Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 16 December 2006

Archives (dates are close, not exact)
(1) Jan 1-Sep 15 '04	(2) Feb 1-Nov 13 '04
(3) Mar 20 -Aug 17 '05	(4) Aug 19-Aug 30 '05
(5) Sep 4-Sep 18 '05	(6) Sep 25-Dec 3 '05
(7) Dec 10-Jan 9 '06	(8) Jan 9-Jan 19 '06
(9) Jan 19-Mar 27 '06	(10) Apr 2-Aug 2 '06
(11) Aug 9-Sep 20 '06	(12) Sep 21-Oct 22 '06
(13) Oct 21-Nov 1 '06	(14) Nov 1-Nov 11 '06
(15) Nov 9-Dec 4 '06	(16) Dec 5-Dec 11 '06
(17) Dec 11-Dec 13 '06	(18) Dec 13-?
Currently inactive and soon to be deleted: "Association of Reference Desk Volunteers"

deletion issues

• I think this problem is already solved. Anyone who made a habit of removing things just because they don't like it would find themselves buried in requests to cut that out. Ned Wilbury 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• And what happens if they ignore those ? StuRat 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• If we must, we continue with dispute resolution. Also, if one person is unreasonably removing things, others will put them back, and this won't be controversial. Anyone who insists on edit warring over such a thing will only make themselves look like the unreasonable one. Editors who continue to be unable to work well with others may find themselves ignored, or even blocked from editing. Ned Wilbury 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For one data point on controversial deletion, see the third through sixth comments at User talk:Ummit#Reference desk.

