Misplaced Pages

talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:38, 22 February 2015 edit223.216.136.167 (talk) my 50 cents← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,516 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 133) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}<noinclude></noinclude>
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div> <div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div>
<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div> <div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|||{{pp|small=no}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}}
{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes | age=10 | {{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes |collapsed=yes| age=7 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |


{{center|''']''' {{center|''']'''
Line 17: Line 17:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 256K
|counter = 112 |counter = 133
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__FORCETOC__ __FORCETOC__


== Unreadable in dark mode ==
== Reference Desk Guidelines. Let's fix this properly. ==


Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but ] is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we make a serious effort to solve this problem. We waste FAR too much energy on re-re-re-debating this.
:It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::See ] @] ] (]) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. ] (]) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. <small> (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.)</small> -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you ] and ]! Looks great now. ] (]) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Great! <span style="background:white; color: black;">🐸</span>&nbsp;] (]) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


== Humanities and header hatnote ==
My proposal is to split the decision-making in to two chunks.


Last week, ] decided to to the humanities desk, and then ] decided to a few days later. Here's the content:
* CHUNK #1: What things are violations of our guidelines that rise to the level where some action has to be taken?
* CHUNK #2: What are the procedures that respondents should follow in the event of problems with a question?


{{redirect|WP:RD/H|the template header used in all areas of the ]|WP:Reference desk/Header}}
...with the clear understanding that "Be Bold" and "Ignore All Rules" will certainly apply here - at least in cases which are not clear-cut or simply not covered here. ] (]) 00:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was . So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. ] (]) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
=== CHUNK #1: What things are violations? ===
:Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --] 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for ] they probably know how to find it. ] (]) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


== Bots ==
I'm thinking that we imagine a few formalized classes of problem:


Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words ] (]) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
* CLASS A: Questions that are perfectly OK.
:Where did you see that? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
* CLASS B: Questions that are phrased badly, but can be answered with care.
* CLASS C: Questions that require discussion and consensus here before any action should be taken.
* CLASS D: Questions that we'd prefer that nobody answer ("Don't feed the troll")
* CLASS E: Questions that demand immediate 'hatting' of the question and all of the answers.
* CLASS F: Questions that demand immediate removal of the question, the title and all of the answers.


== Fake Desi media content querant ==
We could say that (for example) overt personal attacks are CLASS F and should be removed on sight. Maybe we decide that questions relating to medical advice are CLASS D or maybe E. Maybe requests for relationship advice are CLASS D, but requests for advice on car repair are class B.


Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.)
Can we come to some consensus as to what kinds of questions fall into which categories?
Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --] 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, we would not expect our OP's to understand these distinctions...and if a question falls into classes E or F, we'd have some standard templates explaining why we're declining to answer. ] (]) 00:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --] 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

==== COMMENTS BELOW HERE PLEASE ====
Class A should be the ] of Classes C-F, in my opinion. What perfectly acceptable questions have in common is that they have nothing wrong with them, so I don't think it makes sense to try to give this class a positive definition. Whether a question is silly or offensive or ignorant shouldn't affect its acceptability here. Not only are these very subjective attributes, but one of the whole points of the Ref desk is to combat ignorance and reward curiosity!

Class F for me is simply threats and hate speech. Even "personal attacks" probably shouldn't be outright removed without notice, because many people here don't see the distinction between attacking a position and attacking a person. E.g. "That argument is nonsense" might be slightly rude, but it's not a personal attack.

I think the best way to proceed is to start with the minimal attributes and examples that we can get consensus for. For instance, I hope everyone agrees on threats and hate speech. But I expect some disagreement with me on the personal attack issue. So we should just put the threats etc. in class F, and hold off on debating/discussing the harder bits until we have a core settled on.
Thanks for starting this up, ] (]) 16:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:I agree that the union of Classes C through F is the complement of the union of Classes A and B. That is, every question either belongs to Classes A&B or to Classes C through F. With Class B, we should restate/reword the question to put it in Class A and answer it. ] (]) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:Class F is, in my opinion, very small. The only questions that should be deleted are questions by banned users or trolls. A question containing hate speech should '''not''' be deleted but hatted, because it is easier for the blocking admin not to have to go into the history to see the hate speech. ] (]) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:I will revise my comment about hate speech. Non-admin editors should not remove hate speech. Removing it makes it necessary for an admin to view the history to identify the offense. However, non-admin editors should request that administrators ] the hate speech and block the offending editor. ] (]) 18:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think that what is important for us collectively at the Reference Desk is to be cautious in acting on questionable questions. In particular, deleting a question with answers is disruptive, and if the question was by a troll, that is exactly what the troll wants. Also, even if a question should have been deleted before being answered (because the user was banned), it is better to hat the question and its answers than to delete it afterward. ] (]) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::For sure, we can add a procedure (see discussion below) that when we get a Class B question, one of us should simply re-state it in the form of a new Class A question, then have everyone answer the restated version. That might actually be useful because it would help to train our OP's into what forms of question they are allowed to ask. Heck, we could even have a "RESTATED AS:" template that would put some fancy language in there.

::: "Your question (as stated) could not be answered directly because (yadda yadda guideline) but perhaps restating it gives you what you needed to know: (yadda yadda?)"

:: So:

::: <s>''Can you give me advice about how I could throw a baseball faster?''</s>
::: '''Your question (as stated) could not be answered directly because it's a request for personal advice, but perhaps restating it gives you what you needed to know:'''
::: ''What techniques are available to throw baseballs faster?''

:: But my point is that if it's our policy to do that, then we need to know when something is Class B in order that we have solid grounds for restating it and not cause huge arguments here about people who do that unnecessarily - or who fail to do it when needed. ] (]) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I would support a "restated as" template. IMO, nearly every question can be rephrased to suit our guidelines. The baseball example is innocuous. The more contentious case is requests for medical advice. I'm personally fine with restating and giving some WP links for medical ''information'', as well as linking the medical disclaimer. But I suspect not everyone will be on board with that. I also want to bring up the idea of removing ''responses'' that give medical advice, rather than questions that seek it. But I'm not sure where that fits in with this discussion, or how many would support that change to our procedures. ] (]) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I'd support that, but I think I'd want a mandatory mention here so that the deletion doesn't simply vanish without trace. ] (]) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I would suggest removing the answers and hatting the original question, stating that we do not provide medical advice and that answers that may provide medical advice have been deleted. ] (]) 18:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::What types of requests for advice other than medical or legal advice must be declined? ] (]) 02:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::If some kid shows up and asks for advice on how to "get girls" (always loved that phrase), we shouldn't launch into an essay about respect and personal hygiene (which would likely become a debate about the best way to "get girls", since there's little consensus on that subject). We should link to one or two websites about that sort of thing and be done with it. I think we should provide links rather than our own advice wherever that's possible. We could also provide gentle hints about learning to make effective use of a search engine, a la teach a man to fish, lest the person become dependent on Reference Desk for all information about the world. We're not here as Google operators. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Ok, so that has nothing to do with declining a request, which was your question. So it's out of place, but I'm not removing it. I spent too much time writing it. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I think that there are a few questions that can reasonably be ignored, and how to "get girls" may be one of those. Requests for legal and medical advice should be formally declined. We can work out the details of how they are declined. A few questions should simply be ignored, and Mandruss has a good example. ] (]) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, that's why I've tried to separate out the ''classification'' question (above) from the ''procedure'' question (below). The reason (I think) that these discussions so often get derailed is the muddying of those two things. We may agree that "getting girls" is an issue we don't want to answer but don't wish to punish either (so Class C or D maybe)...but there are deeper questions...should we also actively prevent (by deleting) or discourage (eg by hatting or templating) people who answer the question anyway?

::::::::I feel that if we could agree to a set of classifications - "getting girls" being Class X, "veternary advice" being Class Y - then that would be progress. In my ideal world, we'd have this set of buckets - and we'd drop each problematic situation into one of them. When new problems come up ("How can I sabotage the brakes on my wife's car? (This is for a novel I'm writing!)"), all we have to debate is "Is this kind of question Class X or Class Y?"...and having done that and obtained some sort of consensus, we'd already know what the procedure is in terms of hatting, ignoring, or deleting - and whether we do that to the answers and/or the question and/or the title.

:::::::: If we can debate the procedures and the classification matters separately, then I think this will go more smoothely.
:::::::: ] (]) 21:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I personally think that, although splitting the ''classification'' questions from the ''procedure'' questions seemed like a useful approach, it isn't helping. I think that the ''classification'' should, in general, determine what the ''procedure'' is. If the question is hattable, the question should be hatted. I think that the split was a useful idea but has proved to make work. Anyone else? ] (]) 15:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::We can come up with archetypical examples for the classes, but there's just know way to build a rigorous ] of all questions we might get here. Even one person would have a very hard time of it, let alone our consensus process. My opinion is that "how to get girls" is totally valid, there are gallons of ink spilled on the topic, and we can give refs for that. I thought the classification and procedure separation was mostly to help keep track of the conversation here, and in practice, the former should determine the latter, as you say. ] (]) 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Classes E and F, as defined above, already have answers implied in their definitions (hat or delete). So does Class B (restate and answer). Do we really think that we need to answer classification and procedure separately? I don't. I think that the separation was a good try, but is not helping. ] (]) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah, point taken Robert & Semandic. I kinda crossed my own line there didn't I?! I still want to separate out classification from procedure - but my problem in creating the 'Class' list was that I implied procedure. Let me have think about it and see if I can write a list of classes without reference to procedure or consequences. I think that coming up with a set of examples may be the only way...but then I'm probably giving the answer as a part of the question. Tricky. ] (]) 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::As to "how to get girls", I disagree that it is "totally valid". The question, when asked without context, is objectifying and dehumanizing to girls, implying that the poster thinks that other editors can provide magic guidance on how to "get" them. That is probably why Steve mentioned it. It certainly isn't a totally valid question at this Misplaced Pages reference desk. I personally think that it should just be ignored, but that is my opinion. ] (]) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Fair enough. I agree the phrasing is demeaning, but I see our goal here as being to help people find information, even if they are bigots or sexist or whatever. So sure, some people might post refs to crappy PUA sites, and other users can post refs to how that is silly and dehumanizing, etc. Sure, you're free to ignore such questions, but I'd like to have the opportunity to give the hypothetical asker some literature that might help them better understand human interactions (and not have my responses removed or hatted). Depending on the phrasing of the hypothetical question, I might indeed ignore because the case seems hopeless, but I also might want to try to help. ] (]) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

=== CHUNK #2: What is the procedure for answering questions? ===
Again, I'm suggesting that since this is a process rather than a linear set of rules, we have a simple flow-chart, such as the one I've promoted before. {{clear}}
]{{clear}}
Perhaps the box labelled "Does the question violate our guidelines?" can be broken out for CLASS A through F question classes? Perhaps you don't agree with the set of procedures that this diagram encapsulates?

