Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 114

Archive 110

←

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

→

Archive 120

Discussion about problems here

I have a little bit of experience round here of aiding conflict resolution. It seems that the first stage is usually to work out what the actual problems are, according to all parties. I can't see that that's been properly done, so...

I'd be quite interested to see if anyone disagreed that the following occur at the Ref Desks and are problematic:

1. Replies from regulars (no names, thanks) based on individuals' opinions that aren't flagged as such
2. Newbie/IP biting by regulars (no names, thanks)
3. Regulars (no names, thanks) editwarring with each other by hatting and dehatting or deleting and restoring

NB This is deliberately not intended to be an exhaustive list. I'm not asking "are these all the problems that you think exist?", I'm asking "Do you agree that all of these occur and are problems?"

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of each refdesk include: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Although it's not explicit, and perhaps should be made so, one could reasonably infer, "We don't give opinions, predictions, or debate, whether they are requested or not." Therefore I would modify your item 1 to "Regulars frequently responding with opinions or debate (no names, thanks)" and I would then reply "Yes" to your question. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my book, a little WP:OR is fine, as long as it is clearly flagged as such. E.g. I sometimes do that when a question is asked about plants/gardening. Of course I prefer WP:RS, but sometimes I can't find any, and I'd like to think that my experience in plant husbandry might still be helpful to OPs. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the hatting/deleting debate is about professional advice. On your list, you need to add "Define precisely what professional advice is." The "IP biting" part can be solved by never hatting or deleting anything, and by never protecting the pages. If an admin (such as Jayron) concludes that the IP is a sock and/or troll, he could block the troll/sock, since us peons can't do that. The rest of us should curb our enthusiasm for responding to trolls (and many of us are guilty of that). That point needs to be on your list also. As to the third point, if you forbid hatting and deleting, that problem goes away. Assuming more good faith toward regular users would be nice too. You need to add that point. Included with that, you need to add a point to forbid sniping at regular users in front of the OP. Saying "that's not correct", followed by a correct answer, would be proper. Attacking a responder, as too often happens, is extremely bad manners. And another point you need to add, would be how to attract a broader pool of responders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with #1 or #2 (although I wouldn't express them in precisely the same way). On #3, the problem isn't really edit-warring, it's the generation of endless ineffective post-mortem discussions (to which I am now contributing). If these discussions could be made effective - if we could come to a consensus AND ENFORCE IT - then we might make some progress. But enforcement is the big stumbling-block. Tevildo (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

They hardly ever come to any sort of definite conclusions or consensuses that anyone could either align themselves to or take a stand against. It's just airings of opinions and gripes, with no commitment to doing anything to resolve them. Or, when someone does propose a certain course of action, it's usually criticised as a step too far, and it just dies. That's why I hardly bother getting involved anymore.

Our culture here is sick and tired and ineffectual, and in need of a completely new start. If we were setting up an online reference desk from scratch, knowing what we know now, what sorts of protocols would we be adopting? That's where we ought to be directing our energies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, many years ago, I was a regular participant at SDMB, and there were (and perhaps still are) two major differences to the way we do it: (a) The (fairly limited) rules about user behaviour were mercilessly enforced BY ADMINS; any problem user would find themselves banned very quickly. (b) Discussions that were, or had become, off-topic, were moved to a special area (called "The Flame Pit", as I recall), where people could vent their political and religious opinions without getting in the way of the real answers on the main boards. Could we do something similar without making our violation of WP:NOTFORUM worse than it is now? Tevildo (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that admins themselves do questionable stuff here, I don't know if that would work. But it's worth considering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The question might be, should it be more like a "real" reference desk? If so, some things would be expected from the ones posing the questions - like not asking something strange and then disappearing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen a real library reference desk that has any rule against asking something strange and then disappearing. Can you cite a specific library where such a rule exists? The libraries do, however have rules concerning the behavior of those who are behind the counter answering questions, and one of the big ones is always "if a significant number of people complain about your behavior, you are no longer allowed to answer questions at rthe library reference desk." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

When I talk with librarians, it is understand that I will be part of the process, of the give-and-take, and that I will help in finding the answer, because I actually want to know rather than to just jerk the librarian around. Maybe things work differently where you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've seen at Yahoo Answers, or whatever it is - they have questions and one or more answers, and they ask for feedback on what the best answer is. They must not regard it as an unfair burden on the questioner to ask them to actually acknowledge the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Requiring a questioner to acknowledge the answer is unrealistic. We can ask, and many will comply, but the plain and simple facts are that

[A] A significant number of internet trolls have discovered that asking questions on the reference desks just to mess with us gets a reaction and thus is (to them) a lot of fun to do.

[B] The way we are handling it now increases the chaos and attracts more trolls.

[C] The way some of us handle [B] above increases the chaos further and attracts even more trolls.