My take on the propriety of deletion (though I haven't taken the time to research chapter and verse on this) is that we've got a general policy somewhere that says that all editors should (in general) be highly reluctant to delete information outright. My feeling also is that deletion is much more appropriate in article space (where it may well be combined with a move or an addition somewhere else) than in talk space. My feeling is finally that the Reference Desk is much more like talk space than article space (or even, for that matter, than project space). But as I say, I haven't researched these arguments fully, so I'm not sure how well they'd stand up, and I'm also not sure how to rebut the oft-repeated argument that "deletion anywhere is acceptable if it helps the project". —Steve Summit (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Many of those doing the excessive deletions are Admins, however, so blocking seems unlikely, especially if there isn't any actual policy they've violated ("Hey, I'm just 'following the wiki process', by deleting everything I dislike."). StuRat 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Admins can be blocked, same as anyone. As for policy violations, excessive reverting is already severely frowned upon and is a common cause of blocks. Keep in mind that it takes at least two to edit war. See WP:1RR. If you're talking about some specific edit war that actually happened, I'm not familiar with that situation. I'd be surprised if anything like that continued for any significant period of time- blocks for excessive reverting are not usually controversial. Ned Wilbury 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(added after a couple of edit conflicts) Frankly, I don't think we're going to be able to assemble a one-size-fits-all procses to remove comments or impose sanctions. Anything we put together will be too rigid, prone to wikilawyering, and discourage people from using common sense to resolve disputes. I suspect that we're actually taking the wrong approach by trying to discuss a complicated process for removing problem edits when the crux of the issue is problematic behaviour. I expect that if someone makes a habit of making unhelpful or inappropriate remarks on the Desk, other editors will point out why this is a problem—hopefully with specific reference to general Misplaced Pages policy (especially WP:CIV) or with a specific explanation of how the remarks interfere with the purpose of the Desk. (This is why it's so important to have discussion and general agreement on whether or not I've correctly and clearly described our purpose, principles, and the attendant guidelines.) I also expect that if an editor considers a remark so egregiously out of place that they immediately remove it, that editor will explain his actions to the original poster of the comment, again with explanation for why it was removed (probably with reference to WP:NPA or severe breaches of WP:CIV). If a remark is removed without good justification, I would be very surprised if the editor who removed it didn't get an earfull. Anyone who edit wars over something like this – whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' – is asking for trouble. In any case (inappropriate remarks or overzealous removal of comments) I expect that if this informal process of reminders (and if necessary, warnings) doesn't effect a modification of behaviour, there will be intervention by admins. This is how every other dispute resolution process works where one party refuses to cooperate (attempted discussion and informal reminders of policy, warning, admin intervention, and possible arbitration); I don't see a reason for the Ref Desk to reinvent the wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You nailed it. But, I think you (and others) have nailed this before, too. The common response so far is "But, things happened that there was disagreement over, thus proving that we need more specific rules." I can't think of a new way to answer this objection, but I hope somebody comes up with one. Ned Wilbury 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have answered my own question. Rules are a way of writing down accepted practice in a generalized way. If there's still wide disagreement over specific incidents, this means that right now, "accepted practice" is too unclear to be generalized. If we cannot agree on what to do in specific incidents, we obviously cannot agree on a generalized set of rules, so trying to create such a ruleset would be pointless. This makes sense to me, but I don't know if it will sound convincing to those editors who want specific rules. Ned Wilbury 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I too think that behavior is a big part and wikipedia has plenty of experience in and mechanisms for dealing with behavior. Just remember that there are also substantive issues on the RD not covered by general policy; use of OR/opinion not fully cited being the big one that comes to mind (this is probably most an issue on the Misc Desk where I do all my RD work). I know that Ten is aware of these; I just don't want it thought that all the issues we are addressing are already adequately covered. The RD does need some purpose-specific guidance. --Justanother 19:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question. Several weeks ago, well before I was aware of the whole Reference Desk policy brouhaha, I remember discovering that a reference desk comment, that I thought was useful and appropriate, had been summarily deleted by SCZenz. I was about to complain on his talk page, but first I came across his longwinded defense of his policy at User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals, and I got the impression he was so sure of himself that it wasn't worth complaining, and on that day I wasn't up for a long debate, so I let the matter drop without comment. (Yes, this was wimpy of me, I know.) But since then, as I gather, there have been complaints about the summary deletions by SCZenz, and also about the deletions by Friday and Hipocrite. I suspect that the deletions by these three users (and perhaps others) were among the primary instigations of the brouhaha. Now, the key question (for me) is: how many people felt the deletions were inappropriate, how many of them (unlike me) complained, and how many (besides the three deleters) supported the deletion? In short, was there any attempt to build consensus around those deletions, and if not, were any of the normal dispute resolution processes attempted? (Sorry for all the questions, I know I'm still missing a lot of recent history.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the source of the issue (although Admin:Rick Block tried something similar before Admin:SCZenz and then Admin:Friday and later Admin:Radiant! and then User:Hipocrite got involved). The problem was that they didn't feel the need to get a consensus for deletions, saying anyone can delete anything they like "as part of the wiki process". Many Ref Desk volunteers disagreed, and thought such issues should be based on consensus. This led to an attempt to come up with some basic rules (initiated by me, now at /rules), with the goal of gaining a consensus and putting them "into force". The people mentioned previously strongly took issue with developing any rules, then created a competing set of rules, now at /guideline, which were far more strict on what could be posted and far more lenient on what could be deleted, essentially allowing anyone to delete anything they dislike, without consensus, as before. This probably brings us up to where you came in. One way to characterize the disagreement is inclusionists ("leave everything in unless doing so causes more harm than removing it") versus deletionist ("delete everything that you don't like"). StuRat 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some uses of the word "consensus" above should probably read "supermajority vote". One point that was brought up by some was that many standard Misplaced Pages practices are either unknown or unaccepted by some other editors who wanted to make these exact rules. So, the people who kept arguing that "this is not how we do things here" ended up not making very convincing arguments in the eyes of some others. Ned Wilbury 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that argument looked like pure bureaucracy gone amuck, the "we have to do it that way because we've always done it that way" argument (when, actually, the Ref Desk has always had it's own "unwritten" rules). For example, the "no original research" rule, applied strictly to the Ref Desk, would eliminate half of the correct answers given. StuRat 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But weren't the people saying "this isn't how we do things" the SAME ones saying "we don't need firm rules"? I don't get it- are they advocating bureaucracy, or common sense? Surely you can't advocate both at the same time? Ned Wilbury 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys may be talking about two different things. StuRat's talking about Radiant saying, "you can't build consensus by holding votes, that's not how we do things." Ned, what were you talking about? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, your description of inclusionists and deletionists above is inaccurate and unfair. I think nearly everyone agrees that we should leave things there unless removing it is better than leaving it there. There's simply some surprisingly wide disagreement over specific cases. Show me any editor who thinks "I should delete whatever I don't like" and I'll show you someone with NO understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Such an editor would not last very long here- they would be blocked in a hurry. Ned Wilbury 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the polarazition is inappropriate. But I have a question and a comment:

• How accurate do other people think StuRat's characterization of the early stages of the deletion debate is? Ned Wilbury has already cast doubt on the characterization of the deleter's defense as "I can delete anything I like as part of the wiki process". But, rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that the complainers felt that they couldn't (say) just bring a complaint against the deleters at RfC, because the deleters claimed they had general Misplaced Pages policy on their side. So, rather than going to dispute resolution, the complainers set about trying to clearly document the ways in with the Reference Desk might be different, such that "general Misplaced Pages policy" didn't necessarily apply. And we know what happened next. But now it's being said, with some justification (heck, I've said it myself ) that we don't need lots of new rules, we just need to use the normal dispute resolution process if people start acting out-of-hand. But I would have total sympathy with the complainers (the complainers about deletion, that is) if they said, "We were already going to do that, but we were told it wouldn't work." —Steve Summit (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• You said, "Show me any editor who thinks 'I should delete whatever I don't like'". That is precisely the impression that User:Hipocrite has given me. (Apologies if I'm wrong, Hipocrite, but that is the impression I've gotten.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some things I don't like, that I think are not helpful to Misplaced Pages, that I have failed to delete - Derek Smart, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, WP:AMA, WP:PAIN, this question with little value, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision, Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Admin_coaching among SCORES of other pages. I delete things when I think deleting those things net/net makes the encyclopedia better. That's the only standard I have used, and the only standard I will use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me reword the deletionist POV as "I can delete anything, without consensus, so long as I think doing so improves Misplaced Pages". I've also seen it extended to "I have a duty to delete anything, without consensus, if I think doing so improves Misplaced Pages". StuRat 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If I saw inappropriate deletions I put them back. --Justanother 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is finding them. If the person who does the inappropriate deletion doesn't notify anyone, and doesn't even put "deletion" in the history comment, it's unlikely that anyone will notice it. This is a fundamental diff versus talk pages, the volume of changes is so high that the edit on that section may only show up under the watchlist for a minute or two before being superseded. StuRat 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Call for Suggestions on How to Appropriately Deal with Factual Inaccuracies in Responses

I'm open to any and all suggestions. What is the most appropriate way to deal with factually incorrect responses, (as well as their insertion into wiki articles on the subject) keeping in mind that the FIRST PILLAR of Misplaced Pages is that it is above all Encyclopedia, and more particularly, that as an Encyclopedia, according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, factual accuracy is of utmost importance?

The most recent example of this ocurred here: ] in response to a question asking for the origin of the prefix "step" as in "step-parent".

Apparently I don't seem to be able to deal with these problems in a manner that is acceptable to many other users.

Once again, I'm open to any and all suggestions as to how to better deal with the matter. Loomis 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, where are we discussing policy now? --Justanother 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking how this question would be addressed by the /rules ? It's clearly not a case of "disruption", so a speedy delete is out, that leaves notifying the author of the "incorrect info" politely on their talk page and requesting that they remove it. If that fails, it could be brought up here, and, if there is consensus, it could then be removed. StuRat 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just that the way he worded the header and question was as a call for policy issue with his specific case as an example, not as "can anyone help me with a situation." Loomis, nothing wrong with what you did; but since we are in the process of drafting policy then it be best if we keep the draft policy discussion in one place so I was asking Stu where that might be. --Justanother 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally think there is a need for a specific rule on dealing with potential factual errors in responses, but, if you disagree, let me know which rule you would like to propose and I will add it to the talk page for /rules, then see what type of response it gets. StuRat 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My copy of Collins also has the 'steop' etymology, so it appears that this is not a straightforward factual error, but rather a matter of dispute. I'm not clear why Loomis thinks that www.etymonline.com is so obviously the final authority. The answer to the question, surely, is that alternatives, with supporting sources, should be given, which is what has happened in Loomis's example. Yours, Sam Clark 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, don't remove something because you "know" it's wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, let the person who asked the question decide. Presumably, the one with the correct answer (in cases where there is a single correct answer) will be able to present better evidence and references, and thus convince the audience they are correct. StuRat 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also have a source giving "not a blood relative", the transposition of vowels and Old English vs. Middle English vs. Anglo-Saxon i can't comment on. What research did you do to determine this was one of many "Factual Inaccuracies" on the desk? And why did you remove part of my response and sig ?EricR 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This kind of dispute is, in my opinion, a good reason to be conservative in our answers and stick with what's in an article or a reputable source. If the sources disagree, that's fine- let the reader decide how to interpret this. Ned Wilbury 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this type of dispute as a good reason not to remove posts you disagree with, without consensus, as they may be correct after all. StuRat 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, saying "I disagree with so-and-so because.." and giving a better answer if preferable. However my point was that these disagreements can be AVOIDED in the first place if we're more conservative with our answers. Ned Wilbury 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added another link to this question, confirming the accuracy of the first definition given. However, people, there is another, more serious issue underlying this whole thread. Please examine the history of the Humanities page. The response by User Looms was conceived as yet another assault on my integrity, by inference, rather than by name. To the original question I flagged up the Misplaced Pages Stepfamilies page, which, amongst other things, provided the definition I expanded on. User Loomis went to that page, removed the definition without explanation, and then posted some offensive personal remarks on the Humanities page, subsequently removed by User Eric, who advised Loomis of the action taken. I cannot imagine a greater breach of Misplaced Pages protocol than to airbrush out part of the article and then accuse another user of 'making up' a response. But with Eric's actions I saw no need for me to make further comment on this attempt at manipulation. However, here we are again. The first time User Loomis attacked me I was angry; now I find the whole business wretchedly sad. I can see him pouring over all of my contributions in a spirit of petty spite, looking for weak spots. But User Loomis, it is obvious to me, judging from his spluttering prose, his switches from one extreme to another, his inability to express himself with detachment, his lack of control, is suffering from some deep rooted emotional problem, and I say this with no sense of elation or satisfaction. I would simply ask all those who joined in his previous attempt at a witch-hunt against me to consider this matter in a little more depth. It is sad for me, sad for Misplaced Pages; but it's saddest of all for Loomis. Clio the Muse 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say things like "suffering from some deep rooted emotional problem", that looks like a personal attack. Also, can you provide diffs to illustrate what you said Loomis did ? StuRat 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You saw what was said about me on this page under My Recent Remarks etc., which now appears in the Ref. Desk/Archive 17, item 19, and what was originally posted on the Humanities page itself, and still appears on this users talk page under Hi Loomis, some of it of a foul nature. You allowed all of this to pass without comment, even when I pointed out that it was contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. More than that, you added fuel to the fire. What I have written above is descriptive, and mild in contrast, based on my observations of Loomis' erratic conduct. As far as the present debate is concerned, please examine the page history of the Humanities desk itself and the article on Stepfamilies, then you will see what I mean. I would suggest, StuRat, that you try to take an objective view or step out of the matter altogether. And please do not take that as an attack. Clio the Muse 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the character analysis aside (which, whether I agree with it or not, is inappropriate here, and will likely be branded as a breach of NPA), this sounds like very bad behavior on Loomis's part. Is Clio's description accurate? If so, Loomis should be asked to apologize, and not to do that again. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Steve. I will not get, nor do I expect an apology. But I would ask other editors to keep this matter, and Loomis' future conduct, under close observation. I have made it clear that I will enter into no debate or conflict with him on any matter. Clio the Muse 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis's actions look bad at first site but if his/her definition is correct (with the other being at fault) then his/her actions have been quite correct as regards "step-" if there are other issues eg politeness/tone of response/other edits I am not aware of them. Given that we now have two entymological roots for step I have made a temporary (?) change to the stepfamilies page mentioning both.