What '''''should''''' this flow-chart look like? ] (]) 00:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

==== COMMENTS BELOW HERE PLEASE ====

Jokes in small type is good, ignoring trolls is good. I believe that our discussions here of potential trolls are more "troll feeding" than any good faith answers we might give them. Ask a high school teacher - if a student asks about e.g. masturbation in a trolling manner, the best thing to do is give a good answer and keep a straight face. If you get flustered and tell them they can't ask the question, the whole class gets disrupted. Also, there's the notion that many of us share - that our answers/refs aren't just for OPs, they also serve a wide range of readers and future searchers. So good answers to a question asked in bad faith can still be good for the desks. ] (]) 16:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

: The problem is not with a one-off question on an off-color topic. Sure, feel free to either ignore questions that upset you...or provide a straight-up answer. Fine.

: The problem lies with the persistent troll...planet-colors-guy or how-to-import-car-X-into-country-Y-guy, for example.

: Giving straight answers is OK for a while...it's actually necessary because for a while, we have no way to know that this is a troll. But pretty soon it gets ridiculous. Sure, the first time planet-colors-guy asked how such-and-such planet would look if you were in orbit around it, we gave it our best shot at a good answer...it was actually a very interesting question...the second time, it seemed like he was just confused by out first answer...by the third time, I think we were all losing patience and ] became challenging. But after the 5th or 6th variation on the same damned question, it became clear that we were being trolled - and that continuing to provide answers was not the correct strategy. For many trolls, who seem to crave attention more than anything, even coming here to discuss the problem gives them some sort of weird kick. So ] becomes the only way forward. That means that we need a policy to deny answers, deny discussion, deny, deny, deny. Just don't talk to them or about them or delete them or do anything that shows that we've noticed them. That's the only proven strategy against a determined troll.

: Of course we also have clever trolls who ask a decent question to get us on-board...but if the only way they can continue to get our attention is to keep asking good/interesting questions, then they are no longer trolls.

: ] (]) 16:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::I honestly have no problem with the car importer guy. He posts rarely, signs with the same username, and is very easy to ignore. ] (]) 16:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

::I would like to hear, either in this paragraph or the one above, from ], who has been a critic of how we respond to questionable questions. ] (]) 15:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I haven't got much to say that I haven't said before: We shouldn't be giving advice of any sort that licensed professionals give, such questions should be removed or hatted. There's an intractable faction here that insists obvious trolls deserve more respect than established users. I found the immediate criticisms of my recent "swing obsession" question at the science desk quite amazing. Had I said the same things to an anonymous "new" user (like the one who asked who to sort users by race and whether they are historians) I'd have been castigated for biting the newby. Basically I am busy in the real world, and at this point I am coming here mostly to relax, not get in circular policy debates. I suggest and suspect we will deal with trolling as we always have, on an as it occurs basis, because no policy on that matter will be respected by all editors here. BTW, I prefer a quick note on my talk page saying, "you might want to comment on this discussion" rather than being summoned like Barbara Eden by having my lamp rubbed. :) ] (]) 19:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Since you, Medeis, sometimes appoint yourself as the policewoman for this Reference Desk, I would have appreciated some input as to what you think is and is not acceptable, because some of us don't like being jerked to ] either. Unfortunately, my conclusion, and Medeis is welcome to provide me with other information, is that Medeis simply reserves the right to pull us to ANI if she doesn't like the way that we answer questions. We can't do anything about that unless she will clarify. ] (]) 21:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:Aside from threats and hate speech, I'm thinking that a focus more on removal of responses that violate our guidelines than removal of questions would be more welcoming, and put the burden of good behavior on us, where it belongs. IMO providing refs (like the name of a medical condition) is fine even if a question asks for medical advice. We can even suggest/ demand that all informational responses to advice-seeking questions also include a clear link to the medical disclaimer.
:But if a respondent gives medical advice (defined by Kainaw), then we zap that response and politely notify the respondent, ] style. I know full well we aren't a physical library reference desk, but in that case the onus is on the staff, not the asker (again, with exceptions for dangerous or highly disruptive behavior). Seriously, I think some of us should go to a library desk and ask for medical advice about abdominal pain. I'll bet a good trouting that you won't be escorted to the door. I'll also wager that they will not give you medical advice. I suspect they'll show you to some books and possible some contact information for local medical clinics. We have many differences from those desks, but I think we can follow their model on how to deal with advice-seeking questions. ] (]) 16:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::I will say again that I am not convinced that threats and hate speech need a special category that should be deleted, unless we explicitly state that they should be deleted and ] requested immediately. I would prefer to leave them standing if we expect a blocking and redacting administrator to be quick to block and redact. ] (]) 20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't think they need a special category, I'm just listing them as examples that (so far) we seem to all agree are definitely a problem that we need to deal with. The idea was to start with examples that we could all agree on. Actually they are really rare in my experience, so perhaps they aren't the best examples in that regard. I don't especially care if they are hatted/revdel, ignored, etc. Hatting is sort of a nice compromise between doing nothing and deleting, but it's also fairly toothless, imo, and in many cases even attracts attention due to the way they are displayed. ] (]) 22:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:None of this is likely to address the ''real'' problem, which is disagreement over where the line is between "information" and "advice". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::That recent response where you said excessive teeth grinding is called ]? That's medical information. The question was seeking advice, if I recall correctly, but you just gave info with reference, and that is fine by me. Most of us seem happy to agree that we can apply ]] to decide if a question is ''seeking'' advice. I think it works equally well to decide if a response is ''giving'' advice. The terms "], ], or ]" all have very clear descriptions in their articles. It seems that Medeis is one of the few regulars here that frequently removes questions on grounds of advice and the removal is questioned/challenged by others. Most of the other editors who remove posts don't seem to cause problems when they do it. These are just my general impressions, of course I botched that restoration of a question by a blocked user recently, and occasionally non-Medeis users remove things and are later disputed. ] (]) 20:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I told him to see a doctor and/or dentist to find out more. What I objected to there was some autocratic (NOT Medeis, FYI) deciding that it should be zapped. I favor hatting rather than censoring, in most cases. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I thought you had included a link to bruxism, perhaps I was mistaken. I couldn't find a working link to that question and response. As to the removal, ] says that removal is discouraged, and that "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions." -- this is what I've been talking about for a while now, that we should police responses more than questions. ] (]) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I linked to ], because he talked about teeth-grinding, and bruxism is a more technical term for teeth-grinding, and in my opinion the OP needed to be aware that bruxism can have bad long-term effects and he should see a doctor/dentist about it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:I agree with the flow-chart. It's so common sense that it's difficult to imagine a serious argument against it.
:However, the guidelines step is the weak link. I think a more strict guidelines document needs to exist.
:As much as I hate rules creep, irregular enforcement is a 100x worse. Vague guidelines give people an opening to be bullies whenever they like, without anybody being able to say for sure that they shouldn't have.
:I think the way to generate such a doc would be for someone to come up with a draft, and then debate the fine points until there's a consensus. Trying to generate a consensus from whole cloth is too much of an uphill battle.
:Aside from that, I'd be strongly in favor of any new rules that limit the back and forth side conversation, nitpicking, and other "easy" replies that allow people to feel like they're participating without actually providing information that answers the question. I feel like that's a '''much more severe problem''' than the occasional stupid drama about what should or should not be censored. ] (]) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

===== Comments below "COMMENTS BELOW HERE PLEASE" =====
As I've said before, this is a ] situation. Rather than putting together elaborate rules which aren't going to be read or followed (as we have no effective means of enforcement), we should address the real issue:
*Is there any sanction short of a topic ban which will prevent Medies' hatting and deleting of threads?
*If not, should Medies be topic-banned?
*If not, are we agreed that Medies' behaviour is in fact acceptable, and that we should stop discussing it here?
] (]) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::The issue is that nobody can answer those questions with any authority.
::Not only to we not have the authority to ban Medies simply because we think it would make the ref-desk better or more useful, there will surely be some people who disagree with that assessment.
::With no rules, or rules so expansive they can mean anything, we can't easily make any arguments along the lines you're proposing. For ''or'' against. ] (]) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't want to make this be about individuals - but since you brought it up...Medeis believes she IS following the rules. Many other people do not believe that's the case. That's happening because the rules are not well spelled-out. Fix the rules so that they can clearly be explained, easily followed, and modified as needed over time - and I'm fairly sure that Medeis will follow them. This would allow people who wish to be wiki-cop to do the job with full community backing. Instead of objecting to what Medeis does, we'd be able to thank her for upholding our rules. People who violate a clearly laid out set of rules are much easier to sanction than people who are merely applying slightly 'off' interpretations of vague rules.

:::If we can do what I'm trying to make happen, then I firmly believe that we'll have a rapid sorting out of people. Those who believe that they are following the rules, will actually follow the rules. People who used to object on grounds of differing interpretations of rules would have less need to do that. And those who truly do wantonly ignore the rules will very clearly have infracted them and that makes it much easier for us to correct their behavior or (eventually) kick them out with a topic ban.

::: I'm increasingly of the belief that the problem here is the vague rules and the vague procedures for following them. Clarify them - and I firmly believe that we'll fix at least 90% of these bust-ups.