I would like to get back to what we were discussing before. Individuals who continue a pattern of behavior on the reference desks despite criticism and pushback from the other regulars are a big part of the problem. The criticism and pushback itself becomes a subject of criticism and pushback, we all get into yet another long, unproductive discussion, and things become more fun for the trolls. As several here have pointed out, this is heading towards an arbcom case, which will likely result in several one-year bans. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we should (temporarily) outlaw hatting and deleting, and see if things go more smoothly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support a moratorium on hatting and deleting. In particular, the hatting of original posts (questions) is never an appropriate response. It actually draws attention to the post that was hatted. (It was recently done at the Reference Desk, and was a mistake.) Deletion is, in general, only appropriate in special situations, such as duplicate posts (a reason for deletion at the Help Desk), incomprehensible posts (e.g., not in English) (also occasionally a reason for deletion at the Help Desk), or posts that are not questions (e.g., rants). I would be willing to support a general moratorium on hatting and deleting for a period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why everyone seems to have only just discovered how trolls operate? Not to sound rude, but it's really not a complex problem. Troll tries to upset you, you get upset, troll wins. Troll tries to upset you, you don't get upset, troll loses. This is the internet, which is full of trolls and literature about trolls. This is a very public part of the internet where you will meet many in one form or another. Honestly guys, it's not rocket science and it doesn't require this conversation that has dragged on for about a month. People need to stop attacking each other and work towards treating each other civilly in accordance with Western standards of common courtesy and then there will be many fewer problems here. We don't need all sorts of new rules, we don't need arbcom, and we certainly don't need all this pointless analysis. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is the attitude by some to see minor imperfections as big problems that need to be dealt with by overt interventions. This is counterproductive, in the same way that a hypochondriac by worrying about his/her health all the time, is actually undermining his/her health. A great deal of damage has already been done to the ref desk by having too many discussions and too many interventions on issues that are totally irrelevant. We need to stop with this nonsense and get on with answering questions. Count Iblis (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with this devilish fellow, there weren't many real problems beyond incivility before these discussions broke out. Now all that's happening is that everyone's angry at each other, trolls are happy (with very little effort on their part), and a huge amount of time that could have been spent doing useful things has been wasted on these lengthy discussions here. How much chaos is there actually one the refdesks? An occasional troll, but questions get answered and except for a few small fights, nothing's really broken. Everyone's attentions would be better focused on just manning (and womanning) the refdesks. I recommend that everyone take a week or so off first though, and then come back, look at and assess this discussion with a clear head, and then get back to work Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 17:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The proclivity to race to the talk page to discuss each and every removal or hatting or whatever of posts that a few users deem unacceptable to them, and the hunt for IPs, geolocating them, hurling accusations at them, is precisely what the trolls want. It should stop and then the Ref Desk could possibly regain some of its integrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but if someone removes my AGF, referenced comments to a post in the name of troll hunting, is it not the appropriate thing for me bring it here for discussion, vis. WP:BRD? I must confess I believe strongly in WP:NOTCENSORED, and it is bothersome to me when I see others interfering with free usage of these desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct, I concur, the "policing" of the desks is the core of the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boards like this work more easily when questions on usual troll topics (penis size, anal sex, whether black people are less intelligent than white people, and so forth) are declined with the minimum of drama (e.g. deleted with a standard response about not conforming to guidelines). This is much easier than agonising over possibly failing to answer the very rare genuine question about such topics. 109.152.146.39 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

People need to respond to the questions posed or we'll get nowhere. There's a whole load of other sections on this page to discuss whatever you like, or you can create a new one. I'm going to repost. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RFCNV (Request for Cliff's Notes Version) of the above stuff

So, since I last edited anything on this talk page, it appears a number of unpleasant arguments have broken out leaving tears and destruction in their wake. As I don't fancy spending a half hour reading through all of it, could someone give a brief overview of the whole thing sans attacks and finger-pointing? Nice and neutral, please. On a side note, I hope that my fellow editors do realise that whichever troll it was whose actions prompted all of this fighting, he/she has won big time and is likely having a very good laugh at our expense. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 20:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been fantastic, from the infamous 'ick question' to the why did jimmy cross the road saga. There's 1000's of ways to stir things up in here. It's actually quite fun gaming about and doing the ip whack a mole thing. I think the editors secretly enjoy it as much as us trolls do. I mean, imagine how boring things would be here without the wild west element. And let's face it, conflict drives progress. As long as there's nothing personal, right....Baseball, Ian, Mandruss, BJ michell (or whatever his name is) jayron etc etc. Shout out to all my friends, fans and haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.114.147.222 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't really argue with any of that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 01:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is the person who asked about gokun, then I think they've really given us good info about how ignoring trolls or posting AGF answers is the way to go. Here we have a putative and self-confessed troll, describing how our arguments are the fun part. I imagine this person got a lot of fun about our arguments over trolling, but was probably not very entertained by my AGF answer at the time. I hope our eager troll hunters carefully consider this enlightening post. I still maintain I am personally untrollable here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her care... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you and I already agreed on this point earlier up above when I was relating past trolling experience. Another thing trolls like in a good way is positive recognition, buuuuut that should only be reserved for successful trolls that do it right (and actively troll-hunting in an environment where trolling is discouraged just encourages trolls because you can never hunt in a way that doesn't make you seem angry). No one likes a troll that can't even cause rage or conflict. Of course, we don't want anyone trolling Wikipedia, but dickish non-trolling behaviour (as in acting like a jerk) from refdeskers is just as bad if not worse in many cases as it becomes an accepted norm. I think this whole page has been a smorgåsbord of lulz for him. Incidentally, my good troll sir, there's an assessment I wrote for you while I was bored yesterday. Read at your leisure. As for being untrollable, Semantic, you're only as untrollable as you are apathetic/willing to push the envelope one step further (probably best if the latter is not done on Wikipedia). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I couldn't find any consensus anywhere, except that some of the rule suggestions had some consensus, but now it's the OP's job in each case to try and move things forward, if that's what they want. IBE (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IBE, but I fail to see how a request for a brief summary of the discussion and complaining about unnecessary incivility rests that responsibility on my shoulders. That responsibility for everyone keeping a civil tongue, even in dealing with people they dislike, still rests with everyone. When everyone can communicate civilly and with reason, then the discussion can move forward. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 13:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, that was careless of me. I meant the OP for each specific case, where they think a consensus has been reached. I think this is the interpretation Guy uses below, in his post (12:01, 10 March, 2015) "Would the community ...". IBE (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for apologies. If I wrote down all the mistakes I make, it could make for a mildly amusing book. Wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. If you start something, you need to see it through. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 15:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "After reading the reasoning of the oppose !votes, I am now convinced that another, more carefully crafted proposal that is more restrictive than the chaos we have now and less restrictive than this proposal is needed. I am striking my support !vote but not withdrawing the proposal, because I dislike early closes that don't let people who take vacations get a say."

