Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 13 December 2013

• 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.

Pub opening times

I'm no fan of unnecessary hatting, but this offering from the current convoluted-language-and-bizarre-questions OP cannot be answered by anyone with a reference. None of us can confidently state what times Scottish pubs (which ones?) will open the day after next year's referendum. - Karenjc (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We could (presumably) say (without speculation - and with solid references) something like "Obviously we can't know how the referendum will turn out - but if it passes then pubs will open at X otherwise Y. The current polling numbers suggest that the referendum will have Z% of the voters in favor of the change." Actually, I presume that the referendum only informs the government on what law to pass - I doubt that it has force-of-law behind it directly - so the day after it passes, the law won't yet have changed, and pubs will open at the usual time...which might be a useful thing to investigate and report to our OP.

At any rate, this is a question that doesn't violate our rules - and it's certainly possible to provide a decent, factual answer that would be useful to the person asking it - so there are no grounds for hatting it. You may decide not to answer it on the grounds that you don't like the OP's posting style or history of dumb questions or because you've decided to avoid troll-feeding - but unless some admin has sanctioned the OP, then there is nothing wrong here and deciding whether to respond is up to the individual editor to decide.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The referendum has nothing to do with legislating on what time the pubs will open. The referendum is about whether or not Scotland will vote to become independent. The OP is speculating that there will be a "helluva party" the next day, assuming the vote will be yes, and is asking us to tell him what time Scottish landlords will choose to open their pubs to accommodate the presumed revellers (they do have a choice, incidentally). We cannot answer this question with any kind of reference, even one based on a guesstimate of which way the vote will go. The only possible response would involve opinion and/or unsourced prediction, and the rules at the top of the page clearly warn that we do not provide either. I am all for answering questions we can answer with a reference, even when a poster is attempting to troll, and for ignoring questions we can't or don't want to answer. But I honestly cannot agree that this question does not violate the rules. -Karenjc (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But look - you just gave us a perfectly decent answer! The answer (evidently) is "The referendum has nothing to do with legislation covering the time the pubs will open."...tadaaa! Nobody said that your answer has to be one that the OP will like. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so do we amend your flowchart below so that when "Does this question violate our guidelines." is answered "yes" in cases of requests for opinions and predictions, the response is "Tell the OP that their question can't be answered" rather than the hatting option in the current version? The OP in this case knows perfectly well that the referendum is about independence and not pub opening times. His question was intended to make people first waste time figuring out what he means and then provide a load of unreferenced opinion and debate around the potential reaction to a yes vote in response. The idea behind hatting it (which incidentally I do almost vanishingly rarely) was to prevent the inevitable depressing pile-on from people who just can't resist offering opinions and predictions when they see an unanswered question for which they cannot supply a referenced answer. I actually think there's a lot to be said for your flowchart below, as far as it goes and with some caveats, but if you are going to offer a process on how to respond to questions that infringe guidelines, you need to be more specific about which guidelines. The basic (unanswerable) question here was "What time will the pubs open in Scotland on 19 September 2014". That question on its own I wouldn't have considered hatting, because there is no invitation for debate and speculation. But you yourself proved above that even experienced Wikipedians could be duped by the actual wording into wasting their time trying to provide answers that weren't appropriate or relevant, based on a set of false assumptions about the subject in question. - Karenjc (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How to answer questions:

Discuss. SteveBaker (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You left out a key factor. When someone shows up, not to try to answer an OP's question, but merely to harass a responder, that someone's comment should be subject to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Baker's also apparently defined trolling out of existence, giving it a pass in every circumstance. For some reason Glory Allred and Kathy Griffin come to mind, not that I have the faintest idea why. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)\

Not so. He specific has a section on violation of guidelines. Trolling is exactly that. Mingmingla (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems a rather obvious and belaboured way of saying that people who think a thread should be hatted as trolling should leave it alone when Baker and others really, really want to answer it. Look at the patent nonsense we have had recently from our Louisville Kentucky troll. How much of it has any value? How much of it explicitly violates specific policies to Baker's satisfaction? Steve below appears to make exactly the same point about what is implied. This part of wikipedia is a voluntary pigsty, and people who are happy to find resources for OP's asking about serious questions, like the effects of sex-reassignment surgery on sexual orientation, shouldn't mind if their voluntary work appears on the same men's room wall with "questions" about masterbation habbits. I am sorry, but I don't agree, and this chart is a personal essay that belongs on its creator's user space, not mainspace, nor labelled as if it reflects policy. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "Discuss" means that it's merely a suggestion and that all forms of feedback, including ideas for improvement, are welcome. -- Jack of Oz 22:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are advised to "walk away, you don't need to answer." Or, yes, I am discussing it. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty impressive strawman collection there, Medeis. No one (except you) has said anything about the Louisville troll (or Steve's degree of satisfaction with it), or voluntary pigsties, or sex reassignment surgery or masturbation, or dictating policy. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I still recall the brouhaha over trying to put the brakes on the British troll called "Light current". Every time one of his stupid entries would turn up (many of them similar to the Kentucky troll), some users (and thankfully I don't recall which ones) would come to his defense, despite his being a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, sure; I remember Light Current, too. (If you look carefully you can still see some pretty impressive scars on my user and talk pages.) But do you have a point to make about.the current discussion, or are you just adding to the strawman collection? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you consider questions about trolls to be "strawmen", I don't know what to tell you. The diagram summarizes stuff that is said here all the time, so is not new - and does not address any of the stickier issues. Hence, it's worthless. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, the points Medeis raised about trolls were straw men because he brought up something no one had said, as if to refute it, as if to score debating points, but in a way that advanced the argument not a whit.

• No one has said that trolls should be left alone because there are people who really, really want to answer them.
• No one has said that the Reference Desks are a "voluntary pigsty".
• No one has said that people looking for resources about sex reassignment therapy should have to put up with anything. (Whatever that was supposed to mean.)
• No one has said that Light Current or other banned users should be defended.