::: ] (]) 23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Hopefully true, and I would support implementation of your flowchart. However - and this is a big however - the problem will arise with the "Is the OP an annoying troll?" decision box. I agree with your suggested action (or lack of action) in this sort of case, but how do we enforce it? What steps can we take (not "should we take" - what official procedures are available to us?) to sanction users who hat and delete posts merely because the question is annoying? "Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all." (Hobbes). ] (]) 22:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

:I never did respond to this, but I'm thinking no, just no. The flowchart should be more like: Is this a question I can answer? Then answer. Otherwise, is it answerable? Then wait and let somebody answer. Otherwise, does it have some meaning? Then explain why it's unanswerable. Otherwise, you can ponder why you're being trolled, and if you're ''sure'', you can hat it if you feel like it. After whatever you write, look and see if somebody's going to gripe about guidelines. If so, make your best case that it's OK by the guidelines to answer, and if that happens to be right, so much the better. :) And try not to forget to Just Edit The Friendly Article to avoid confusing the next person. ] (]) 00:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

== Another thread deletion ==

may be provocative but I think it's clearly a legitimate, and even interesting, RD question. In the next 4&frac12; hours it , none of them angry or argumentative.

At this point was deleted by ] on the grounds that "this is not the first trolling" by the original poster and citing ]. In my opinion, that page does not support this action and Medeis is the one who's behaving disruptively here, and not for the first time.

I'm reverting the deletion, but will stay out of any further debate on the topic. --] (]) 03:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:And I'm reverting the reversion since we don't actually have a registered user making a comment here. Sign in, give your name, and be willing to face the consequences of your actions. ] (]) 03:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::OK **STOP** - ]. you're not supposed to discriminate between registered users and IP users. That is absolutely NOT how things work around here. Misplaced Pages allows people to contribute without creating an account - and you're absolutely NOT empowered to discriminate against those people. If you believe that this is a case of sockpuppetry or something else - take it to WP:ANI - don't bring it here. ] (]) 05:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Seconded. Discriminating against IP editors (or referring to them with epithets such as "drive-by") is ugly and contrary to WP policy. It's just like racism. —] (]) 12:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::I usually disagree with Medeis about what is proper and improper at the Reference Desk. In this case she is right. The original poster is not stupid, and so is either lying (because he is a denialist) or is asking a stupid question (although not stupid) or is asking a troll question. The page does support the action by Medeis. The IP is either a clueless IP or is trolling. The question had already been answered. The IP has engaged in a severe personal attack on Medeis, who was not being disruptive. I usually disagree with Medeis, but in this case the restoration of the deleted question was what was disruptive. ] (]) 03:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:That was a pretty impressive analysis from RomanSpa, whatever else may have been going on. ] ] 04:51, ], ] (UTC)
:::Thank you. ] (]) 10:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:Argh!

:This is yet another example (if examples were needed) of why we need the reforms I'm discussing above. Instead of sorting out the chaos and inconsistent treatment of problem posts on a case-by-case/whack-a-mole basis, we need a solid set of procedures that we expect people editing here to follow. A clear description of what we do for each class of problem - step-by-step, unambigious - would allow people who wish to play the role of Wiki/RD-cop do that without upsetting everyone else - we'd be able to congratulate them on carrying out the wishes of the community consensus. People who went beyond our procedural guidelines could be shown, clearly, and unambiguously where they deviated from our processes - and repeated infractions would be solid ammunition for "disruptive editing" and resulting admin actions (like topic bans).

: Debating these one at a time is not productive. So, '''PLEASE''' contribute to the conversation I've started (above) and let's nail this down once and for all.

: ] (]) 05:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::The That's a problem in , too. Who are we and who are they, amongst all people editing? It's only disruptive if it makes you argue about how and why and when to answer questions instead of answering questions. Or learning new answers.
::I do like the essence of your flowchart, though. ] ] 06:09, ], ] (UTC)

:Specifically on the deletion of this question: I feel quite strongly that, although provocative, the question about the physical and logistical implementation of the Holocaust was legitimate. Holocaust deniers frequently claim that the Holocaust was impossible on precisely the grounds that the question raised, and I believe we demonstrated fairly clearly that this claim is false. Let us be in no doubt: the Holocaust happened, and there is not physical or logistical reason to doubt it. Whilst we may private reservations about the motives of the questioner, we answered the question clearly and accurately. I'm very unhappy that someone has now deleted our work. When someone else comes and asks the same question, we will answer it the same way; is that going to be deleted too? By leaving the question unanswered we are, I feel, inadvertently working against factual accuracy.
:Think about it this way: a Holocaust denier asks this question, and we delete it; this allows him to say (in a reasonable tone of voice) "I asked Misplaced Pages if the Holocaust was physically and logistically possible. You know what? They deleted my question." He has told the truth (though not the whole truth), and (as C.S. Lewis remarked) adding a little truth to a lie can make the lie stronger. Deletion is not helpful. Deletion acts against our goal, which is to provide facts, and acts against the larger truth by giving succour to Holocaust deniers. There is only one way to deal with people who question the truth: we must tell the truth, again and again, politely and patiently. We must provide references, evidence, supporting calculation and all the other tools of truth. Deleting this question and its answers was wrong, because it prevented the truth from being spoken. ] (]) 10:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::I think hatting would have been better. However, I was immediately suspicious of the OP because I asked what were the premises of his question, and he wouldn't answer. That makes it look like the OP was trolling. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Agree with Baseball Bugs there. A reference desk inherently requires interaction. If there is not further dialogue with the person asking the initial question, that is a red flag, not just concerning this question, but concerning other questions about which we have further questions to ask of the person posting the original question. If attempts at further dialogue are met with silence, that should be recognized as an indication that the initial question may be considered not quite on the level. ] (]) 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

::It is indeed a suspicious question about the ugliest of topics -- but we don't have a policy against questions on ugly topics.
::I don't normally like hatting, but it does seem like a good compromise in this case.
::I am going to restore the question with the hat comment "An uncomfortable question, answered. (Reader discretion advised.)"
::(I trust we will not get into an edit war over the hat comment, although the parenthetical is optional and I would not object to its removal if people find it distracting.)
::—] (]) 12:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::I feel that "hatting" is probably not the best way to proceed. I'd prefer that the text simply be restored to normal view. The text contains no obscene or offensive images nor text, and I think it's inappropriate to treat the subject matter as different from any other question and answer. We deal in facts, and we have presented facts; there's no need to use anything that looks like inverted commas, brackets, or in any other way makes it look as if we've treated this question differently from normal. If we do, a Holocaust denier can just say, "This question came up on Misplaced Pages, and they weren't able to agree on an answer under their normal processes". I feel we have to just present the facts. The more I look at this, the more uncomfortable I feel with the original deletion: anyone with half a brain could have predicted the discussions we're now having, all of which have the effect of providing Holocaust deniers with fuel - "Misplaced Pages couldn't agree on what to say and how to say it, and couldn't agree that what they were saying was just facts like any others". I am confident that this deletion was not performed with any malicious intention, but the more I think about it the more convinced I become that it was a serious error. ] (]) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't disagree -- and at least one other editor agrees strongly enough to have now .
:::I felt it a decent compromise with various aggrieved parties here, but it certainly contravened ]. —] (]) 13:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Absent the Reference Desk reform that might prevent this kind of disagreement, I would apply BRD here. Medeis removed content, 65.94.50.4 reverted the removal, making the removal a disputed edit, and consensus is required to make the removal stick. No such consensus exists. Likewise, the hat was reverted and no consensus exists for it to be re-added. I would oppose both the removal and the hat per RomanSpa's eloquence. If this was a troll, it wasn't the kind of troll who wants to talk about poo-poo and torn pants. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:I have to agree that I don't think the removal or hat were beneficial. ] (]) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Just for the record, I dispute the account of Medeis that I have trolled before. She has accused me of trolling before and hatted/deleted my contribution. I don't even remember what it was. I deny to have been trolling back then or now.

:The question I asked is one that can be answered with facts. If some asks "Are creationists right when they say that there are gaps in the fossil record?" That's a valid question to me. If the question were "If creationist are wrong, are evolution biologists monkeys?" that's trolling. ] (]) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::When I asked what your premises were, your response amounted to "F.U." Hence, it looked like trolling. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

:One thing people need to remember about hatting is it has the opposite effect for those without Javascript. Instead of hiding it, it frames it and highlights it in colour. Skimming through the page, some readers are much more likely to see it than the "visible" sections. ] ] 20:59, ], ] (UTC)
:::Then do it in a more subdued way. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, and there's a sort of Streisand effect for those who ''do'' have JS. If I'm casually and half-absent-mindedly scanning a page for something worth reading, a hat catches my eye and I open it out of curiosity. I've learned a lot inside hats, not to mention the entertainment value of many of them. I guess the real purpose of a hat isn't to hide material but to make the statement that it's inappropriate. But that's a wider issue. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It is pretty fun to tip a hat and open a box. Well, sometimes. Have there been studies on who uses Javascript by default? ] ] 01:34, ], ] (UTC)

*I don't view anybody as opponents, except perhaps a few users whom I won't name wo attack me like harpies, which is based on their emotions, not mine.</br>
:The deletion was made in good faith, and plenty of editors above have agreed with this. ]. You see me acting boldly, but not edit warring. So chill out, we've had more than enough "Jews?" trolling to look at this askance. One of our policies is no debating, and other than debate this thread consists of nothing. ] (]) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Medeis, I'm no expert on said policy, but I suspect it's about debating an OP's question, not whether a removal was appropriate. You're a reasonable person and I know you wouldn't suggest that a removal should never be challenged. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::But you removed the question twice (which could also easily count as edit warring, depending on the circumstances). Even if the first time was okay, you've given no good reason for reverting the IP's reversion. The only reason you did give suggests you reverting the IP was completely inappropriate, regardless of whether or not you acted in good faith. Please remember that acting in good faith doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong which you need to learn from and shouldn't ever be repeated again. I'm not sure what you're referring to about no debating (are you confusing reference desk policy, with talk page policy?), but discussing an editors actions, whether they were appropriate, and whether there is anything for the community to learn from said actions is entirely within the wikipedia spirit. In fact editors who are unwilling to discuss their actions and learn from their mistakes are editors who aren't really welcome on wikipedia, since it's intended to be a collobrative encyclopaedia, not a place where editors repeatedly screw up and expect others to fix their mess. ] (]) 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::"I don't view anyone as opponents, except for people who disagree with me, and have the audacity to say so!" (The really shocking thing is that, after you don't change your behavior at all, we still continue to disagree! The ''nerve'' of us!) ] (]) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