Would the community like me to do a final read through of the various comments attempt to craft a new proposal with input from other editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, Guy, you'll forgive me if that would be difficult for those in vacation to locate in a sea of black and white. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 13:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's up to you. I thought your suggestion was constructive, but I thought you had too many no votes (that's if you mean the one about requiring references/links/sources). IBE (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It was, and in re-reading my reply to you here, Guy, it's a bit overly harsh and I do apologise. It's indeed constructive. I don't agree with it for the reasons I stated, but it puts us in the right direction (even if people say no, it just means that you figured out a way that won't go over well and can focus on retooling for something that might). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 15:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that the Reference Desk managed perfectly well since 2005 with the current rules (or something close to them) but in the last ~3 years things seem to have broken down. The rules didn't change, and the type of questions being asked didn't change either. Maybe what the desks need most of all are a set of guidelines for those answering the questions. Maybe something like; "always be civil to the OPs and each other, always try to provide a reference to an answer you are giving instead of just guessing, don't post joke answers until the question has been answered properly with at least one source/reference, always provide a clear and neutral justification when removing a question so that other editors can see why it was removed and/or contest the removal without having to guess at your reasoning" etc. Seems like simple things that most people used to do anyway, but maybe for some it needs to be spelled out clearly and enshrined in a guidelines page. 82.44.45.127 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It might indeed be as our good troll said, that in some cases there's a desire for conflict as entertainment as it's a break from the normal routine. Everything you said all seems sensible although there might be times when the correct answers to questions aren't in a net source or you don't know which book has the info. Many bits of archaeological knowledge, some more obscure and some of those things that authors think need not be said, for instance, you only find out from lectures or talking to other archaeologists. Rather annoying when editing in main space, actually. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 13:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, the reason we have the problems we are having is that a small groups of individuals here simply will not follow any rule that is labeled as a best practice, strong suggestion, or similar words such as "normally,..."

The only rules that these individuals will follow are rules that are rigorously defined with no possibility of misinterpretation and enforced with an iron fist by administrators with longer and longer blocks.

(Start Sarcasm) Oddly enough, the admins are not willing to make enforcing help desk guidelines their full time job (End Sarcasm).

Am I overstating my case? Consider the following: when I put forth this proposal, I added a couple of (unenforceable) requests designed to keep the discussion on point, avoid duplicating other ongoing discussions, and make the !votes easy to count. They were:

• "Threaded discussion: Rather than replying in the support/oppose sections, please reply here."

• "Please do not comment on how this or any other rule should be enforced. That is already being discussed elsewhere."

Look at the result. No admin enforcing the rule with blocks, so no compliance. Most other places on Wikipedia, I would have either seen pretty much everybody follow the same rules or perhaps some thoughtful replies saying "I disagree with Rule X for reason Y". Here, the request was just ignored by some folks, and if you look at the comments, you will see a couple that are clear attempts to troll me into responding.

This is why the reference desks are so screwed up. A few misplaced comments in a proposal is a small issue, not really worth bothering with, but it does identify the problem we are facing.

This is also the reason why I deliberately decided to use the term "Obergruppenführer" (literally, "person who is in control over the group") to refer to those who

• [A] regularly delete questions and threads,
• [B] have never gone through a WP:RfA asking the community if they trust them to control the behavior of of other editors,
• [C] Have received a substantial amount of criticism and pushback for doing so, and
• [D] persist anyway.