So if you and Medeis are trying to suggest that Steve's flowchart is wrong because it says any of these things, well, you're wrong. (You're of course perfectly entitled to your opinion that it's worthless, but I for one don't agree.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It provides no new information and does not address issues that continue to vex the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. I particularly like the large number of ways of getting to the "you don't need to answer" box in the lower left corner. I would note that, besides not answering, this also means:

• you don't need to hat or delete anything
• you don't need to worry that the system is broken
• you don't need to post here on WT:RD that there's a problem that needs discussing

That's right: you don't need to do anything. You can just walk away, and find something else enjoyable and productive to do! —Steve Summit (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

When the nannies are told to "walk away" rather than hassling other users while not attempting to answer the OP's question, then you'll have something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. You are perfectly at liberty to walk away and do nothing - and I think this would be a better place if more people did just that. There have been many recent questions where I've been unhappy about the question and the questioner - and I've done just that - walked away. We can't have a guideline that says "You MUST answer the following categories of question if you know the answer!" (with appropriate application of Wiki-wedgies to people who fail to answer when we think they could). The only known tactic for fixing trolls is to ignore them. This is Netizen-101 training. Hatting their questions or the answers to them simply encourages them. Disputing why we did or didn't ignore them also gets them excited - edit wars over the ignoring or not of them makes it even worse. The least exciting thing for them is to be ignored and the second least is to have a relatively boring, non-contentious answer delivered with a perfectly straight face just as if nothing unusual was happening. My flow chart seeks to encourage use to do just that. The more that Medeis and Bugs rant and fuss and fight about trolling, the happier the trolls become. So let's ignore trolls when we're personally convinced that they are being annoying - and give them no special treatment when we decide to give them the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF. If there is anything worse than not ignoring a troll - it's getting belligerent with someone who isn't a troll but just has an odd set of questions to get off their chest. SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: between "Has a good answer been supplied yet" and "Add your comment in <small> tags", we might want to add another decision box "Are there fewer than 10 humorous asides already?" or "Do the existing humorous asides account for less than 10% of the total answerage?". —Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On a more serious note, it does not deal with Wickwack (and others in a similar position). There should be an option for removal of responses by banned users, rather than just original questions by banned users. Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It says "How to respond to a WP:RD question". There are a whole bunch of responding-to-responses cases it doesn't cover. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure - I kinda planned a followup flowchart about "How to deal with other people's answers". But let's get this much chewed over first. SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker has omitted the one thing that would stop 90% of the debates/arguments that occur frequently on Reference Desk, stop 90% of responses that trigger refutations, shorten & clean up Reference Desk, and restore its place as the very best place to get a good answer out of the various forums on the Web:-

If the question is not within your competence, leave it for a day before answering. If after a day, nobody else has answered, then go ahead and volunteer your answer. Most likely though, it will be answered by someone who does have competence. It is not within your competence if you have to google it or search Misplaced Pages in order to understand an answer. Competence does not mean professional or official qualifications, it means you know the subject to the detail required to answer it. This does not preclude the desirability of including refrences and links to sources (preferably links) in your answer.

That's also an excellent idea, but I would hope that you, ratbone/wickwack/whatever, would actually follow it yourself. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

One tactic trolls often use is to say, "I'm not that guy, but it looks like he's been mistreated by wikipedians." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you - and I think I have that covered. I said "If you have a good answer"...emphasis on "GOOD" - and it leads to a box that says that you should provide a "USEFUL" answer - with references where possible. And if nobody comes up with a good/useful answer - then after a couple of days, we can suggest that the OP ask the question differently. Most trolls will be bored after two days with no reaction to their efforts - so providing this 2-day courtesy response shouldn't greatly alter the efforts to not feed the trolls. I'm prepared to rock-paper-scissors with you over whether the delay should be 1 or 2 days - but the sentiment is the same. SteveBaker (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, now we don't agree! Some of the best answers I've seen here (and some of the ones I'm most proud of giving) are as a result of someone here scouring the net, using their unbelievably wicked Google-fu skilz, and pulling an answer out of nowhere. Take today for example, someone asked about whether an autonomous vehicle had circumnavigated the globe. Nobody here is going to be an expert on that subject - it's just too obscure. If we stuck to your rules, 99% of articles would go unanswered. But with about 20 minutes of digging around and reading up on the subject, I was able to come up with a pretty good contender for the vehicle that is most likely to succeed - and the autonomous vehicle that has in fact travelled more than a third of the way around the world. I'd hold my answer up as the ideal answer to a Misplaced Pages question like this.

Recall that we seek to emulate a library reference desk (our name is kindof a clue about that!) - when you go up to the reference desk in a real library, the person you are talking to is almost certainly not an expert at whatever you're asking. Their expertise is in the quaint topic of "Library science" - how to find information from a damned great pile of books. We're the same. Our best contributors are not the ones who work in their areas of excellence - but the ones who can dig out the most amazingly hard to find information within the encyclopedia - or elsewhere online. I hardly ever know the answer to a question - it's almost always an amusing and interesting quest to find that information that leads to our best answers.

The ACTUAL problem here is people who think they are experts (or at least more knowledgeable than they really are) - who shoot from the hip and guess at an answer. That's worse by far than someone who knows nothing about the subject who goes off and meticulously puts one together from the available online information.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are spot on re folk who shot from the hip - they are indeed worse that someone who knows nothing but looks it up. But that is a case of very bad is worse than just bad. My proposed rule covers both. As I said someone who just looks it up can thru ignorance misread, take out of context, or pick a low quality source. Not for a minute would I forbid anyone from answering - I just want them to wait and see if a competent person answers. If you are competent, you don't need to wait. If we all stuck to my rule, it would not be case of 99% of questions going unanswered. It may well mean that 90% of questions (more likley 70%) suffer a delay up to one day before an answer appears. That in itself is ok - Reference Desk doesn't pomise instant answers - but as I said the lack of nonsense with applying the rule will probably after a while result in additional people who can provide good answers comming forward. This is what is not being appreciated - bad answers discourage good answers, as good people likely think "I'm not going to waste my time here - its just another nonsense forum." I felt your answewr on automous vehicles was good helpfull answer. But you never know, an expert on such things just might come across Referenmce Desk. If none did, then your answer would still be just as good after a slightly greater wiat than the OP got anyway before you answered. A few good answers from non-experts does not invalidate what I'm saying.

If it were that simple, it would be no problem. The problem is caused by the relentless arguments by those who don't believe in the "no medical advice" rule and want to constrict it as much as possible. P.S. I see you're in western Australia. Say "G'die" to WickWack next time you see him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The thing is, deletion causes more of an uproar. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Completely off-topic here but, I really liked the way you all answered my silly questions! Miss Bono 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, where you been? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Connection where I am now is very slow, check out the last entries in my talk page. But I miss all of you guys at the ref desk and I promise to come back. Miss Bono 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono! I suppose I should confess that at the outset, I thought you were a troll. I now know that I was utterly wrong about that...but hey, we all make mistakes. I didn't hat or delete your questions - or the answers to them - I simply decided to "Walk Away" (per my flowchart, above). Other people decided that you weren't a troll and made best efforts to answer your questions - which was fortunate, because you stayed with us and actually started answering questions along with us - which is the best possible outcome for Misplaced Pages! Gradually, I realized my stupid mistake and started to do my best to start giving your questions the attention they deserved. This is an absolutely prime example of why we shouldn't shoot from the hip and execute suspected trolls on sight - or worse still, turn an innocent questioner into a pissed-off Wikihater who actually will do things to properly annoy us. Hence the flow chart. Sit back, wait to see what happens, and apply your own personal "Don't Feed The Trolls" approach. SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker, for the way you treated me at first I thought I was a troll I just tried to make non-bono questions I fixed what was wrong :P... Miss Bono 22:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Couldn't we reduce this a single question:

  "Do you have an answer, with references, to provide for the original question" and if the answer is "yes" the action is "Then do that" and if the answer is "no" then the action is "Then you don't have to do anything at all".