* The only real disruption ''on'' the Refdesk is from people who say they are trying to stop disruption. (For another case, the removal of "trolling" about Jimbo Wales, presently discussed on his talk page; turned out it was more or less accurate, with some garbling in transmission) No, you ''can't'' ban people from talking about the Holocaust lest it sound like questioning. What I noticed during this thread is that although the Holocaust certainly involved the creation of many mass graves, Misplaced Pages has no top-level explanation of ] that I could see. People proposed a few useful links (alas, ''Scourge of the Swastika'' is not on Pirate Bay) and at some point somebody should fix this. Meanwhile it's worth writing something down about them here. ] (]) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::Sorry for the tangent, but there really isn't? It seems to have been an oft used method (six relations buried somewhere in Belarus can attest to that), so it would be worthwhile helping out with that (I can remove emotion as a factor from any topic I'm editing). Someone let me know when this starts, or I'll start it if there's no page in a few months. Anyway, sorry about the tangent. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 20 Shevat 5775 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{re|Flinders Petrie}} Misplaced Pages tends to be bad about top level items because a) people justifiably avoid making arbitrary decisions without sources and collecting items as an assemblage on their own and b) it's just really hard to cover these big topics. Filling out that article would mean deciding whether the ] only counts Jews (the first paragraph of that article waffles) and under what circumstances, and whether Germans had to be the ones doing the killing. If a hundred Croatian hostages were killed at some point in retaliation for partisan activity, should that be listed in the article? Still, just because there are some tough calls involved doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see ''some'' sort of map, whatever the caveats, of the grave locations and sizes, with explanations of the sort of circumstances in each country and so forth. If you're psyched to take on this difficult task by all means go for it! ] (]) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
**That's why the Wales thing was restored. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::The Wales thing may have initially been deleted by BB for trolling (well they didn't give a reason in the edit summary, but their comment on Wales talk page says it was for trolling), but that only lasted 3 hours before StuRat restored it. It was then deleted by ] for BLP reasons, not for trolling. It was later restored by the same editor slightly over 2 days later when it became clear Jimbo didn't mind. I'm not sure if BB's handling of this was good (but at least they only deleted it once and then initiated a discussion albeit with Jimbo when they were reverted unlike what happened here), but it's difficult to fault Francis's handling of this. ] (]) 12:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I offered to restore it myself, but someone beat me to it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

::::The "Wales Thing" is not otherwise offensive, ''but it doesn't belong on the ref desk''. There it amounts to soapboxing. File a report at AN or ANI or and RfC on Wales's page. But we don't do gossip on editors at the ref desks, otherwise every editor who's posted above should have an inquisition launched about his possible misbehaviors, regardless of the facts that we have no RS or articles about them. Or they should at least not complain at such baseless personal attacks. ] (]) 18:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Soapboxing? AN/ANI/RfC? Are you thinking of some other thread? The thread everyone else is referring to ] which largely related to whether a certain anecdote surrounding the origins of wikipedia, and one of Wales's children was true or not. It was perhaps problematic when there were BLP concerns, but since Wales seems fine with it (and hopefully their child is as well), but it's an acceptable RD question even if it was perhaps better to ask Wales about it rather than to ask for references. There's no soapboxing, unless you really stretch the term to include simple mention of one possible advantage of wikipedia from one random anecdote, or to include mention of one treatment that worked well one one particular case, to somehow mean you're soapboxing for these. Similarly, the question is and will surely remain on the RD/RD archives (unless perhaps Wales or their child asks for it to be removed), I have no idea why anyone would want to start and AN/ANI/RfC for any reason related to that thread. ] (]) 09:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please add the following to discussion, '''Matte or glossy''
:::The "pearl" is presumably which has
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|71.20.250.51}} That page is a discussion page. It is not an article, and it is certainly not semi-protected. If you want to add a comment to the "Matte or glossy" discussion, simply click for that section, add your comment to the bottom of the text, and click "Save page". &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

*See , in response to sock puppetry by blocked users visible in the page history, assuming you have the tool to see blocked users. I should probably apologize, since I thought the sock was an established user. ] (]) 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

::Note that it "certainly" ''is'' semi-protected as of 21:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:Done. --] (]) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

::My mistake, apologies. I was looking for the lock, forgetting that the lock is independent from the protection, and had never seen semi-protection at Refdesk before. Live and learn. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The refdesks have been semi'd from time to time when the occasional troll would go berserk. It's not done very often and not for very long at a given time. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Yeah. Does it need to be for a week this time? --] (]) 10:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::It will expire in four days. Patience, grasshopper. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== Closure reverted ==

I reverted this closure . As stated there, I agree with SemanticMantis it's unclear that there's any attempt to draw us in to an offsite debate. While it may seem unusual we can find references which address points raised by some random blogger, as I pointed out in a subsequent reply, there is actually a fair amount of stuff about it, including some close to RS. The blogger is even briefly mentioned in at least 2 of our articles. Note that unlike with some cases in the past like some stuff from BWH ir eveb the Wales case discussed above to some extent, the OP in this case wasn't asking something which could likely only be answered by the person in question (such as why does person X believe Y or what would person X say to Z), but whether a person's views were supported by historical fact or academic analyses. While it's possible the blogger could attempt to answer these, particularl the former, it's also something which any other source should be able to answer based solely on what's already been written, without needing to consult with the person in question. While I would normally prefer not to revert a closure if I was planning to substanially respond, in this case I felt it was acceptable since there had already been a challenge by SemanticMantis, and μηδείς has a history of poorly thought out closures. ] (]) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:That's a Toronto-based IP. Haven't we seen blatant racist questions from that area before? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::Toronto is a big town. This OP didn't say anything racist, he asked us about the claims someone else was making. We commonly accept that type of question here "Is it true that XYZ?" is one of our more frequent question types. ] (]) 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::That's a good way to coatrack - post some absurd viewpoint and try to evoke a reaction. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:We should strive not to get into opinionated debates. That does not mean we should delete every question that ''might'' lead us off into an opinionated debate. The onus is on us, I think, to confine our answers to referenced and/or referencable facts. If questions like this have to be prematurely closed or deleted, to save ourselves from ourselves, we're admitting we have no control. —] (]) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::The true attitude of the IP in question is shown . This looks like a case of what could be called "ref desk coatracking", seemingly asking a question but actually putting forth his viewpoint (such as it is) and inviting debate. It's kind of like {{user|Noopolo}} a few days ago who was trying to push the viewpoint that it couldn't have happened due to logistics. When I asked him the basis of his premise, he refused to answer. That told me all I needed to know about his true agenda. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::At the risk of resurrecting a dead horse, what you're seeing as a deliberate sidestep could have been a failure to comprehend your question. I'm not sure I would have understood it. As for their "true attitude" per that edit summary, I get a little snippy myself when I feel I'm being unfairly criticized. I think most of us do. They kept it civil, at least. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I said "What is the basis for your premises?" Maybe that had too many multi-syllable words. Maybe I should have asked, "Who says so?" ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: Given the well-known limitations of online communication, I'd be reluctant to conclude refusal to answer without seeing the words, "I refuse to answer". Apparently we have different AGF thresholds, possibly because you've been around a lot longer than I have. Call me naive, but I doubt I'll want to stick around when I stop being naive. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I've been here for a while, but I still sometimes get suckered in by trolls. There's no harm in assuming good faith. If they stomp on your good faith, it's on them. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It seems to me Noopolo did answer your question. Of course their thinking on the matter was seriously flawed, but this wasn't something you attempted to address. Other respondents did however explain why Noopolo's thinking was flawed.
:::As for the OP here, I don't see reverting μηδείς closure and telling them to bug off as anything majorly wrong since many respected contributors have basically done the same. I didn't check the IP's geolocation details because it wasn't something mentioned by the closure, but while we have had racist trolling from a Toronto IP in the past, I'm not sure we have enough evidence to conclude it's the same editor. Notably, while race was mentioned here, it wasn't a claim that any race was inferior or superior, a hallmark of that troll in the pass.
:::Also, let's not forget as I mentioned at least twice before ] & ], we have AFAIK had at least two editors who were regularly editing from Toronto, the racist troll, and ]. Donmust90 had their own problems as I also mentioned, but there was never much evidence they were trolling. Now I don't think this has any hallmarks of Donmust90, but my point is we have to be careful about assuming any mildly weird question from Toronto is the racist troll.
:::''Edit:'' I thought I recall seeing a Toronto IP recently besides this and I was right, the IP who reverted the closure of Noopolo's question only to be reverted by μηδείς without good reason, and who then posted above is also from Toronto (and same ISP). That IP seems to be somewhat sticky, and despite μηδείς's problems, I'm not seeing any clear problems from them. I don't think the above IP is likely the same editor but the point is we have yet another Toronto IP so another reminder to be careful about assuming any Toronto IP is the same editor.
:::BTW, I appreciate that μηδείς may be particularly sensitive to problems from the racist Toronto IP troll, but they still have to accept that not every Toronto IP is that troll, and also need to mention any concerns about Toronto IPs if that's the reasoning for their actions.
:::] (]) 06:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Nil. I first took your word "sticky" as derogatory (see ) but I guess you meant that it seemed to be one person using the IP address over some time. In fact I have one of those connections where the IP address stays with me until the connection is broken, as by the modem being unplugged. I was ] from mid-November 2014 until a couple of days ago and since then I've been here at ]. My spouse would appear as the same IP address but does not edit Misplaced Pages. I also edit occasionally from a different IP address. But anyway, I am the person who "reverted the closure of Noopolo's question", but I am not the person who started the thread that was closed by Bugs. The ISP in question is part of ], which is a major telecom company, and it would be surprising if there weren't a bunch of people in Toronto using it to edit Misplaced Pages. I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages for years, but for my own reasons I have no intention of registering a Misplaced Pages account. (I accept that occasionally I will be confused with other contributors.) --] (]) 11:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes sticky only refers to the fact that the IP doesn't seem to change often. See ] for a somewhat related meaning. (Although the term is very inprecise anyway, the actual usage here on wikipedia is usually somewhat different since we generally don't know about ISP assignment policies. A "sticky IP" could simply be the editors modem never disconnects. Or in the opposite direction, it could be a static IP which we aren't sure or don't know about. Whereas as the article suggests, from an end user POV, a sticky IP tends to imply it's a dynamic IP that doesn't change if your modem isn't off for too long. I used to have that. Now I have a completely dynamic IP. I just have to disconnect the PPP for a few seconds and I will almost definitely get another. Each has their dis/advantages.) Anyway sorry for any confusion. ] (]) 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:At this point, looks like several people have found lots of useful refs, and I see no evidence of any debate or disruption among the responses. So I think this one turned out just fine :) ] (]) 14:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*The reason I ''archived'' the thread, rather than hatting or deleting it was purposefully to leave it visible. I actually agree with the thesis, that if one goes by the goals of the Communist Manifesto, we pretty much are a communist nation. But that's simply a provocation. Then there's the question itself, about work by the "scholar" Mencius Molburg. That throws up all sorts of flags. The bottom line issue for me was that we weren't being given a simple honest question that could be answered without opinion, we were being invited to drive traffic to a blogspot posting by a pseudonymous provocateur who advocates the overthrow of democracy as the cure for fascist-socialism. In any case, people seem for the most part to have resisted the temptation.