They persist for the same reasons that they refused to keep threaded discussion in the threaded discussion thread and refused to keep rule enforcement in the rule enforcement thread. Peer pressure will not change this. Reasoning with them will not change this. Only well-defined rules that most here agree with backed up with blocks and bans will change it. This proposal from The Rambling Man fails the "most here agree with" part, as does the earlier "Moratorium on Deleting and Hatting" proposal. The question is whether there exists a proposal that most here agree with, or whether the differences of opinion are too entrenched to allow any compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't disagree with anything you said, Guy. But: this is a classic, classic conundrum, one experienced by almost any group over time. The old camaraderie and consensus break down for whatever reason, and the only reasonable solution is to try to formalize the old de facto consensus with some new, written down, de jure rules, which are "unambiguous" and "objective" and "enforceable". But there are two problems: (1) the people who liked the old, informal, consensus-based approach don't want to operate under a bunch of seemingly-restrictive rules, and even if the rules can be agreed upon and adopted, (2) the seemingly inevitable result is that conflict and strife manage to invent themselves along the boundaries of the new rules, no matter where they are, and no matter how infinitesimally thin they are. And if you invent new rules to refine the boundary and stamp out those debates, yet newer debates spring up along even the new, more finely-delineated boundaries. It's a tale as old as time, and I don't know how to resolve it satisfactorily. All I know is that if the only solution is more rules, the battle's probably already lost. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that complicated, although the solution might be. You can make rules all day long, but until you can precisely define what constitutes "professional advice", this conundrum will continue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Analysis, Comments, Reminder

I agree with the analysis and assessment by Guy Macon that the basic problem at these Reference Desks is that a few regular editors simply do not want to follow any guidelines, and have resisted any effort to engage in constructive discussion. Other editors have tried in several ways to engage in some sort of dialogue, and in fact have been met with hostility, up to accusing Guy Macon of trying to control other editors. (That accusation is very unfair, because what he is trying to do is to facilitate discussion.) Some of us have tried to propose guidelines, and have asked Medeis, in particular, for comments, and her answer did not seem constructive. (I would still appreciate any comments from Medeis, or any other regular editor, on either flexible guidelines or rigid rules.)

An unregistered editor states that the Reference Desk went perfectly well from 2005 until about 2012 and that things have since broken down. I haven’t followed the Reference Desk that long, and in addition am skeptical of an unregistered editor acting as institutional memory, but I agree that the mood has become uglier recently than in the past. One factor probably is that trolls have found that the Reference Desk is a place where trolling sometimes works. (I will offer my opinion that the hatting of threads is, of all responses to trolling, usually the most unproductive, but that is my opinion. I think that any of ignoring, boring responses, or even deletion are better than hatting, but that is my opinion.) However, another reason is clearly that some editors at the Reference Desk cannot get along with other editors. It is my understanding that there is an interaction ban between User:The Rambling Man and User:Medeis, and an interaction ban between User:The Rambling Man and User:Baseball Bugs. If that is not correct, please provide me with more accurate information on what the interaction bans are. In any case, conflict does recur from time to time, whether in spite of or because of the interaction bans or the underlying dislikes.

There have recently been a few threads at WP:ANI. So far, they have not resulted in any action. In general, when a topic area results in multiple WP:ANI threads, what will eventually happen is one of: (1) the conflict subsides; (2) "the community" at WP:ANI takes administrative action, typically in favor of the faction or group that is louder and noisier; (3) if the ANI threads themselves become troublesome or disruptive, an ArbCom filing is accepted, and Arbcom hears a full evidentiary case. This should be a warning. If the conflict between Reference Desk editors persists rather than subsides, either ANI administrative action or ArbCom sanctions will probably follow. ANI sanctions will take the form of: blocks; interaction bans; topic bans; or site bans. ArbCom sanctions normally take the form of: discretionary sanctions; interaction bans; topic bans; or site bans. I am sure that no one wants topic bans or site bans, so be warned that those are what are likely if dialogue and reason do not prevail.

Try to engage in reasonable dialogue, because if that does not happen, solutions will be forced on us.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Solutions will need to be forced upon the Reference Desks. A lot of your thread relates to talk page stuff, not the Ref Desk itself. You should focus on the behaviour there rather than the behaviour you have described above. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what The Rambling Man disagrees with. The issue, as he says, has to do with the Reference Desks proper. Some of us have been trying to discuss behavior at the Reference Desks proper here, on the Reference Desk talk page, as an alternative to forcing a solution on the Reference Desks. Discussion here is failing. Any solution to behavior at the Reference Desks proper (responses to trolls, hatting of threads, deleting of threads) will have to be forced on the Reference Desks from one of three venues: (1) this talk page, via the RFC process, which is binding and can establish local consensus; (2) WP:ANI, which can block, topic-ban, or ban users; (3) the ArbCom, which can impose discretionary sanctions (a clumsy remedy for the Reference Desks) or can topic-ban or ban users. My advice at this point is that the least drastic way to deal with behavior at the Reference Desks would be an RFC, which would be discussed here and could impose local consensus. The alternatives are ANI or the ArbCom. Does The Rambling Man have a suggestion on what solution should be forced on the Reference Desks? Does anyone else have any ideas on how to go forward? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you always conduct conversation in the third person? If you misunderstood my point, let me re-iterate. Your "summary" focused on discussions that happen here on the Ref Desk talk page, not on the Ref Desk itself (or else I can't see why you would spend so much time discussing the existing IBAN). Just read how many threads here and in the recent archives discuss the same old thing. That's what you need to address. Your summary didn't really cover that. ANI has failed. Many times. It's clearly a divisive issue, but what is as plain as the nose on your face is that some users here need to be reminded that IP editors are not just tolerated, they are encouraged to contribute. All these throwaway "drive by" comments are genuinely offensive. Long-standing editors have no more rights here than an IP making his or her first ever post. I think Robert McClenon needs to start thinking about an Arbcom solution since all other avenues have been exhausted, and the problematic behaviour of a few Ref Desk users continues unabaited. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