• All conflict only comes from actions other than that. That is, no one has ever generated conflict by simply providing an answer, with references. Conflict only arises when people do OTHER things, including but not limited to, jokes, attacking others, hatting questions, deleting questions, etc. What if we made our policy simple: Answer the f'n question with a reference or two, or do nothing. If everyone did that, the trolling would just roll off the page with no responses, which is probably the best way to treat it. --Jayron32 15:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not as simple as that. Such a policy would be a bad policy.

• I agree that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. If a troll provokes no response, he'll get bored and go elsewhere. Hence, fewer troll posts, and the troll posts that do occur haven't done much harm. Most trolls post questions, and a troll answer can usually be recognised as such by the OP. The trouble comes because some troll posts aren't recognised as such by everyone and responses get posted. There's no easy solution to this.
• I fully agree that links and refrences are highly desirable. It does conform to the presumably traditional (American) public library refrence desk model. But there are many many questions for which Wikipedians know the answer, and it is based on logical reasoning or math, so no references are necessary. Quite a significant percentage of questions are answered this way. For example, say an OP wants to know how to calculate the impedance of a radio cable. Almost any electrical/electronic engineer knows the formula for this one. Most can derive the formula from first principles on the spot - it is simple and can be done in three lines. We can type it up in about 5 minutes. What's wrong with that? It might take 15 minutes to find it in a reference.
• I have provided many answers, without links or references, becaue it is evident that the OP already has a good reference, but he's stuck on some aspect. Or, he's confused because a Wiki article is not clear. Citing another reference is not especially helpful. Providing a logical explanation in easy steps is. Do you want to exclude such responses?
• When I give an answer to OP's that by the wording of their question are probably learning a new (to them) subject, I take care to use and or explain the terminology of the subject. Often, OP's ask questions because they don't know what words to google. I usually put standard terms in italics. This may trigger the OP to search on those terms. If the OP does the looking up, it is far better for his /her learning than if I look it up for him/her. If I look it up, he/she may just accept it, then forget all about it a month later. If I induce the OP to look it up, they'll learn something, and they'll remember it. I know from occasional thank-you posts (and thank you's are rare on Reference Desk) that my strategy is often successful.
• Lastly, but by no means the least important: I'll say this again - while SteveBaker is correct (see above) that a person who is ignorant but looks it up is heaps better than one who guesses or shoots from the hip, a person who actually knows the subject, before looking it up, is better still (references should still be cited where applicable). People who rely on looking things up can in ignorance cite references that are dubious or plain wrong; they can all too easy take things out of context. Such misinformed answers with citations are a significant trigger of counter posts. Your proposal, by focussing hard on providing links/refrences, would encourage more such answers. The solution to this is - if you don't know the subject before looking it up, wait one day and see if someone knowlegeable has answered. If not, go ahead and give your answer.

Libarians in a traditional public library did not provide answers to questions - they only told you where to look to find an answer. That's all they could do - one librarian cannot know all about all subjects. In Misplaced Pages Reference Desk we can do better, as we are not just one person. And that's what the customer wants.

60.228.254.73 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, all you said is perfectly correct. We still don't need complicated rules. The basic principle of "If you know the answer and can prove it, go ahead. If you don't, shut up" is enough. That includes responding or not to trolls, hatting or deleting threads, or anything else. If you don't like someone's question, there's no reason to do anything. At all. It does you no amount of harm, it shortens your lifespan none, and it presents you no inconvenience to do nothing in response to a thread you don't like. --Jayron32 03:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"If you don't like the thread, don't post, don't do anything." Right on. I gave this a bit more thought after I posted. Reference Desk is by no means the only place on the Web where you can ask questions and get answers from more-or-less anonymous volunteers. It is is interesting to note that only Misplaced Pages has all sorts of rules and policies. Most of the other question & answer forums don't have anything, and because of that they have zero trouble with folk mis-applying rules. And they have a lot less trouble with trolls (everybody has trouble with trolls, but they generally have less), and the answers just like Reference Desk are a mix of direct answers and answers that just give refrences or links with a few words to say why the link or ref is appropriate. What makes Misplaced Pages Reference Desk unique is not the quality of answers, it's that you can ask on any subject, at any level of advancement, and more often than not, somebody can answer it if the trolls and shoot-from-the-hip guys don't get in first. On reflection, adopting your policy that you expressed before would reduce the trouble we are having, but also reduce the value to many people. So maybe there should be five and only five rules:-

1. If you don't like the thread, don't post, don't do anything.

2. Unless you know the answer before looking it up, wait one day to give a chance for a knowledgeable person to post.

3. Give links to online sources or references (links preferable) wherever reasonably possible and appropriate.

4. Don't violate Kainaw's Criterion and ask for or give medical advice.

5. Don't ask for or give legal advice.

There are cases where post should be deleted. But the facility for hatting should be removed. Whatever the original intended use was, it's not working now. Hatting achieves nothing, and the facility is being abused.

60.228.254.73 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hatting an entire question (in response to perceived trolling) is entirely worthless. Either the person is a troll, and now you've left a giant Historical Monument that says "TROLL HERE! COME ADMIRE HIS WORK" or the person isn't, and you've just attacked an innocent person. If the thread is so bad that it should never be read by anyone, delete it. If not, leave it alone and either let someone answer it, or let everyone else ignore it as well. But it should be rare to delete a thread, and never entirely hatted (I support limited hatting of digressions or other inappropriate responses to good faith questions, but not hatting of good-faith questions merely because someone sees trolls hiding behind every odd query...) --Jayron32 04:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And then one or more responders will gripe that their precious pearls of wisdom will be lost to history, and we'll have the delete-vs.-hat argument yet again. Infinite loop. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So just what is your advice on masterbation, Jayron?

In the meantime, let's also get a policy on three nonsense questions in a row, sockpuppets who restore their own material after its deleted, gathering ten useless responses by editors who will do anything now not to see their responses to him deleted, and my favorite, the 500-word racist rant essay followed by an innocent one-sentence inquiry on how many jebuzians have ever held the grand-poobahship of a non-jebuzian country.