:As for the Toronto IP, having been that party's target for racist silliness, I am conscious of the geolocation. But most of the IP posts from there are okay or borderline. One need not be a troll to disregard the page policies, or always post offensively even if one is a troll. ] (]) 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::Pseudonymous provocateur? What a funny thing for you to accuse somebody of... ] (]) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::It seems fairly unlikely the RD would serve any purpose in driving traffic to the site considering it's (as the OP said and the first post in the blog also says), hardly updated any more and the site itself has received a reasonable amount of attention in places which surely get far more traffic than the RD ever does. Or to put it a different way, that ship has long since sailed.
::Also as I think I've said before, it's not completely impossible that some stupid spammer from a developing country paid cents may think the RD is a useful place to spam, or perhaps someone incredibly desperate (like a Kickstarter) who's either spamming all over the place or thinks there's someone on the RD who will be a benefit to them, but it's ridiculous to suggest anyone who has any real idea of what they're doing will see the RD as a singularly useful place to drive traffic to a general site like a blog or whatever (of course even more so a mostly dead blog which has received significant attention already).
::In fact, anyone with any real experience with the RD would know that the chance anyone here except you is going to agree with much of anything the blog says (and even you would probably rejects parts of it) is very slim, so any increase in traffic would not only be tiny, but highly temporal. And it's fairly unlikely there would be any benefit to such a temporary spike in traffic (which realistically given how much attention the blog already has is unlikely) which basically lead to no longer term increase in views (and considering the blog is hardly updated anymore, people are eventually going to run out of stuff to read anyway).
::I'm not saying the OP is definitely sincere, but if they weren't sincere, their intention would be something else, like provoking debate, or hoping they could con someone in to believing the crap on the blog (note wishing to get one or two people to accept what you thinking is so right, is quite different from driving traffic to somewhere), or hoping they could demonstrate we reject logic since the blog is so logical but we can't see it, or that we reject free speech since we're unwilling to leave unwanted stuff on the RD, or whatever else rather than an attempt to drive traffic.
::But the ultimate problem is that there's insufficient evidence that this OP's questions weren't sincere. While calling the blogger a "academic" may be a little weird, it's hardly uncommon that people get confused, use the term loosely, or think of someone as an academic because they respect and agree with their work, even if they are not an academic in any common sense of the term, and the work would get little respect from academia because it doesn't follow the norms of academia.
::P.S. I'm a bit unclear why you leave the thread visible if you had such strong doubts about the sincerity of the question, particularly since you have a tendency to hat random stuff where you seem to claim the question was sincere, as well as anything where you appear to think there's a remote chance of it not being sincere. I presume you aren't saying you let it visible because you partially agreed with the thesis, and hat stuff where you don't agree with the thesis, even if there is equal degrees of insincerity in both.
::] (]) 04:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I left the thread visible because I thought it possible others might disagree: it seemed a borderline case on the bad side of the border. I didn't think it worth edit warring over, and haven't. Nor did I (or do I) think a huge thread discussing it was necessary. Yours, Confucious Kuntzlinger (oops, I have ousted myself). ] (]) 22:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Well frankly, in many ways your latest reply is even more disappointing since it seems you didn't appreciate how so many of your other hattings would be something others might disagree with. Anyway a long discussion wouldn't be necessary if you would give a few seconds thought in to your closure, since long history shows they're often incredibly dumb, like here. (You've offered zero explaination as to why on earth someone would have wanted to drive traffic to that blog, and zero explaination as to why someone would do it on the RD). Your claim you didn't edit war over it is clearly untrue. You did in fact close again after the IP reverted your first closure and SemanticMantis replied. You yourself admitted as much in your second closure, so I can only presume you continue to be confused about what edit warring is. But what's new? ] (]) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::BTW, I get the feeling the IP who started blog question is heading towards showing they are the problematic Toronto IP. Still, I have no regrets and don't withdraw anything I said above. ] (]) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:FYI, the Toronto troll is back at the Humanities desk, again pushing race-baiting notions disguised as questions. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== Conservation of Energy Thread at Science Desk ==

It appears that the IP who started the thread asking about the law of ] at the science desk is continuing to discuss the topic and thread with itself, while changing IP addresses within the same block. (I don't mean deliberate IP hopping, but dynamic reassignment.) Should the thread be boxed? Should the thread be hatted? ] (]) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether the IP is a troll or is just ignorant and persistent. If the IP starts future threads, it should be considered a troll. ] (]) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

: I presume you mean ].
::Yes, that thread. ] (]) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
: It can be difficult to differentiate between ]s, ]s, non-native English speakers, and people whose rational minds just work very differently from yours and mine.
: We've been having frustrating -- and ultimately unsuccessful -- discussions with such people for just about as long as the Reference Desks have been in existence. Per ] I don't believe we can call them trolls, but per ] I don't believe we necessarily owe them answers to their satisfaction, either. If some threads peter out unanswered and quietly expire, and the OP's quixotic quests for knowledge occasionally go unfulfilled, I can live with that. I don't believe we need to box or hat anything -- that's too judgemental. (And we certainly don't need to pre-judge anyone a troll. Time will tell.) —] (]) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed, no need to hat or close. Probably the IP is just hoping to get more responses by talking to themselves a bit. I also don't think this IP opening any further threads should, in itself, be considered trolling. As usual, if anyone doesn't like a thread, they are free to ''not respond''. But please don't impair my ability to volunteer my time to wrangle with these types of posts if I choose too :) ] (]) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:The idiosyncratic grammar, particularly the incorrect use of "being" verb phrases, reminds me very much of a previous persistent poster whose username I can't remember right now but IIRC it was a "Russian-ish" name. That poster also asked incoherent/nonsensical physics related questions. ] (]) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::You mean ]? ] (]) 03:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Interesting. He was never blocked, but he disappeared about three months ago. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes, disappeared. The last post on his talk page was my request to him that he find a reference desk in his native language. That was after a long thread in which he kept talking about "valence" of materials, which appeared to mean potential energy, when ] is a chemical property of chemical elements only. No one knew what his native language was. There was reason to think that it was not Russian, but it was certainly not English. I don't think that this IP is Alex Sazonov, because, as Bugs says, he was never blocked, and so is free to come back (and possibly again be told to go away). ] (]) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Well plenty of people with accounts who were never blocked, and never really came close to being blocked seemed to abandon their accounts. E.g. I just mentioned ] above, and it happens with editors who aren't problematic in any fashion. There are plenty of reasons why it could happen, e.g. forgetting your password, recognising that even without a block, everyone is ignoring your or treating you differently, not wanting to bother to log-in. I'm not saying it's Alex Sazonov, they aren't the first person we've had asking weird physics questions on the RD, and I think they aren't even the first with bad English, just that I don't know if the lack of block means much (well except that even if we suspect it is Alex Sazonov, the fact they aren't using their account isn't a problem). ] (]) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

=== So what's the problem? ===
: I'm curious what the actual problem is here. I can think of a few possibilities:
:# The poster is not making sense.
:# The poster is not getting a satisfactory answer to his question.
:# The poster is not answering our clarifying questions.
:# The thread is wasting our time.
: Or maybe it's something else; I really don't know.
: But whatever the problem is, it would be good to know (a) what the problem is, (b) what someone is proposing be done about it, and most importantly (c) how the remedy in (b) will actually help solve the problem in (a).
: (My own opinion is that whatever the problem is, it's either not really a problem, or not one that can be solved, or one for which any solution is worse than the original problem, so why bother?.) —] (]) 14:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

::First, the poster is not making sense, and I think that the problem is both linguistic and scientific. Not only is he unable to say what he is trying to say, but I think that what he is trying to say may be more spiritual or philosophical than scientific. Second, the poster apparently wants us to help him, and we have stopped trying to help him, but I am not sure of that. Third, the poster is not addressing our request to clarify. Fourth, if we were to engage the poster, it would waste our time. Fifth, some editors here think that we should actively disengage from certain questions, and I wanted to know if this was one. That is why I asked. I agree with Steve Summit that there is nothing that we can do, but the thread is so long and meaningless that I thought it worth asking, especially since some editors here think that we should actively disengage from certain questions. ] (]) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

::: Thanks for confirming that. —] (]) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:He's <s>a ]</s> unconventional and appears to be contemplating energy conservation (mass-energy) within the context of Newtonian physics (his F -F equation likely being his way of stating Newton's third law of the equality of action and reaction) and he is ]. With circumstances such as this, especially if he continues, a polite and brief note telling the OP to stop would be appropriate (it would be less disruptive if he had a talkpage to warn him on, which he doesn't). --] (]) 16:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
::I don't know, wondering about the relationship between QM and nuclear physics seems perfectly reasonable to me. Poor English may be confusing the issue. Even if his intent is to soapbox, it's rather ineffective and not much of a disruption, IMO. ] (]) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:::No problem. I struck where I wrote "crank" above as it is pejorative (although some posters here deny that it is demeaning, but I must remind myself to avoid it in the future) and I apologize to the OP if he is reading this. In addition, from his writings his views are primarily Newtonian (which I happen to think is a very good thing). -] (]) 17:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:Not a problem. It can't waste anyone's time, because nobody has to read or respond. Seriously, the claim that some OP can waste anyone's time is silly. All participation is voluntary. The threads aren't so long that they can't be easily skipped. I'll AGF and toss in a few refs if I think they might be helpful, but this (and similar posts) are just not worth worrying about to me. ] (]) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