One reason why I am discussing this in the third person is that my comments are applicable to editors at this talk page and at the Reference Desks proper in general. Another reason is that I was trying to avoid direct argument with you, TRM, or with other editors, but your complaint about attacks on IP editors is off the mark, because I was not attacking IP editors. Do you, TRM, really want disputes about the Reference Desks to go to ArbCom, which is likely to ban you and certain other editors from the Reference Desks? I agree that WP:ANI has failed. You are probably right that a solution will have to be forced on the Reference Desks. Is there a reason why it cannot be done by RFC and has to be done by ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Banning someone who hardly ever uses the ref desk, in hopes of getting regular users banned in the process, would be a very cynical and unfair thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you're clearly better informed than most if you think Arbcom will ban me from Ref Desks, but if they do and find they need to ban others who are disruptive, then I can take that. My complaint about attacks on IP editors is not off the mark because I wasn't referring to your edits. Obviously. RFCs have even less teeth than ANI so Arbcom it is. And once again, I reiterate, if you believe my edits to the Ref Desk itself (not the talk pages) to be disruptive as those who continually disrupt the actual Ref Desk, then I welcome the ban from Arbcom as long as the other users involved are similarly banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am the only one here that uses the term "drive-by". I could say "single-purpose, one-use IP user who comes here to fire a verbal shot at another user and is never heard from again", but "drive-by" seems shorter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But you seem to use the term whenever any IP editor says something you don't like. Thus it's hard to square your usage with your claim that you're not biased against IP users. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that all IP users behave like drive-bys? Sorry, that's not the case at all. Most IP users are fine. Your claim that I'm "biased against IP users" is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time writing up a big, long, detailed explanation, but this talk page has exploded since then, and there have been several calls to tone it down with the interpersonal bickering and tangential discussions, so I'm going to let it ride, and if someone gets the impression that I do believe that all IP users behave like "drive-bys", so be it. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

wick wock

There was an infamous editor called this, or something similar.

Can anyone direct me to his/her contribs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.41.125 (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There aren't any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Far from infamous, a rather valued user, User:Wickethewok's contributions can be seen here. I wish they'd return. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fairly sure the IP isn't referring to Wickethewok but instead referring to our engineer friend from Perth called Wickwack/Ratbone/Keit/Floda/possibly other things who remains topic banned from the RD Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community after these discussions Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 99#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses due to them pretending to be different editors (including supporting themself in their own arguments). It's very difficult to get a list of their contributions since they operated from a/ highly dynamic Perth IP range/s. I guess there is a risk of WP:BEANS with this but AFAIK after hanging around like a bad smell for a while (including using WP:RD/L as a free language translation service) they eventually largely disappeared. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't approve of sock puppetry, but Wickwack/Keit/Floda et al did have some good and helpful contributions, IMO. A google search like so [1] will give you most of Wickwack's contributions, as he (usually) signed posts by hand. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think most agreed with that, in fact it was commonly suggested it would be okay if they created a single account and stuck to it but that suggestion was never taken up. (Heck I personally would have been fine if they just used on identity and stuck to it always.) BTW, that search will only give you perhaps about 2/3 of WickWacks contributions, because even though they did normally sign (until topicbanned), they appeared to use the 4 (or possibly more) identities randomly. A search like [2] whether with the Wikipedia internal search or with an external search engine [3] will be more effective. Not Bing though [4] (besides tried while not logged on to a Microsoft account and perhaps with safesearch and obviously somewhere where that wouldn't cause problems). Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Require links to Wikipedia articles or to reliable third-party sources

In a section concerning an unrelated proposal, The Rambling Man wrote: "[T]here ought to be a new proposal where respondents to questions at the Reference Desk actually provide either links to Wikipedia articles or links to reliable third-party sources." This is that proposal. If it passes, it will be added to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON HOW THIS OR ANY OTHER RULE SHOULD BE ENFORCED. THAT IS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE.