The elephant in the room here are the single purpose accounts, IP or sock, who show up day after day asking bullshit. Check their user contributions, and they have started dozens of new threads at the ref desk, all absurd. They have never followed up on such questions, or otherwise contributed to the project. These are either genuine idiot-savants who know how to edit without ever having practised in the main space, trolls whose sole purpose is disruption, or studied longtimers with multiple accounts gaming the system. The percentage who fall under idiot savants are probably less than one. So how do we deel with the other 99%? Just leave them to their pigsty antics?

Where is there just one active admin interested in patrolling such accounts? μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like to think that admins who regularly post here, such as Jayron, take an interest in defending Misplaced Pages against such trolls. But it always comes down to the same bugaboo: You can't indef IP's (unless they're open proxies) and you can't force IP's to register. This is a never-ending problem, which is one reason why I have pretty much abandoned vandal-hunting. Until or if WMF changes this core philosophy of "anyone can edit", which was once a boon and is now an albatross, nothing will change for the better. Add to that, that there are not enough active admins, and Misplaced Pages's "standards" for admin selection, such as they are, do not encourage expansion of the admin corps. It's kind of like a city council, noticing an increase in the crime rate, and responding by reducing the size of the police force. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Bugs. Here's your mop and bucket.

As far as I'm concerned, the "anyone can edit" philosophy is still one of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental cornerstones. Does it cause problems? No question. But it is also absolutely responsible for Misplaced Pages's phenomenal success. The day it's rescinded is the day I seriously consider abandoning my participation.

As for Medeis's comments about active admins, it's not an admin's job to patrol for vandals -- it's all our jobs. It's an admin's job to block an account once vandalism is reported. No, you can't indef-block an IP, but you can temporarily block 'em, and I think most vandals get bored and don't play the IP-hopping game for too long. (But yes, there are a few that are damnably persistent, and for those, well, again, welcome to Misplaced Pages.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. Report them to AIV, where an admin will say "insufficiently warned" and deny the block. That's another reason I don't bother much anymore. What's needed is for non-admins who have other sort-of admin rights (such as rollback) be allowed to issue temporary 31-hour blocks. If you expect us ordinary wikipedians to fight vandalism ourselves rather than relying on admins, you had best give us a weapon. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure why we're allowing an unrepentant topic banned editor to be involved in this discussion. But since the followups mean it's not going to be deleted, I would note that whatever forums our banned friend normally hangs out in (perhaps only ones which allow them to have multiple identities to provide support for any disputed claims they make?), plenty of places where you can ask questions do in fact have rules and limitations. In fact, plenty (not all of course) are far more strigent than we are. Particularly when it comes to trolling, anything coming even remotely close to someone violating copyright or something probably against the law, etc.

Notably, in many of they have moderators (generally admins). In other words people who have the final say and can stop stuff on their own initiative. With only limited room for appeal (usually privately) or community discussion (often only on the wider direction rather than on specific issues). The moderators themselves may be community appointed but are often simply appointed by whoever is in charge or owns the forum. Most places also generally require registration with a valid email (to avoid spambots as much as anything) and rarely have any real limitations on those with access (admins or mods) being able to check out IPs etc. Of course, all this leads to the second issue namely that in many of them the rules are clearer and more stark, unlike here where we try to avoid fixed rules. (Although in other places it may still take a while to get a feel of the culture and of how the rules are intepreted.)

The idea that we are some super strigent place with a large number of obscure rules and whatever that isn't done anywhere else is IMO largely a myth sometimes spread, perhaps not coincidentally frequently by those who have problems with our culture, particularly those who have been blocked or banned. Whether the cause of this is because they're making the stuff up to try and justify their behaviour or whether it's because they hang out in the places where what they say is true, I can't say.

The only real truth to it is that considering the nature of wikipedia and the sometimes uncomfortable position of the reference desk, we do generally expect sources rather than personal opinions or commentary (other places may require sources for certain claims, but usually are more openly accepting of personal commentary or opinions). Oh also of course, what I hinted at earlier namely that we aim to operate without many real rules.

None of this has anything to do with the hatting issue, although I would note again in plenty of places it's far more common for a thread to be locked if inappropriate than for it to be deleted, deletion generally being reserved for stuff like personal attacks, libel, copyright issues and spam. But either way, I don't think we should be worrying too much about what is done in other places, let's worry more about what we should do. I only brought this up because I didn't want to let stand the myth that we have these super strong rules and no one else does that.

P.S. In terms of hatting an entire question, as I think I've said before in one of the many discussion, personally I consider deletion best. Yet as I've also said before and as others have mentioned here, if you delete clear cut trolling, even from a banned editor, don't be surprised to be yelled at if you also delete the responses others may have made (and I presume as we all agree leaving responses with no question is just dumb). And finally as I've said before many times, when you know something is clear cut trolling, particularly based on details others may not have picked up, it's extremely rude to leave it be simply because some people enjoy interacting with trolls. Since plenty of people do not enjoy wasting their time on trolls, yet not everyone who does not can be expected to pick up all the signs, particularly in the case of a persistent troll and editors who don't check out the RD that often. There's no reason why those who enjoy wasting their time on trolls should take priority over those who do not. (I do of course also recognise that to what extent we should deal with putative trolls is unclear and disputed and since as with most things is a continuum, is not something we will can ever hope to have clear consensus for every case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages Reference Desk have a strong and effective set of rules and policies? No it does not - the trouble had, and the continuous discussion and debate about all sorts of alledged and actual trolls, vandals, and other pests on this talk page is evidence of that. As is continual inappropriate hatting and continual appropriate and inappropriate deletion, though only a tiny number of wikipedians do this. As SteveBaker and others have said, simplification is the key to improvement. Are the rules and policies meant to govern/guide usage of Reference Desk onscure? Well, to new users, the rules & policies certainly are obscure. It takes new users considerable time to learn what and WHERE they are. As you've alluded to, Nil Einne, when you talked about taking time to learn the culture. Having a minimal set of simple rules displayed at the top of the edit screen would help. Even quite experienced Wikipedians don't know about Kainaw's Criteria for example - it is hidden away. If it was a sentence appearing every time at the top of the Science Desk edit screen, you'd most likely get far fewer requests for medical advice, and even less proferrings of advice when it did occur. Or maybe, when you click the Save Page button, a clickable check list should appear. Most requests for medical advice seem to be from new users who are unaware that Reference Desk cannot provide medical advice. Very few have tried to game the system and test the boundaries.

Yes, other forums do have monitors. Monitors would be a good idea in Reference Desk too, but only if such monitors were selected or voted into office by a much better process than can exist within the way that Misplaced Pages operates.