: I think it's worth remembering another reason for ] in cases like this -- some of the topics people ask about are really pretty hard to understand, especially at first. The law of Conservation of Energy is a perfect example. It's a hugely important physical law, but it's not at all obvious and it's not easy to wrap your head around. A lot of people misunderstand it, and this may cause them to come to wildly wrong conclusions about questions they have or things they're trying to invent -- ''and they're not necessarily cranks''. But they may need a lot of individualized hand-holding to bring them around; it's not necessarily nearly enough to say "no, you can't create energy out of nothing, go read the ] article."
: (Disclaimer: I'm speaking in general terms here; I'm not talking specifically about the original poster of the question that started this thread.) —] (]) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}As I understand it, our Reference Desks are modeled after the ] in a library. Would we expect the person behind that desk to enter into a discussion about conservation of energy? If they did, would we expect the discussion to be at all enlightening? I wouldn't. In my view we should have found one or two relevant websites containing information written by experts (physicists?), provided links, and wished them well. If no website exists that can address the OP's question, it's probably too esoteric to be engaged without a debate, which we're specifically ''not'' supposed to do. Refdesk is not a forum. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Presuming this is Alex Sazonov and I'm starting to think it is, I don't think it's just that the poster isn't making sense, but that the poster appears to be intentionally not making sense. Several people have suggested that the poster's English doesn't sound like something a Russian native speaker would say, and in fact as I understand it, their attempts to speak Russian on the Russian desk were just as bad as their attempt here.
:Of course the poster has never explicitly claimed to be Russian native AFAIK. In fact I think they've never said anything about what they actually speak when asked, or taken advantage of any suggestions someone will translate for them if they post in their native language. (Which is their right, but I think even someone who wants to avoid speaking their native language so they can improve whatever language they're trying to speak has to realise when it isn't working because their level is so poor no one can understand them.) But anyway, it's often suggested that the poster's English doesn't sound like something from someone with genuinely poor English, but simply someone who's trying to pretend they have poor English. While I do think we have to be careful with such claims (as I know people's level of English can vary depending on how much effort they are putting in, and someone with a complicated language background may end up with a lot of odd features), I do get the feeling from some of the stuff that has been said they might be right.
:Mind you, I'm not suggesting any action here. One of the biggest concerns with trolls (for me) is people will waste their time being unaware the editor isn't genuinely interested (which everyone accepts it always a risk, but is still something we shouldn't force on other editors), but the editor speaks such nonsense that I think even anyone not a regular on the RD is unlikely to spend much time on the them so I don't see any harm with just leaving the editor be.
:] (]) 13:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::To clarify above, when I said "Russian native", I meant "Russian native speaker" only, as it was beside my point what country they come from. ] (]) 17:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*] . Either that, or he doesn't know what "in my country" means. ] (]) 17:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I agree it really doesn't matter where Sazanov is from, or if he's Edward Snowden or Kim Jong Un, for that matter. The issue is whether the user is disruptive, and purposefully so. I don't really have any opinion of the disruptivity of his questions, which seem unproblematic from any policy standpoint, assuming they can be understood. But just as someone who speaks Spanish will have a distinctive accent and make certain types of mistakes in English if he doesn't speak it fluently, a person will make certain characteristic errors in English, ''but not others'', if he is a native Russian. The "errors" we are getting here are not ones a Russian speaker would make, nor are they errors one would get from a mechanical translator. Given Ockham's Razor, the obvious conclusion is that this person, who will not communicate with us in Russian or any other language, is ''purposefully'' misrepresenting himself. ] (]) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

::::While I lack the knowledge to be able to comment meaningfully on the nature of their errors, I think their latest posts are a good example why people find it hard to believe. I'm not totally sure what they're trying to say here and it could do with more punctuation, but their English there seems decent enough. About 15 minutes later, they come up with this . They also manage to try a grammar fix of their first message about 17 minutes later . Even considering the caveats I mentioned above, I get the feeling these English here is contradictory and this would only arise if someone was doing it intentionally. ] (]) 20:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::The intentional introduction of grammatical errors is either intended as humor (e.g., in Medeis's post below) or is trolling. Based on Nil Einne's analysis, I conclude that we are dealing with a troll, possibly of the Sazonov kind. It doesn't change that the best approach is probably to ignore the troll. ] (]) 22:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

===And Yet More Threads===
I don't think it is Alex Sazonov, but that doesn't matter. Can someone geolocate where the IPs are coming from? There are more and more threads. ] (]) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:It's definitely Sazonov, giving both posters is been speak exacting the same no exist language. The IP here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_been_the_cause_of_local_fighting_in_the_East_of_the_Republic_Ukraine.3F geolocates to Moscow. ] (]) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::That post by Medeis doesn't appear to be in any language either. ] (]) 19:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Sillous Ri, Mr. McClenon? I done aswert your effin question. It's calt ]. ] (])

== Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please add the following to discussion: '''Indirect communication with a third person using a second person'''
:
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 20:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Done. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-Protection ==

I see that there is a semi-protected edit request for the Miscellaneous Desk. Does that mean that it has in fact been semi-protected? If so, that implies that semi-protection is a reasonable temporary measure for Reference Desks. Based on the assumption, I will request semi-protection for the Science Desk due to the troll. I hadn't thought that semi-protection was considered an acceptable option for the desks. ] (]) 20:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Instead of SP for refdesk(s), isn't it possible to temp-block specific IPs from specific page(s)? &nbsp;—''Eric, aka:] (]) 20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)''
::IP addresses change. Most IP addresses (including yours) are dynamic rather than truly static. The Science Desk IP address has changed. Range-blocking is possible but is messy, and it is my understanding that most admins do not like to do range-blocks. That is one of the reasons why semi-protection is the usual way of dealing with disruptive or mildly disruptive editing from IP addresses. That is one of the reasons why we advise unregistered editors to register and create an account. ] (]) 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Shouldn't semi-protected refdesks have some sort of notice at the top, something like...
:::"''Sorry, IPs, you need to jump through hoops and wait for your response to become obsolete''" &nbsp;—''E:] (]) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)''
::::Typically a little silver lock will be posted at the top. And of course if the edit button is unavailable and only says "view source", then you know it's protected. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

::::And you don't have to jump through many hoops. The talk page is monitored pretty frequently. You can post your reasonable question here. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Typically", perhaps; in this case, no "little silver lock". At least as of 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC) &nbsp;—''E:] (]) 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)''
::::::Someone forgot to post that. It's independent of the actual protection. But if there's no edit tab, then it's protected. And if you had a registered and confirmed account, you could edit it, and you would see this at the top: "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the New contributors' help page." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I put a lock there. Now someone will have to remember to remove it in a few days. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, ''after'' the aforementioned "fact". ~:<small>] (]) 12:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::The admin forgot to put it there after semi-protecting the page. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::{{ec}} Although ''I'' know about the lack of 'Edit' tab means a page is protected (thus my edit requests above), ] did not (see ]). &nbsp;—''E:] (]) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)''
::::::::Yes, and that's the purpose of the help desk. To help people. The fact that someone has to ask a question there does not necessarily prove the need for a change. Far more often it simply means they don't know everything yet. That said, I wish admins would always add the lock with the protection, or, better yet, I wish that could be made automatic by the software. It would simplify our world just a little, and lord knows Misplaced Pages needs simplifying. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ec}} The "need for a change" comment should be directed to ]; I have simply provided input from an IP's perspective (try it!). &nbsp;—<small>IP:] (]) 01:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::I think those of us with any experience have a pretty good understanding of the IP's perspective. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::If I were to edit logged out, it would be difficult to tell my edits from 71.20.250.51 because we are using ]. However, it would be more useful for unregistered editors to create accounts and see it from the perspective of registered editors. ] (]) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Well, sometimes changes are made by "registered editors" either without an understanding of, appreciation for, or with unintended consequences to, the ]. &nbsp;—IP=] (]) 03:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) —<small>Edited:03:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:And what does fact that have to do with you? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::<small>Huh? Is that an attempt at "intentional introduction of grammatical errors intended as humor"? &nbsp;;)&nbsp; —] (]) 05:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::No, that was a goof. Should be "What does ''that fact'' have to do with you?" ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::::What does having only one of the reference desks missing an 'Edit' tab (and no lock icon), and seeing "''Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit...''" on the page notice, even though I was instructed to do so on the previous page notice, and was admonished for doing so, and then noticing that I was not the only IP affected, and ... ''yadda, yadda, yadda'' ... -- you mean, like that? &nbsp;—''E:] (]) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)''
:::::If you fail to see the connection between my experience and the topic of 'Semi-protection', then so-be-it. &nbsp;—''E] (]) 12:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)'' --<small>edit; grammar:12:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::::I see that the topic of 'Semi-protection' is directly related to the IP's experience, because he has been impacted by semi-protection. However, I fail to see the relevance of the IP's experience to the Reference Desk in general, because the IP has never explained why he chooses not to create an account, and he certainly hasn't explained why he thinks that he then has a right to complain about being impacted by semi-protection, which he could work around. ] (]) 21:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It was unknown that the IP needed to acquire a "right to complain", especially since the IP in question was simply attempting to provide a suggestion followed up by responses to what the IP perceived as condescending comments from "those of us with any experience". &nbsp;—IP=] (]) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The issue comes down to "How badly do you want to edit?" prior to the impending expiration of the protection. And the answer apparently is "Not badly enough to create an account." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: For the record, though, Bugs's implication that there might be something wrong with an editor who declines to register an account, or that such an editor is considered a second-class citizen for not doing so, is ''not'' shared by everyone here (and is, as far as I know, contrary to Misplaced Pages policy). —] (]) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::By that reasoning, semi-protection would also be against policy. I say again, "How badly does the user want to edit?" during the semi time (which should be expired by now). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: I don't expect to change your mind, but I've decided not to let your relentless prejudice against IP editors go unchallenged here. —] (]) 19:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::I am not prejudiced against IP editors in general. Your claim is a falsehood. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

