a spinoff from the help desk, when users started asking questions about wikipedia facts, as opposed to how to use wikipedia. The archives can be searched, which is how it is sometimes pointed out to a questioner that a question has already been addressed. Whether there's ever been any discussion of trying to make a formal database, I don't know. But I could argue that we already have that database. It's called Misplaced Pages! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Many of the questions (like why a computer program isn't working, what error was made in a math problem, or which translation of a Latin phrase is most accurate) are not things which would ever appear in our articles. In this sense, Misplaced Pages contains the theory, and the Ref Desk is the application of that theory. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The other day I composed and posted what I thought was a wise and hopefully educational response to a "Why are ____s so stupid?" question. It did not answer the question, but addressed the inherent problems with such questions. I had hope that the OP might learn from my response. Sadly, within minutes of posting, the fact was posted that the OP was a banned user, and the conversation was hatted, so my wisdom disappeared from sight. I can understand the view that banned users should just stay banned, but I also have these great hopes for the human race that even ignorant bigots can sometimes be educated out of such a condition. If it's possible to turn around such editors, it would be to the benefit of all of us. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor doesn't care about your answer, they never did. They are trying to create all this noise on this talk page. That is the nature of their trolling. They start off with seemingly reasonable questions, then start ramping down, usually pretty quickly. People answer in good faith, then they start warping it. At some point it has to be stopped, otherwise we will end up patiently explaining why Uranus doesn't look brown, over and over again. It's too bad you got caught on the wrong side of the line, but a line always has to be drawn. For this particular editor, the line is at zero. I'm sorry your work went to waste - but they never cared anyway. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, I STILL have hopes for the human race. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The human race is worthy of your hopes. Light Current qualifies for neither... --Jayron32 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case he should be banned simply because he's an alien. I'm sure there's a Wiki-policy somewhere that says "Non-human sentient creatures are not permitted to participate in Misplaced Pages". Seems a bit discriminatory, but best to be safe than sorry until we can learn more about them. If properly invoked, that would probably weed out quite a few other editors, too. Now, how to identify the little green buggers ... ? -- Jack of Oz 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He needn't be a space alien. Being a troll is good enough to be considered a distinct species. --Jayron32 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is all in good fun, yet... maybe this really does underlie the general nastiness of the Internet, and which people have complained about at Misplaced Pages. We dehumanize the people we talk to, reduce them to "trolls" in this extreme, but more generally, to templates like Democrats and deletionists. I suppose this is only the continuation of a trend that I remember reading that some Native Americans complained about where writing was concerned. But we should make sure we never really forget that the troll has a boyish face. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Right on, Wnt. We call someone who's killed someone else a "murderer", but they're still a human being. We punish their behaviour. They themselves - that's something separate. Which is why I compleltely disagree with Jayron's statement above, while noting the humour with which (I hope) he intended it to be received. -- Jack of Oz 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal is a really bad idea, and I agree with the clear majority here, as well as with the policy. If a question from a banned user has already been answered, then the matter can sometimes turn into a more delicate situation that requires a bit of thoughtful judgment. But if the question hasn't been answered yet, then the question should just be deleted on sight, period, with no need to give any consideration at all to the content of the question, and no requirement to take any other action. The direction we need to head in is toward making getting rid of anything that comes from the banned editor as efficient as possible. We do not need a new roadblock getting in the way of doing that. Red Act (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) We should avoid deleting questions from people who may not be banned. A vague feeling that it might be a banned user isn't enough.

2) Answers aren't just for the benefit of the OP; other people read them too, and may also benefit. Therefore, we shouldn't delete or hide good faith answers, even if they are responses to bad questions.

3) Then online database of Ref Desk answers is an interesting thought, but probably only 10% are the type of thing that other posters will ask again. Thus, a FAQ section might be a good approach.

4) I like the idea of refactoring the Q, but it should be done in addition to the original post, not in place of it, in case your interpretation is wrong. I often say something like "I think you meant to ask ..., in which case the answer is ...". Sometimes there are multiple interpretations possible, so I list them all. Then there's cases where I have no idea what they are asking, so I ask follow-up Q's. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that questions by banned users should be removed on sight. Enabling trolls by refactoring their questions serves no useful purpose, quite the contrary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are never going to be able to stop anyone determined (even me)from editing.8-) People just have to live with it. If you dont like a Q, ignore it, but dont make a song and dance about it.Any way why all the censorship of questions about ARABS?