Say "G'day" to WickWack the next time you see him there in the Perth area. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Far as I know, the user calling himself "WickWack" is topic-banned from the ref desks. I don't think he ever actually created a user ID, as it's easier to troll via IP-hopping. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever confirmed that WickWack was not some other banned editors although off the top of my head I don't know anyone it could be. (But maybe their historic problems were outside the RD.) IIRC when it was suggested they create an account before got in to major trouble, they said some stuff about being misidentified and blocked because of it which in retrospect you have to wonder if whether what they actually means was that they were correctly identified and got blocked because of it. I won't of course be replying anymore to WickWack above, the only reason I replied at all is people seemed to be accepting their claims most of which I consider clearly nonsense and therefore harmful to this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is the supreme irony, no? A magnet for trolls and banned users, an argument for why the comments of people like our Danish troll (now blocked ) should be left to disrupt in peace. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI: User:Medeis is attempting to muzzle this discussion by attempting to get my flowchart deleted before this discussion has run it's course. Feel free to express your opinion about this tactic at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 December 8. SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested that this file be renamed to "suggested protocol" and moved to Steve's user space if it is retained at all. see the nomination. Anything about my "muzzling this discussion" is panicked nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullcrap Medeis, complete unadulterated bullcrap. If you wanted the file renamed then why did you go to "Files for DELETION" to get it done rather than Misplaced Pages:Requested moves? Either way, would it not have been a little more polite to come here and discuss it first? Heck, why not just ask me if I'd rename it? No - you did what you always do - which is to charge in and start hiding/hatting/deleting anything that you have the slightest distaste for without regard for the consensus and long-standing practices of this place. That's why your name comes up here over and over with such negative comments about your editing habits - and why your behavior angers so many people. You need to understand that as a community, you have to get large scale agreement behind you before taking precipitate action. You just wanted my diagram gone...and pretending that it's "unencylopedic" - as you're well aware - is a stupid claim for an image that's not being used (and would never be used) in mainspace. If you'd really wanted it renamed, you'd have done that rather than demanding deletion. Quite why either thing needs to be done while this discussion is still in play is anyones guess. Unless you're trying to muzzle and/or disrupt our discussions here.

This image isn't confusing people by it's naming - there is no urgency to take any action whatever. I'd go further and say that my diagram does actually describe the long-standing practice of these reference desks...except when you personally take it upon yourself to go around hatting things that really don't need hatting, almost always angering the majority of people who do good work here. My flow chart is an effort to encapsulate current practices - and my request for discussion was simply to see if there were significant good reasons to change that. I don't see any convincing arguments for doing that. SteveBaker (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the nomination that has SteveBaker in such a panic he's cursing in his edit summaries: "This file neither reflects an existing policy, nor is there consensus to make it policy, although its name implies it reflects a WP protocol. It was created as part of a talk page argument, and serves no encyclopedic purpose. There's no objection to it being renamed neutrally to "suggested" protocol and being placed in the creator's user space. But we cannot have users uploading policy arguments labelled as facts. μηδείς (talk) 4:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)"

That's very clear, the emphasis added sentence indicates there's no desire to delete the file per se. I'll nominate it for moving to "suggested protocol" when I get the time. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, Medeis, committing a preposterous and provocative act, and then trying to duck responsibility by belittling your victim for reacting to it, is one of the standard tactics of the immature bully. Is that what you're trying to achieve here? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Steve, it's to fill some yawning hole in her psyche by making everything always be about Medeis. She knows Oscar Wilde's epithet "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about", but has perverted it into "being the butt of everyone else's angst at least has the saving grace that I'm not being ignored". Funnily enough, that's exactly what drives trolls. And babies and small children. Any attention, no matter how negative, is better than no attention. That's what we've always been working with here. -- Jack of Oz 02:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Steve, if you want to point out where I have bullied anyone here, please provide the diff. You have my nomination quoted verbatim above, it's there for criticism. I will assume your complaint is sincere, although Jack "Making people feel guilty is my supreme ambition in life. ... "Winning is never enough - others must lose" of Oz's chiming in on your behalf while having just called me a "nasty vindictive baitrice" whom he forgives "Mandela-like" makes it hard to take his contribution seriously. Touché, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jack of Oz has hit the nail on the head. It's attention trolling.

Nothing the ref-desks haven't seen before in other users. APL (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about IP-hoppers and drive-by red-link accounts, as contrasted with registered users who stand with their accounts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Them too. Those are the other kind of trolls we get here. APL (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If certain users spent even a tenth of the time they spend hassling regular users, in dealing instead with those "other" trolls, instead of defending them, it would be a significant change for the better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

wickwack

Given the attitude and the IP I have hatted this edit. I see the same close range was hatted in the last day or so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I think the IP should realize there are those of us who'd prefer he just register and not cause us to hat him on sight. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And I would assume the IP-hopper couldn't care less what we think - it's more fun for the IP-hopper to get us to scurry like ants when he turns up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath considering the nonsense in the above thread from the IP about WickWack. (Their history also suggests they don't want to be accountable or to allow their posts to support themselves, whatever they may say about their experience.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement by 60.228.254.73 and possibly others far above in the thread that it is a bad practice to find and provide a referenced answer when you are not an expert in the subject. If someone ha a college education in science or engineering, then he has passed college level courses in chemistry and physics. Someone with liberal arts degree might have a general college level knowledge of the Renaissance and literature. They can find and provide useful references to a questioner without being a specialist in the one discipline within which the question falls, out of the dozens of subject areas they are acquainted with. A real life reference librarian is absolutely not an expert in every area in which he assists library patrons who seek information on a subject. He just leads them to the relevant books and articles. He doe not then read them and explain them to the patron, although that extra step is common at Ref desk. "Wait for a real expert" may turn into quite a wait indeed, when the questioner's needs may well be satisfied by a link to the relevant Misplaced Pages article, or to a Google Book passage. Further, we usually have no way of verifying credentials. If an answer based on some reliable source is incomplete or if the ref desk volunteer misinterpreted something or overgeneralized, there is typically someone who chimes in with additional insights or with corrections. I recall a motors question where I was pretty sure of the answer, but I emailed a frequent and informed contributor to the electric motor article to check what I aid, and he came to the Ref Desk to verify and extend my answer, even though he had not contributed to Ref Desk before. Such a practice can pick the brain of specialists within the community and perhaps add to the RD work force. We are specifically not in the business of providing professional advice on matter where there would be risk to someones life, health,or legal status. Edison (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

toronto troll

The toronto troll, who starts off asking sincere seeming ethnological questions, then gets down to calling you a "negress" with a low IQ is back: see these three now deleted unsigned questions with the ethnicity/morality theme: diff

That Toron-troll's running "negress" joke is getting a bit stale by now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure they're the same person? The posts you deleted look to be the same stuff we've been getting for the past few years relating to ethnicity, race and religion, particularly those connected to Islam. They once went by the User talk:Donmust90 account which they mysteriously abandoned, and never seemed to learn to use a search engine, or that no one can really be bothered answering many of their requests for detailed information on various random subsets or juxtapositions and for that matter, often didn't even seem to take in what they were told, sometimes to the extent of asking very similar questions with the same mistakes, but I've never been sure they were a troll. Beyond the more obvious trolling, the 'negress' troll seems to have a different writing style, perhaps this is intentional but I wonder if we're just confusing two different people with slightly related questions (or non questions in the case of one of them)? Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is an open question whether these are two separate trolls or the same one. The negress troll was nevertheless from greater Toronto and started multiple questions about ethnic groups with the same judgmental implications. You'll note I was happy to assume good faith, but klaxons started pealing with the second and third immediate unsigned edits in a row. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand. To be clear, I wasn't intending to contest the deletion (and yeah I know appear to be using the same IP with similar geolocation, forgot to mention that). I've believed for a while that even though Donmust may not be a troll, there's no harm in telling them to 'move on' as we eventually did with Bowei Huang and possibly others I can't recall at the moment.