== Missing Post! ==

Hello, post seems to be missing, any idea why? Can it be re-entered for further discussion? -- (] (]) 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC))
:Removed and that's all I know about it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:Maybe because you're disguising your user ID. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:: No, that's an inappropriate characterisation. ] explicitly licenses users to use nicknames. It doesn't define "nickname", and it seems that as long as the other rules are followed (not forging another user's name, not being disruptive, etc), you can make your signature be any damn thing you like. Your real user name is only ever a mouse hover away. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 20:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The thing is, he went from Russell.mo to this totally unrelated Angelos or whatever. But if there's no rule against that, fine. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: I'm surprised you're only raising this issue after so many years of living with users who practise it. ], for example, uses the nickname "Steve Summit". That may well be his RL name for all I know, but is it a recognised "nickname" of scs? I hardly think so. The reverse is more likely to be the case. ] uses a much longer version for his sig ("Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie"), again the reverse of the usual way of nicknames. ] signs himself as "Pete". Many other examples. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 06:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thought I was in trouble for a moment. In my case, the exceedingly arrogant, daffy (dug alone sometimes in skin-coloured jamies), eugenics-supporting archæologist I named my account after had three name forms, Flinders Petrie (the short form), Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (full form which sounds oh so fun which is why I use it), and SWMFP. The Angelos thing threw me for a loop once, but then I acknowledged the change and just got on with wikiing. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 14:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think you likely meant to simply ask whether or not the four planets can under go ] at the same time which I believe they can (contrary to the first answer), thus we can restore it or you ask again and be more specific if you like. Either way I don't think the post should have been removed. -] (]) 12:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:I've restored it. -] (]) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::Very good. I usually understand an editor's logic in hatting or deleting, but this one's kind of a puzzler. Medeis will need to explain it. (Or let it alone, as the case may be.) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

*I apologize, my action was inappropriate. ] (]) 14:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::I agree that the action of deleting a post to which there had been multiple replies was inappropriate. However, I agree with Baseball Bugs, and think that Medeis will have to explain why she thought it was necessary to remove the post after a lengthy reply. Even if the post was a troll post, and I do not think that it was a troll post, just a question with seriously wrong assumptions, I do not think that removal of the question and its answers was in order; Medeis caused a ] by deleting the post and all of the replies. Medeis was asked to offer her opinions on guidelines for the Reference Desks, and I thought that her reply declined to help us. I, for one, want an explanation beyond an admission that it was inappropriate, which appears to mean that Medeis gives herself the right to respond randomly to posts at the Reference Desks. ] (]) 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring it friends {{=)}} This link <ref>http://www.theplanetstoday.com/index.html</ref> confused me... I'll discuss it in the original post if required... -- (] (]) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC))

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Resolved}}

::As a matter of good practice, I'd like to also request a good clear edit summary for any removal. The omission of an edit summary gives the appearance of trying to be inconspicuous in the page history. The "trolling" comment that was added and then removed one edit later (why?) could have been the edit summary. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::That contradicts what has been said here many times in the past - that trolling should be removed with a ''minimum'' of feeding the troll. To me, if you say "rv trolling", you're feeding the troll. So what's the solution? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

::::That's correct, the only ways to combat trolls are to ignore them (thus starving them and making them mad) or out-troll them (somewhat more effective and kind of fun if you have time for such things/are apathetic enough). Unfortunately, you can't really point out trolling without looking like it's getting to you (thus feeding trolls) and that would include edit summaries. Other than having a discussion in the talk page each time there's an obvious troll about and then deleting/hatting sans mention of trolling, I don't really see any way to deal with it that doesn't feed the troll. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 04:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Semi-protecting the page is good way to choke them off, but us mere mortals aren't allowed to do that. We have to go through a troll-feeding process to try to get it done. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::{{ec}}It's also somewhat disruptive as IPs can't ask questions then. Counter-trolling is also effective, but can border on disruptive and kind of mean itself as one the best ways to do it is to 1-UP the troll. So within the bounds of what's acceptable, hatting and such with minimal shows of annoyance or caring (as if a fly is being swatted away) and the troll might lose interest as they and go elsewhere. I speak as a former troll of some considerable skill years back (once enraged an entire chan for instance). ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 05:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}The only way to really effectively deal with a troll is to make them feel completely invisible, and there is no way to do that within the functionality of our current software. Therefore we have to accept some small level of feeding and hope it's not enough to sustain them. The reason for the removal is already clear enough to the troll, and the removal itself feeds them. In many cases, the individual won't know about page histories, so they won't see the edit summary anyway. Note that the method used in this particular case, inserting a temporary comment in the page content, is based in the assumption that the troll knows how to read a page history ''but not a diff within it!'' &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Aside: formatting of ref links ===
{{ping|Russell.mo|Sluzzelin}} see {{tl|reflist-talk}}. ] (]) 05:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Aha! Thanks for fixing it, DMacks. ---] ] 05:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:Thought I'd let you no, "it wasn't me" - automatic occurrence... {{=2|cute}} -- (] (]) 07:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
::Theres more than a few talk pages that need that. Thank you! ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 14:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== On semi-protecting the desks ==

Is it true that the Miscellaneous desk is now protected until Feb 18 (and since Feb 11)?

If so, I would like to point out that a lot of the people asking genuine questions here as well as a number of helpful volunteers are not registered. Semi-protections of this length really won't help the desks survive. I even believe it's actually feeding the trolls, in any event it's damaging the desks, not protecting them.

What do others think? ---] ] 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:Hadn't thought of it, but you're right. There's probably a fellow somewhere who feels very successful as he thinks he's broken the ref desks and denied its use to many people. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 05:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:And if you don't semi-protect the page, the trolls will win. There is one solution: Give registered users who aren't admins the ability to issue temporary blocks. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::I find it hard to believe that anyone who'd been here for more than a year or two would suggest that! We have enough problems with disagreement over when questions should be hidden or deleted - can you just imagine the chaos if we gave those very same people the power to block people?! Hell no! ] (]) 05:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}}The semis are a bigger win as they catch a lot of innocent bystanders, whereas the trolling posts just catch whomever responds and gets taken along. Surely you don't mean blocking rights for every registered user! Personally, I wouldn't want that ability. Do you mean like mini-moderators who are specially chosen and have fewer privileges than admins? That's a bit better provided the ability isn't abused. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 05:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It could be like rollback - abuse it and you lose it. And it would be limited to 24 hours or maybe 31, with anything longer still requiring an admin's approval. But that won't happen. So semi-protection still seems like the best option for dealing with a persistent troll. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I will point out that the theoretical capability for non-admins to block the IPs won't help much, because the IP addresses change. Notice in particular how the IP who either is or is not Alex Sazonov has multiple IP addresses. As a result, it would be whack-a-mole. Given the limited value of that functionality, it wouldn't be worth the cost. It's either semi-protection, or nothing. Neither the argument for semi-protection nor the argument against semi-protection strikes me as strong. On the one hand, the stupid questions asked by the IPs cause only minimal disruption, and may not be worth the effort of stopping them. On the other hand, I don't go along with the idea that semi-protection is denying the Reference Desks to valuable users. I for one don't see much value to posts from unregistered editors. Unregistered editors are of great importance as readers of Misplaced Pages, but I don't see their importance as editors. (That is my opinion.) ] (]) 16:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Most any website which allows input requires registration. Why Misplaced Pages continues allowing IP's to edit is anybody's guess. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::It's many people's idea of an online Utopia, as I understand it. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit ... immediately. It's a noble idea that disregards the sizable downside. If I wanted to avoid any accountability, any need to build and maintain a reputation, I'd make sure my only identity consisted of a series of numbers that only ] could remember from one encounter to the next. Better yet, I'd make it so the numbers kept changing! But I suspect this has been said many times, to deaf ears. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It may have been a good idea at the time, when Misplaced Pages was small, but now it's just a royal pain for everyone. I expect the WMF doesn't care, as long as money keeps flowing in. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with the above posters that allowing unregistered editors is problematic, but getting rid of them is considered to be a "perennial proposal" that is proposed over and over again and does not pass. ] (]) 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::"Perennial proposal", another Misplaced Pages scourge. As if the community has spoken and its judgment will never change, despite the fact that it is continually being remade as people drop out and join. It also presumes that the few dozen voices in each discussion are representative of the entire community of 130,000 active editors, which is a silly notion on its face. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Wherever it is that those perennial proposals get considered and, so far, rejected, is where those with an interest in the matter should take their perennial complaints and argue it out. Having a regular whinge about it here is guaranteed to achieve precisely nothing. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh I don't know. I feel a little better for having said it, and that's not precisely nothing. And it's nice to see my feelings validated, too. Sure, you could say it's a misuse of the space in the strict sense, but less so than a debate about the correct etiquette when one is late for a banquet, which was vigorously defended by multiple experienced editors at VPP. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to put forward an alternative solution to the problem; close the reference desk. I think it has past its usefulness and is becoming a dead weight, distracting editors from the mainspace and causing more problems than it solves. The reference desks were created at a time when typing a random question into google produced no results. So people came to Misplaced Pages and posted their questions into articles instead, causing "good faith" disruption. The desks were created to funnel that disruption somewhere it would be less disruptive. But with the rise of Yahoo Answers, Reddit, Stackoverflow, and other sites were people can post questions about anything, the number of people coming to Misplaced Pages for that purpose has greatly dropped off. There is no justification for the continued existence of the reference desks on Misplaced Pages as the problem they were created to solve no longer exists. The existence of the reference desk itself has now become the problem. Perhaps editors interested in continuing the work of the desks can set up their own wiki and police it as they see fit, but for Misplaced Pages I think the desks have reached the end of the line and will be close, if not sooner than definitely later. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> {{spa|InqusitiveOnion}}
:I strongly disagree with this. The quality of answers you find on those sites is usually pitiful compared to what you get at the refdesks. They're also still pretty active. I don't see activity on the refdesks as being all the disruptive save for the occasional troll (which can and do turn up frequently in mainspace as well). On top of that, a lot of editors also enjoy helping out with the refdesks along with their edits in mainspace, and given the fact Misplaced Pages has also been haemorrhaging active users for years, it's probably best not to alienate people by removing a big part of the project just like that. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 27 Shevat 5775 17:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'd add that such a major proposal, if serious, belongs in a separate RfC rather than as a tangent in the middle of a discussion about semi-protection. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::The operative word there being "if serious", given that it's the first and only edit of that account. Also, a serious version of that proposal was discussed here at some length, not too long ago, and nothing came of it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:::<small>Smells like this would be a potentially RottenOnion if we were going by ] then.</small> Though this is getting us away from the matter at hand. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 28 Shevat 5775 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::The ] really only applies if we know what egg the duck hatched out of. I don't know if ducks eat onions. ] (]) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Possibly a rotten one, though it doesn't make sense when a full-grown duck would be much more effective here (unless it were a loon), not to mention tastier if it did in fact eat onions. ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 28 Shevat 5775 04:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::It sounds like you folks are gengineering the ]. Though no substitute for the Doomsday Duck, I could be interested in this. But semi-protection, troll-fighting and all that... not so useful. Just count the goofier questions as ], part of a healthy diet, and let them flow through the system. ] (]) 00:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Every duck hatched from an egg. My question was an obscure joke about the ]. The duck test has to do with sock-puppetry. The duck test permits blocking an account if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, without the need for checkuser. What egg the duck hatched from was a question of who, if anyone, is the puppet-master. It was an obscure joke that didn't amuse. ] (]) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Nonsense, I was amused by it (hence the rotten egg comment), but I wanted to take it one step further and think my joke was lost on everyone, sadly. Also, I feel there is nothing wrong with eating with quacking accounts provided it is within the bounds of ] (proper flatware '''must''' be used). ] &#124; <sup>]</sup> 29 Shevat 5775 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