Posted by Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Support. well obviously. This is Wikipedia's Reference Desk. We have the gift of wikilinks to direct our readers to our own articles. If we don't have information sourced in our own articles we could provide links to reliable third-party sources. What we shouldn't be doing is giving our own opinions or points of view on particular questions if we don't have the ability to provide referenced answers. That bad habit, the one where people try to "answer" every question despite not having any real ability to do so, must stop. Unless it's a point of explicit clarification with respect to the original question, those who are just speculating and offering opinion should edit elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This would be an obvious improvement. For those who really want opinions, I suggest Reddit. That site was designed for that sort of thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• After reading the reasoning of the oppose !votes, I am now convinced that another, more carefully crafted proposal that is more restrictive than the chaos we have now and less restrictive than this proposal is needed. I am striking my support !vote but not withdrawing the proposal, because I dislike early closes that don't let people who take vacations get a say. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It's called reference desk, not "Ask-an-expert" (and we are rarely experts on these topics in any case). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutely positively so. This isn't a "Tell people stuff I think is common sense, so I don't have to prove anything i say" desk. With the caveat that sometimes questions are so misinformed that they cannot be answered; but we should at least direct people to explanations as to why they can't be answered. --Jayron32 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The response you gave on the Science desk at 00:09, 9 March 2015, is in direct contradiction to what you've just agreed to above, 5 minutes after that response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • See wikt:caveat, definition #2. If you need further explanation, I'll see what I can do to help clear up your misunderstanding. --Jayron32 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Would the two of you be so kind as to move your threaded discussion to the threaded discussion section? (And then you have my permission to delete this.) I would prefer the support section not become a wall of TLDR text. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. Jayron, by all means put Bugs in his place, but drop the self-important condescension, please, for goodness' sake. IBE (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, subject to the notes below re maths and 'there is no answer' etc. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Too restrictive - it would probably exclude half the legitimate answers on the maths ref desk, and sometimes the appropriate answer to a question is "nobody knows" - which is self-evidently incapable of being sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  I agree, the maths desk should be able to offer legit answers without a source if it's deriving equations, solutions etc. If someone says "nobody knows" then that's obviously fine too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Completely agree with Andy. Plus, we would most likely have some people insisting on doing their own thing, and time has told us there is not much we can do about sanctioning them. IBE (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  Correct, some people keep "insisting on doing their own thing" despite being asked for months and months not to do so. We can sanction them, we just need the balls. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, there are questions like "What did I do wrong in solving this math/science problem" where the answer is to simply spot the error the student had in their posted solution. Giving them a link to geometry, say, would be quite pointless and not at all helpful. Second, sometimes the first answerer doesn't know the term, but can describe it, and a second answerer knows the term being described and thus finds the link (example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015_February_16#Help_writing_a_hacker_character_who_is_realistic). If we didn't allow the first response, we'd never get to the link, so that's self-defeating. Third, there are often non-answer responses which are necessary to get to the answer, such as clarification questions. Fourth, we already get quite enough useless links, like if the Q is on the highest paid shortstop in baseball history, somebody will provide a link to baseball, as if that would answer the Q. Requiring links will just lead to more of this. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, accepted there are student questions, but I'm suddenly unclear as to when the "Reference Desk" became a "homework help desk"? Secondly, we're not here to interpret uninterpretable questions. Thirdly, clarification questions are fine, obviously, we're not suggesting some kind of Nazi attitude. Fourthly the links are supposed to be helpful and reliable, per the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since real libraries are full of unreliable primary sources, the proposed sourcing requirement is too strict, per my questions below [5]. Modocc (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  Best ever "oppose". Libraries are full of books, not opinionated people giving their opinions and points of view. If someone wants to pull a book off a shelf and read it and believe it, fine, but right now we have a lot of users claiming to answer questions when all they're doing is giving their own, mostly unreferenced and biased, opinion. That is not what a Reference Desk is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  Books, magazines and blogs too (with our virtual library)... all written by opinionated people, some notable, but many others are not, and a few evil sarcastic musicians contribute too. We do have guidelines regarding what we expect from contributors here though. -Modocc (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It doesn't matter that the name of this site is the "ref desk", what matters is what the people who visit this site want, and it's usually answers to question, sometimes but not always with a reference to the scientific literature. If giving a reference helps, it should be provided. If I answer a question without giving a ref, then someone else may come up with a suitable reference. If there are doubts if an answer is correct, then that issue can always be discussed. The lack of references may in some cases be a red flag, but answers should not be a priori dismissed just because no reference is given. The Stack Exchange website does a good job answering questions just like we do here but without the prolems we have here. There is no requirement to give references there. Here I gave a reference, but here I didn't give a reference to the general method I am describing, because its all based on personal experience. In this answer to a math problem no reference was given because here you want to illustrate the advantage of using the theorem to tackle the problem, you don't want a general reference to the theorem (which is just one Google search away anyway). Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, given the general hostility towards IPs, some/many of whom are asking perfectly useful answers, we should rename the desk to be a "opinion desk". That, at least, will manage expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - First, some legitimate questions (non-troll questions) are worded so poorly that the answer has to be a request for clarification, or an effort to restate. Second, I agree that in general, an article or source should be referenced, but making this a policy, without other reforms, be just provide yet another opportunity for some regular editors to snipe at other regular editors. What we really need to do is to minimize the sniping between regular editors. Oppose any rule that provides more opportunities for regular-on-regular antagonism. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the sniping (seriously insulting one another) needs to diminish greatly. I just looks silly to a third-party observer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 13:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll repeat what I said below, that being that there might be times when the correct answers to questions aren't in a net source or you don't know which book has the info. Many bits of archaeological knowledge, some more obscure and some of those things that authors think need not be said, for instance, you only find out from lectures or talking to other archaeologists. Rather annoying when editing in main space, actually. Examples would include the fact that most every near eastern archaeologist gets up right before the crack of dawn to head to site so that they can work through the morning daylight and not risk heat stroke in the afternoon sun (something so basic that no one feels the need to mention it in the literature), or the fact that tells extend beyond the Middle East from Bulgaria to Pakistan (I found that out from David Wengrow in a lecture and only recently learned it might be cited in the book, Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East, which I last saw in London), or that Italian digs tend to be poorly managed and chaotic (well-known, but whoever publishes that would get a ton of hatemail). For that kind of info it's difficult to point a user to a good web source and we kind of have to apologise and say that we can't find a source that they can look at themselves with any ease. I trust this problem extends outside of the realm of archaeology to many other fields. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 13:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The best answers synthesise answers from logical or mathematical implications of the question or other people's answers. This is far to rigid a rule, and it won't improve the reference desk. SteveBaker (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be trivial to game this just by making some words in the answer into wikilinks. This would then lead to arguments about whether the links are appropriate or helpful. Micromanaging this stuff is not the best way forward per WP:CREEP. If the Refdesk seems to have broken down then send it to MfD per WP:NOTFORUM. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  Typically unhelpful and repetitive, resorting to "creep" again. Is this a reference desk or not? There's no creep here, at least not in terms of the requirements of the ref desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Rather than replying in the support/oppose sections, please reply here.