P.S. OT but I'm reminded of them by Donmust90: I just realised Freewayguy aka interracial marriage questioner (aka planet colour questioner?) is still active occasionally. Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 2#Pew Center Research for interracial marriage. I guess that means since we haven't heard, they don't yet have any happy news to report on the success of their goal.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

archiving note

For those wondering why the desks have been getting LLAARRGGEE: I've been (a) traveling, (b) scandalously busy, and (c) without my normal computer, but I've finally patched together enough of my environment to get some piecemeal archiving done tonight. Full, normal archiving will resume on Sunday. "We apologise for the inconvenience." —Steve Summit (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sterling and so-easily-taken-for-granted service, Steve. -- Jack of Oz 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Me too. (Wow nothing relevant? Okay fixed, we did have an article which was redirected after the info was parred down and moved to list article, probably correctly as the first article was very poor . But the target was then changed to the disambig Me Too so the linkage to the new location Glossary of Internet-related terms was lost. Redirecting Me too to Me Too probably makes sense as well but we need some sort of linkage, as long as the glossary covers it. So I've added something to the disambig.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about refdesk trolling

I've spent very little time at the refdesk, but found myself responding to a couple questions. In looking around, there seems to be an awful lot of Yahoo Answers-style trolling. Baseball Bugs, for example, responded to a question I also responded to simply to call the person asking the question (or perhaps it was the subject he/she asked about) "arrogant," and then responded again, adding "elitism" and "nose-in-the-air" (aside: if that's "elitism," what are you even doing on a humanities board?). Looking at his/her edits, most of them (the recent ones I looked at anyway) contribute about the same. I'm not trying to treat a talk page as ANV, just trying to get a feel for how the refdesk operates outside of the basics specified in WP:Reference desk/Guidelines (which seem to require talkpage-like tolerance, which I don't really understand). --— Rhododendrites |  21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have the fortitude to plough through "Time to change the Guidelines" above, you'll understand the current situation (which isn't really as dreadful as it might sound, to be honest). In short, a number of users consider the current guidelines to be too loose (especially as regards "trolling", widely defined), and a number of users consider them to be too tight (especially as regards "medical advice", whether defined by Kainaw's criteria or otherwise), and we all enjoy arguing about it without much in the way of progress being made. I think it's safe to say the written guidelines do not reflect how the desks are actually run - whether, and, if so, how, this is to be changed is a matter of permanent debate. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem, Tevildo. Rhododendrites is referring specifically to the posts of Baseball Bugs, and identifying a problem with them. --Viennese Waltz 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What's ANV? I don't think Bugs meant disrespect, but was trying to convey the idea that if books could not be "about" a subject, such as the law, and thus held to convey no meaning, then that could be considered arrogance (and with the law, contempt, if carried to the extreme by a kangaroo court). Obviously the question was too vague to limit answers specifically to literary works. --Modocc (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's also note the longstanding feud between Viennese Waltz and Bugs, whom he criticizes at every turn, yet which Waltz doesn't seem to find worth mentioning in the spirit of full disclosure. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(a) There is no feud (b) I was deliberately neutral in my post above, simply drawing attention to an aspect of the OP's post that Tevildo had missed. --Viennese Waltz 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the question is "How does Bugs (specifically) get away with it?", I can't suggest an answer. The problem, as I see it, is that "it" is not well-defined, and there are many regular contributors who get away with "it" far more egregiously than Bugs (IMO). If we had a better definition of "it", we could make some progress. But we don't, so we can't. Tevildo (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It would help a great deal if people only posted to (a) answer the question, by providing a referenced answer, or (b)asking for a question to be clarified, if necessary. Almost anything else is off-topic, and doesn't belong on a reference desk. At some point, I suspect that this is going to have to be made a formal policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We could do with clerks and also with a feedback mechanism. At the heart must be a culture of self-discipline. If you don't know the answer, don't answer. Unfortunately the refdesks attract a lot of people who feel the need to prove their own importance. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In general the reference desk of late has developed a bad vibe. Editors seem more concerned with snipping at each other than giving factual well-referenced answers. Newcomers are bitten on sight. It's not a place I like to spend much time on anymore. 82.44.76.14 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Borrowing a joke I heard about trumpet players, Q: "How does one Ref Desk volunteer greet another?" A:"Hello. I'm smarter than you." Edison (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet, if you block Bugs, you'll be the one dragged before the Arbitration Committee! What a world. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

When has that happened? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is dot all you got? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Time?

Other than wickack and the Toronto Troll, are there any IP contributors here? I am curious if there's opposition to requesting the talk page be semi-protected. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm opposed. There's several good-faithed regular IP contributors, not to mention any of the future millions of people who haven't registered yet but want to ask a question. Semi-protection here is a BAD IDEA. We can deal with Wickwack and the Tornotroll and our Denmark troll either by ignoring them (best option) or removing their posts (far less desirable, but meets some people's desire to be in control). I'm in favor of doing nothing at all, but semiprotection is keeping out all the good stuff for the sake of three PITAs. A bad idea. --Jayron32 04:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Medeis is referring to just the ref desk talk page, not the ref desk itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am quite unaware of any helpful contributions by IP trolls here on the talk desk--and I do assume Jayron's misunderstood me--I am not talking about the Ref Desks themselves. We've just had the Denmark troll blocked. Wickwack is banned. We have had semi-protection in response to the Toronto troll. I am unsure how a medium length semi-protection at this page would be problematic given the determination of the trolls to disrupt this it. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There aren't helpful contributions by trolls. There could be any number of good faithed questions by non-trolls, and any attempt to stop trolls must be weighed against the big, undeserved middle finger we give to all the unregisterred non-trolls that exist in the world. --Jayron32 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi=protection is not a middle finger, it is used all over wikipedia, when necessary, for a limited time, in response to trolling and vandalism. We can easily post an explanation here explaining why the page might be semi-protected. People who are not trolls will understand that. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is used, and yes, it is still a middle finger. The visibility of the page must be taken into account, and more visible and used pages are LESS appropriate to semi-protect than those that get little traffic (that's why we DON'T semi-protect the TFA or other main page featured articles if we can at all avoid it). That is, the likelihood a page is to receive a good-faith contribution from an IP address is perhaps the most important factor in deciding when to semi-protect, not merely the fact that some known troll is editing it. This page in particular is too visible, and too likely to receive random, but good faithed, contributions from IPs to merit protecting, and likewise has enough watchers from regulars to delete or revert trolling so as to make semiprotection BOTH undesirable and unnecessary. --Jayron32 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of a talk page is pretty much unheard of. Even Jimbo Wales himself puts up with random IP trolls coming to his user talk all the time (and they really are banned users, and he has a pretty good idea who they are). Give it up. Honestly I find the IP trolls less annoying than the policy trolling. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is specifically designed to encourage participation by people who are not normally Misplaced Pages editors. I know you're talking specifically about the talk page, but it feels very very wrong to turn the talk page into some sort of ivory tower from which the regulars can look down upon the newbies on the ref-desks. APL (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We semi-protect pages when we have a serious problem we can't solve any other way.