== Treatment of IPs ==

There seems to be a massive issue here whereby anonymous editors, or IP editors, or "unregistered editors" are immediately treated suspiciously and like criminals or blocked former editors or banned users. The knee-jerk reaction should stop. There's no reason at all why an IP shouldn't be taken seriously. I would urge you all to try to remember that as a Reference Desk, it's '''paramount''' that you act in a friendly and helpful manner to the users who pass by and ask questions. Of all the places in Misplaced Pages, this is the most likely location that a newbie would appear, mostly without an account, to ask a question. To see the forensic analysis of their ''purported'' location and questioning their motives is really demoralising and undermines the purpose of the Ref Desk in its entirety. Let's do better and answer questions (with referenced answers, rather than ]) regardless of whether they have a registered account or, more likely, they are an IP acting in good faith. ] (]) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hear, hear! I agree and support this sentiment. ] (]) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::The dilemma about IP's, as per discussion farther up the page, is that sometimes it's necessary to semi-protect one or more of the ref desk pages, due to persistent vandalism. This of course shuts out IP's and non-confirmed users. If the vandalism that triggered the semi is from an IP-hopper, it's more efficient to just semi the page than to play whack-a-mole -- albeit at the cost of annoying sincere IP's who would like to edit but can't do so until the semi expires. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::No, it really isn't necessary to semi-protect. It's been done, sure, but that's not ]. Even if an IP user wants to troll or vandalize, we can just ignore it and move on, or delete/hat as appropriate. I have a feeling that some trolls probably ''like'' getting the page semi-protected. After all, semi-protection is very disruptive, and a concrete demonstration that the hypothetical troll has succeeded. ] (]) 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::It's not done very often. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

:But they're different from us! Strange names, anyway. Isn't that enough reason to remain vigilant? No, I suppose it's not. We can't be too tolerant, but it wouldn't hurt to just censor the bad apples.
:I see the question about autism being a drain on society is highlighted in exquisite archived blue, instead of standard hatted pink, to those without Javascript. Nice contrast, illuminates what we ''don't'' want. It's sort of like a deterrent, but also sort of like casting a fire spell on a fire monster and healing it. ] ] 03:27, ], ] (UTC)
::Maybe the hat template needs some additional options. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The rare times I collapse, I use cot/cob . It takes any bg color you want as a parameter, and it doesn't default to saying "do not modify", though you can also pass a warning parameter. The idea of hatting isn't ''always'' to prevent further comment, sometimes it's just to organize the thread. ] (]) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Text black would be a great background colour, when the intention is to hide. ] ] 22:16, ], ] (UTC)

:I am in total agreement. There is ''nothing wrong with being new''. Nor is there ''anything suspicious'' about using an IP. ''Everyone here was new at some point''. Everyone here made a first edit, or posted a first question. There are myriad reasons that users might sign with IP. I think some people are just tilting at windmills, or perhaps just paranoid. As I said yesterday, discriminating against users based on IP status is akin to bigotry or racism, and we shouldn't tolerate any of those here. If I had my way, users who regularly violate ], ], ], etc. should be warned and then blocked if the behavior does not change. ] (]) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::There's nothing inherently or automatically suspicious about using an IP. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

:Certainly we can't be biassed against IP editors - that's 180 degrees away from Misplaced Pages policy and culture. What bothers me is someone with no admin qualifications and providing zero evidence pops up and says "xx.xx.xx.xx is the well-known evil doer known as xxxxxx"...and then takes some kind of action on the basis of that. This is a very large stretch past the bounds of what a regular editor here should do. At the very least, we need someone with Admin qualifications to do this kind of thing - and I'm sure they'd need more than a vague suspicion before doing it. Mere similarity to the posts of some known miscreant is not grounds for leaping to action. Fixing these cases what we have Admins for. We simply cannot have unqualified editors deciding to be judge, jury and executioner in these cases.

: *AGAIN* I call for adoption of a solid set of carefully-documented, community-agreed, consensus-driven rules that cover what Misplaced Pages Ref Desk editors are expected to do under these kinds of situation - and to treat repeat-offenders against such rules as "Disruptive editors" and have appropriate action taken to remove them from here. ] (]) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::These kinds of situations are never exactly the same. To attack them all with a rigid gameplan will have different results, some of which piss off innocent people. Legit repeat IP offenders can't really be blocked; there are too many addresses and too many ways to use another. And when the enemy knows exactly how we'll respond (they can read whatever we plan, barring forming a secret cabal), they can tailor their attack accordingly.
::I again call for being like water. When the troll expects you to zig with acknowledgment that they're disrupting Misplaced Pages and making you angry, zag with a referenced fact that corrects their premise. Use their angles against them, and turn what could be a bright pink rant about how Jews run the world into black and white proof that they don't. Then when someone stumbles across it, they learn something other than how brittle a target the Ref Desk is. ] ] 22:33, ], ] (UTC)
:::I agree, providing sourced and non-original research answers to questions should be the one and the only pursuit here. Disarm any perceived trolling by using intelligence rather than bludgeoning and continual racing to this talk page to discuss the naughty IP. I don't see this kind of thing impacting the rest of Misplaced Pages, there it's just dealt with in a mature fashion, revert block ignore, or even just ignore. It's not "hat, unhat, hat, unhat, debate endlessly at talk page, resolve nothing" as it is here. ] (]) 09:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

:On the subject of hatting, it was never supposed to be the go-to solution for banned users or trolls. Hatting was for those occasions when the answers were getting disruptive, should probably be deleted, but deleting them would have caused drama from regular users who didn't want their words 'censored' or 'thrown away'. It mostly hides them from obvious sight, makes it plain that they're unacceptable, and is supposed to stop any further response from users who cannot help replying. My preferred option would be to delete these words, and I regret my support for hatting in the past, but that is why it is used.

:If you have a post that you are very sure is from a banned user, you either ignore it and provide the most boring response, or you delete it with minimal comment and attention. These responses are to make the situation as uninteresting for them as possible, and minimise their impact. There has never been consensus for hatting these, because hatting draws attention to their words and preserves them on the desk, which is not the goal. And you certainly don't discuss how you have decided they are a particular banned user on the desks themselves. ] (]) 10:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::No. It has to be deleted. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

: I think this thread is getting to the nub of the issue. Here are two sort of contradictory truths when it comes to dealing with vandalism:
:# If our preferred "solution" inevitably involves lots of drama here, the trolls have "won".
:# But on the other hand, we shouldn't be obsessed over whether some troll somewhere has scored a "win"; we should be seeking to maximize the quality of, and minimize disruption to, these desks.
: If we're always afraid that some bored teenager somewhere might be chuckling "Lulz, I trolled Misplaced Pages again", if we're willing to do ''anything'' in a futile attempt to forestall every such chuckle, then whether or not we prevent the trolls from winning, we will unquestionably lose. We will destroy the desks in order to save them.
: We should make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease. As the doctors say, "First, do no harm". —] (]) 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::Random trolls are one thing. Banned users are another. They are not allowed to edit, and if they are enabled by someone else, it harms Misplaced Pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what was funny about that question about autistic people. Well the I.P and dropped a ha-ha bomb was not even proven to be the original poster of the question. Other than the hear-say "I did it!!"the admins took that for face value and did it accordingly. What if the same I.P came a long and did that to baseball bugs, or some other saintly member of the gang here.

As for trolls. There's an old saying, if you can't beat em, join em.

Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk.
Archiving icon
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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Unreadable in dark mode

Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but Misplaced Pages:Reference desk is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week! @Baseball Bugs 97.113.14.140 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. 97.113.14.140 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.) -- Jack of Oz 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Jdlrobson and Izno! Looks great now. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Great! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Humanities and header hatnote

Last week, Mod creator decided to add a hatnote to the humanities desk, and then PrimeHunter decided to remove it a few days later. Here's the content:

"WP:RD/H" redirects here. For the template header used in all areas of the reference desks, see WP:Reference desk/Header.

Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was one reason given for its removal. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, the comparison – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for WP:Reference desk/header they probably know how to find it. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bots

Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words Avyanna.Owam (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake Desi media content querant

Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.) Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --Viennese Waltz 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)