I suggest that all of you now make sure the stepfamily page is correct using its talk page - I'm no expert on etymology so I can't guarantee what I have done is correct.

that aside time for a pun - "step families are called such since they are always turning up on the steps (or steppes if you live in central asia)" <end of pun>. Hopefully everyone was having a bad day and no real offence has been taken or meant.87.102.8.141 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this explains why there was no definition at the link provided by clio, that did surprise me. It was incorrect for Loomis to excise that defintion from the Stepfamily article without replacing it with another. I certainly read Loomis' reply to cleo as as an unwarranted snipe and now I find out the defintion was excised too i have to wonder what other agenda is going on here. Maybe Loomis should just avoid Clio for a bit? David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, David. But please keep this under watch. Clio the Muse 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: "Step-" - "Old English steop- -orphan".

Websters Encyplopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1996 ed.: "Steop-"

I don't know about you guys, but for me, when Oxford, Webster and even etymonline.com all agree on the etymology of a word, i.e., that it's got nothing to do with lack of blood relation, and all to do with some sense of sorrow, I tend to accept their authority.

BTW, who's "Collins"? Loomis 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know about Collins?

By the way, all above is a strawman argument. The point is HOW you went about it. David D. (Talk) 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that this is an encyclopedia. Anchoress 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. :) May be we should write a letter to Collins about their 'factual Inaccuracies ? David D. (Talk) 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm proud to say that I'm able to admit that I've got no clue what you guys are talking about. Could you perhaps fill me in? :) Loomis 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Collins is the Collins English Dictionary, which happens to be the etymological dictionary I have on my desk. There are two separate issues here, which are being muddled. 1. Authorities disagree about the etymology of 'stepchild' and related terms. This is a useful discovery, because it allows us to improve the encyclopedia. More importantly, 2. Loomis is continuing his hate-campaign against Clio. His personal attacks against her on the Humanities reference desk and continuing here are despicable, as is the support he's received from some other reference desk regulars, notably StuRat. They should apologise and withdraw these personal attacks. Clio has been accused, in particularly over-the-top and offensive language, of deliberately giving wrong answers to refdesk questions. There is no evidence whatever for this accusation. And now, when Clio points out Loomis's erratic and aggressive behaviour, we get StuRat warning her about personal attacks! Double standard, much? Yours, Sam Clark 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Archival

All recent discussions archived in Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 18 - I'm very aware that there were a number of threads which were active, so please feel free to reinstate the ones which are ongoing and important. --HappyCamper 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)