What's the serious problem here, now?

I'm honestly not seeing it.

(I gather there are a few posts by an IP who might or might not be a banned user, but even if it is a banned user, (a) the posts don't seem that problematical, and (b) the right thing to do if they are from a banned user is to quietly delete them, with a minimum of fuss.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Entries by banned users are subject to removal on-sight, regardless of whatever their alleged quality might be. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is we have a banned user who posts incessantly, and whose posts get responded to, disrupting the discussion page. It would be a lot more helpful if the people who are saying there's no need for SP were also reverting the banned user's edits. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we delete every entry from any IP that geolocates to Perth, on the assumption it's WickWack? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your semi-valuable input. I was asking Medeis for a practical suggestion on how to deal with WickWack. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree there doesn't seem much point protecting this page. The level of banned contributions isn't that bad nor that insidious and there are a few non banned IPs who contribute here and protection needs to be justified by the risk (remembering that IPs are allowed to contribute to wikipedia by policy). I don't particularly like the fact people see the need to give banned editors a say in developing reference desk guidelines by engaging in them in discussions on guidelines, but that's what it is. It isn't uncommon in other discussion pages for comments from banned editors to be stuck other when they are part of a discussion but I'm not sure that won't cause more controversy here so I didn't try it.

(I do of course acknowledge that people can come back from being banned. In fact we have someone posting another discussion on this page who was at one time a majorly annoying troll and vandal who I don't think anyone really defended. It's only a pity it doesn't happen more often.)

As others have said, protecting talk pages is very rare and having it for any length of time even more so. (Although neither is unheard of, some editor talk pages are protected when problems arise, μηδείς's is one obvious example. Similarly article talk pages of living subjects with a lot of teenage fans or I presume enemies also sometimes get protection. And in those cases often for fairly long periods of time albeit with an unprotected subpage.) So even if I were to support it and we were to get consensus of people here, I'm fairly sure it's not going to happen in this case.

In this case as with noticeboards etc, we have a somewhat special situation in that both the talk pages and main page are used for discussion, with the talk page being used for discussion of guidelines or specific meta or administrative stuff arising in the main page, rather than for developing the main page as happens in the normal situation (articles, most wikipedia pages, templates, even files), that doesn't actually change the protection situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of who is or is not WickWack, and how we know or do not know that, somebody who claims not to be WickWack is complaining at ANI about his comments being deleted as WickWack's. These complaints are also being deleted as being from WickWack. But he or she is persisting. People here seem to be well versed on the WickWack issue so maybe take a look? Here's his latest attempt to lodge this complaint and/or troll ANI. (Who can say?) APL (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• The good news is, due to a lack of disruption, prophylaxis would be bootless. As for Wickwack, when you get a sophisticated single-puropse IP user from Perth who insists on answering science ref desk questions with attitude, and cursing when you restrict him, and who files absurd ANI cases that get criticized by and even deleted by various admins, then yes, you should assume the worst and remove the edits. A normal person would understand this, and either move on to another area or register an account. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Trolling type replies from regular editors

I just hatted a bunch of trolling type replies to a question asked by an editor in good standing. I have no idea why Trovatore, Medeis, Baseball Bugs, Hot Stop, Tevildo, and 2601:9:3200:467:1830:AF9B:D09C:6497 thought that their comments were a good idea. Frankly it looks to me as if some/all of those need to take a break from answering questions. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The question itself "How long exactly should one stay in the shower after a normal day at work or at school?" is absurd, and the OP doesn't at all seem to mind that we had a bit of fun with it. He's also recently asked the very serious question, is it really true ghosts aren't real? He's a big boy, why don't you ask him to join the discussion? The alternative of hatting the whole thread also existed from the beginning as a request for opinion--indeed if there's to be any hatting, the whole thread should be. But that would bring the usual flying flaming shitstorm of complaint. Until now the way it was handled seemed to please everyone. I think the hats should be removed unless Caius objects. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Medeis on this issue (twice in as many months - what is the world coming to)? The question was not, IMO, one which invited a serious answer, and I do not feel that any of the humourous responses were inappropriate. If this is not the sort of behaviour we should be engaging in, the entire thread should go, rather than just sections of it. Tevildo (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I never, ever, imagined that I would be ever agreeing to anything that Medeis says ;-) but I have to agree. Also, this hatting means the OP's determination that his question has been resolved, has been unilaterally un-resolved by you. How would you like one of your responses to a question that you posed, to be hatted out of visible existence? We all judge, consider and answer the OP questions the best we can. Sometimes 'we' consider the appropriate response is to encourage the OP to think about the question he 'really' should be asking. As is quoted (somewhere) in Zen Buddhism: You can not ask the correct question... until you know the answer.--Aspro (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