RfC

Objection my bulleted comment immediately below was not made in response to any "RfC" subheader--this was added later, and other than "arbitrary break" which everyone knows is for convenience, it is improper to interpolate headers. Readers might think I put that header there, or was responding to it, neither of which is true. At the very least, the editor who added it should have indicated it was added later and signed it. In light of this I suggest again that much of what goes on here is counter-productive.

• If this is an RfC, set it up as an RfC. We get plenty of questions of the form "what species is this a photograph of" or "how would you translate X" none of which will have directly relevant sources, although one can point to dcitionaries and otherwise unhelpful works for the non-specialist. All that should be necessary is that one be able to back up what one is saying with relevant material if asked/challenged.

Some questions allow direct referential answers, like my recent question on how one might go about finding information on a doctor convicted of medicaid fraud. But we also had a question about "what trees are these?" I could have said they were dandelions. Would my having had linked to dandelion (they were probably crepe myrtles) have thereby somehow made my answer valid? There's a real issue with people trying to control others here that doesn't sit well with anyone.

I suggest maybe we abolish the ref desk talk page, and give each page its own narrow talk page for technical issues,and refer the rest to ANI. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See What Tree Is That? Online. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

While the thinking behind this proposal is sound, I think it probably goes too far. Many legitimate questions asked at the maths ref desk don't really need a reference for an answer - see for example [6]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. How far is just far enough, then? I would personally be happy with an end to the idea that every question is an invitation to open-ended, tangent-upon-tangent discussion until everyone gets tired. I proposed an alternative space for that sort of thing and got zero traction. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically, one should be able to back something up if challenged, for exactly the same reason we don't require a ref for every edit. There's also the fact that things like spelling, grammar, and simple math are not required to be referenced in mainspace. I try to add refs or links to everything I do, in fact I create about a redirect a day on average. But I don't think I need to be challenging those who answer "what does this Arabic or Chinese text say" unless the OP himself or someone else points out a problem.

Recently there was the question of how to translate Monsieur le Cure, and I said that the head of a parish was a Monsignor. This was incorrect, I had taken my father's description of my childhood parish priest as a monsignor to be a definition, whereas he was only describing our parish priest, not defining the term. Someone pointed out my error, but then defined the rector as the parish priest, when a parish priest is a rector, by a rector is not necessarily a parish priest.

There's a lot of such give and take. Look at the identification of the Carpathian Chamois, a type of goat, which several people had suggested was an antelope or a deer. The process is often a give an take. If anything, there should be a disclaimer saying, "We are just strangers on the internet, nothing we claim should be taken as more certain than your own judgment or that of a paid professional's" But a strict link/ref requirement won't accomplish anything, as it says in quite definitively in Poor Richard's Almanac. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes and No