About our agreeing, Sauron, it doesn't mean we haven't disagreed in the past. Nor does past disagreement imply we are obliged to hold a grudge, rather than declare ourselves free to judge each new case on its merits. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have asked User:Admiral Caius to comment if he cares to. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with that sentiment and approach, Medeis. Would that we could all practise it all the time, rather than assuming past history necessarily dictates or at least conditions current intentions. Beginner's mind is often an elusive thing for non-beginners to capture, but well worth the quest. -- Jack of Oz 20:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I very much enjoy you Jack, and the "annoying" things you do rarely actually annoy me. If they do, it is only for a moment. You are quite aware that I answer all your questions in good faith when I can. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. What I said was an aide-memoire for myself more than anyone else. -- Jack of Oz 23:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The question as worded is asking for an opinion, but that does not justify the deliberately unhelpful "answers" and jokes posted in response to it. The questioner should be asked to clarify what information they are seeking, and informed that the question as written is not answerable on the reference desk because it is not a request for established facts. These pages are for many users their first introduction to Misplaced Pages and bombarding them with nonsense because they made a mistake goes against the entire point of the reference desk as a place where newcomers are supposed to be helped. 82.44.76.14 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that too. -- Jack of Oz 20:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but that's assuming that you found the responses amusing. I thought they were stupid and juvenile and if you found the question unworthy of an attempt at answering then why even bother. Or do you want to encourage useless questions so they can receive ridiculous answers? The question may at first glance may appear unanswerable, so ask for clarification or ignore. There is nothing that says you are required to comment on everything. At first I thought it couldn't be answered but then I figured that if you look at it from a different angle then sensible answers could be provided, as was done by some editors. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have no sense of humor is not particularly enlightening. Or then again, maybe it is. Anyway I don't remotely apologize, and I think you should apologize to me for the word "troll". --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(By the way, may contribution was not that funny, it's true. But Medeis's baroque elaborations — those were hilarious.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your answer, if not spit-out-your milk funny, was indeed funny, and perfectly appropriate for the question as asked. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I was informed of this thread by Medeis, so I came to try and clarify the situation. I have been an obsessive germophobe for quite some time, and I struggle with obsessive washing and paranoia. I was curious on what time is considered "correct" and came to the RD to try get some opinions. The comments are quite humorous and amusing (though not overly useful), but I don't consider them bothersome or disruptive, and certainly not trolling. I didn't intend for the matter to escalate; I was simply looking for a casual answer. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's actually very interesting, Caius. Had you stated the explanation in full, the question might have been deleted as medical advice. Are you actually looking for a minute amount, or a "landmark" that will tell you when you're done? Have you talked to a professional? I have a friend from middle school who had a serious OCD issue, with showering and especially with hand washing. He's quite happy now, I can ask him how he has dealt with the issue. You might put a question, "what information has been published on how people with OCD deal with the need to shower?" μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have turned the hats to smalls per the no harm no foul consensus. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Several regular editors seem to treat Wikpiedia's reference desks as some kind of social media. The thread mentioned here is a perfect example of a number of editors who barely ever contribute to mainspace (a term unfamiliar to some regular ref desk editors) yet use Misplaced Pages as a kind of playground to be "witty" or attempt (and sorely fail) to appear "clever". It needs cleaning up and editors should be reminded that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages (which is driven by article quality), not to make flippant replies on chat pages/reference desks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One can't get away with just appearing to be "clever" on the ref desk because other editors will soon put you back in your place. Witt, is akin to satire, it can dissolve the veil and so can help the OP to focus on the question s/he meant to ask. You just try to answer some of these questions yourself and see how far you get. Walk a mile ... --Aspro (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. If you prefer to socialise and joke and provide false answers and so-called "humor", use another medium. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, you are right I don't have a sense of humor but I do have a sense of humour. Do you wish for me to apologise that the word troll exists? Please take the time to actually read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. Admiral Caius, I'm glad you weren't bothered by the replies but a newer editor might have been. "If this is not the sort of behaviour we should be engaging in, the entire thread should go, rather than just sections of it." You are correct for the most part you and others should not be engaging in that sort of behaviour. If you think the question is unanswerable as is then ask for clarification or remove it. There is no reason to think that the reference desk is there for a small group of people to crack jokes. There are plenty of social sites for that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Is Misplaced Pages heading towards its first handbags at dawn showdown? Maybe Clint Clint Eastwood can turn it into a movie. --Aspro (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, practically all the editors above have been making numerous contributions to mainspace for years, and they each have referred questioners to numerous references, and yes they are regulars who are familiar with each other and tend to consort occasionally. Whatever Misplaced Pages is not, its not about alienating each other just because some editors are less helpful than others. The appropriate focus here is to provide the best answers possible when we can and with the shower question, I was half-way expecting to see SteveBaker add one of his often-put comprehensive lists of factors to consider even if it sometimes borders on original research (which we do allow for), but there was plenty of relevant information given anyway and the OP has now clarified what they are expecting (which had nothing to do with saving energy or water BTW) which is all fine and dandy. -Modocc (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Modocc, many chat page editors have made little-to-no substantial mainspace edits yet seem to believe that using the chat pages here somehow validate their very existence. This is, of course, horse-shit, much like some of the fallacious and facetious "advice" provided on the chat pages. The "best possible answers" do not include making up bullshit, although that seems a proclivity common to some. If you and your co-existants wish to celebrate social media, Facebook, Twitter or other outlets are available. If you wish to build an encyclopaedia, please try to start doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Again you are making this up because contrary to your empty assertions, the involved editors have been making edits to mainspace. --Modocc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. At least one of the editors noted has made barely a single notable contribution to the mainspace. (When did you last make a notable contribution, by the way?) The chat desk people usually just chat, chat more and fail to improve the encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One editor? Really, that is not what you said, so are we getting a different story from you? Anyway, since it's simply a strawman that you trollishly wail against, there is not much more to this dead horse to beat.--Modocc (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it really? Are you getting a different story from you? Anyway, the way you're responding, you know exactly which editor(s) waste time of others' and use flippant responses. You're the troll, not those asking questions. What is the point of the chat desk people who just use Misplaced Pages as a dull alternative to Facebook or Twitter? You and your chat friends need to start actively improving Misplaced Pages. Right now, the chat rooms are becoming a laughing stock and are undermining Misplaced Pages's aims. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is wasting anyone's time, but your original post here was filled with flippant accusations (or smears), as I've said. --Modocc (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong. It wasn't my original post. You're mistaking me for someone else who also cares about the fact that the chat desk people have become a clique. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm rarely wrong and I was referring to your post here. --Modocc (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"I'm rarely wrong"? Funny! Thanks for the laughs. Now, when you and the chat room people are prepared to actually get out and edit real articles, I'm sure the rest of Misplaced Pages will care about what you have to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Only this encyclopedia also has a reference desk for providing pretty quick answers. To keep you happy, should Jimmy Wales direct all correspondence to a post office box, were -if you're lucky- you may get a reply after several months? Your quote "At least one of the editors noted has made barely a single notable contribution to the mainspace." Yes we know, and we make allowances... because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia that anyone (including you) can edit. Enough said?--Aspro (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about Jimmy Wales, he's just another editor. I do give a shit about the fact that there are several editors who do not actively improve Misplaced Pages. If you can show me evidence that these chat desks are notable outside Misplaced Pages, I'd be interested. Otherwise, it's just naval-gazing bullshit, and in some cases, worse than that, flippant bullshit that denigrates the entire purpose of Misplaced Pages. Facebook is somewhere else. If you want to chat and lie to people, do it somewhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)