A good ideal. But how do you deal with a question like "Does anyone know what the music is at the 2 minute and 48 second mark of this linked video?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You link to the article (or offsite recording, properly licensed, or Allmusic page, or other reference) telling them what it is. --Jayron32 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) You would deal with that by explaining that the refdesks do not provide such answers, but here are a couple of other websites you could try. The web is a vast information resource and knowledge actually exists outside of Wikipedia. If people have come to expect an answer directly from refdesks, they would need to get over that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You have just invented a new rule - because this happens all the time. And, technically, finding a link to the music elsewhere and saying "this is it" constitutes original research and would not be acceptable in an actual article. Technically, you would have to find an external source which states that the music at 2:48 in that clip is whatever it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, this discussion is about the possibility of inventing a new rule, or restoring the refdesks to their original intent, and it doesn't really matter which you call it. I'm lost as to the rest of the above comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you now saying that original research / original synthesis IS OK on the ref desk??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, and I'm at a loss to understand where you got that, from my suggestion to point the OP to other websites where they might get their music question answered. The only OR going on there is the choice of websites. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting to both you and Jayron at the same time. It was Jayron who suggested linking to an offsite recording, which requires original research or synthesis to arrive at the conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. I was thinking more like http://www.midomi.com/, where you can hum or sing a few bars and maybe get an answer. And I'm sure there are forums where such a question could be answered by actual humans. We don't have to answer every question we can here, and I think we should answer only those questions that cannot be answered elsewhere, and then only if we are very sure we know the answer, and then the thread should end as soon as the answer is given. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If they upload their own voice, then a direct answer would require original research / synthesis. And sometimes an answer will lead to new questions and new answers. Or sometimes the original "answer" was either incorrect or incomplete. It would not be appropriate to hat every section once a (supposedly) correct answer has been presented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I'm at a loss. I said nothing about uploading their own voice. [add later: I now see where you misunderstood. What I meant was that we would give a link to midomi.com, not that we would provide an equivalent service.] Please see my comment at 00:05 in the preceding subsection, which will have to serve as my position for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bugs's point makes perfect sense insofar as I may be quite certain that a piece of music is X, but quite incapable of finding an example of X at youtube to provide to the OP. I should simply say, I am almost certain it is X, but can't find a link. And I often do exactly that. Then another editor, prompted by my comment, will say, "Oh, yes, here it is." That's what's called collaboration. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then we need a different name, as "reference desk" is not what you are describing. See Reference desk. Clear communication solves/avoids many problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, look at my recent question on the language desk, the answer to which was elegant variation. I do not think the other answers were evil, or exactly what was wanted regardless of links and articles. I found every response of interest. I think this idea that we can somehow replace the OP's ability to think for himself is not only pernicious. It's vicious.

All I am describing is a reference desk run by more than one person, which often works better by collaboration than the authority of one dude with a flowchart, or someone tossing inuendo. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Reference desk says the following, halfway through the article: The librarian can look up a brief, factual answer to a specific question. With that minor qualification, the article makes it very clear that a reference desk is a place where they point you in the direction of your answer, not where they provide your answer. And the kind of things you're talking about are rarely "brief, factual answers", which are along the lines of "what is the capital of South Dakota?". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am with Mandruss on this one. The answer to "What about [example that would not be allowed under this new rule]?" is that it should be disallowed. Again, what we are doing now is clearly not working. Perhaps making the Reference desk be a Reference Desk instead of the comment section on a Youtube Video will work, --02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason, Guy Macon, why you are making unsigned comments? Is it an innocent mistake, a lack of knowledge, or do you not actually have some sort of evil agenda? Can you prove you don't have an evil agenda? Given you are the obvious subject of this thread, it behooves you to prove your innocence, or be assumed guilty, don't you think? μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Subject of this thread? I thought we were talking about how to answer or not answer certain questions under the proposal by Guy Macon. When did we start discussing anyone in particular? Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is based on the model of an encyclopedia, but it is not in every respect exactly like a traditional encyclopedia.

The Wikipedia reference desks are based on the model of a reference desk, but they are not in every respect exactly like a traditional reference desk. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As currently operating they are as close to a traditional reference desk as Wikipedia is to an almanac (it's where you can look stuff up). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Put differently: In what respects are they like a traditional reference desk? Based on our own article, I don't see much commonality at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

However

How will this proposal do anything toward enforcing the rules against giving professional advice, or toward dealing with drive-bys? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop with the drive-by thing? People are allowed to not register an account. If you wish to change Wikipedia policy on this, WP:VPP is thataway. Good luck. Until then, we treat unregisterred users identical to those who have a user name. Full stop. --Jayron32 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually you treat them better than you treat registered users. Maybe not you in particular, but certain users here are in the habit of trashing regulars and kissing up to one-entry trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How many new accounts, new trolls, and new IP's have just been blocked? Calling them drive-by's is not bulldozing Nimrud. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

While I am tempted to say something like "What part of PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON HOW THIS OR ANY OTHER RULE SHOULD BE ENFORCED. THAT IS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE are you having trouble understanding?", Let me try reasoning with you folks. We all know that once we start discussing the above, it will take over the thread. Yes we are all interested in resolving our deletion/hatting issues, but do we really need to discuss them in every thread? Please stop. Discuss this in the thread where it is already being discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be trying, once again, to control other editors, Guy Macon. That has been brought up against you so many times above, Guy Macon, I am surprised you are once again trying to control a thread. Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised? μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling

Here's a good example of feeding a troll.[7] Now, are the complainants here going to yell at everyone who fed the troll, including the guy who hatted it? Or are they going to give a pass to users not named Medeis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am going to say it. What part of

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON HOW THIS OR ANY OTHER RULE SHOULD BE ENFORCED. THAT IS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE

are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jee Whiz, Bugs, do you not understand that Guy Macon is in control of this page? He's even said it in BOLD CAPS! Guy Macon is in control of you. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC) PS., I suggest we hat the entire page. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. We haven't heard from Alex Sazonov. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section Break 01

Is this new?

The Reference Desk guidelines already say, "Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources". How does this proposal differ? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This puts teeth in it. If the guidelines specifically say that something in prohibited, we can take those who persistently violate the rule to ANI and request that an administrator topic ban them from the reference desks. Administrators, unlike our self-appointed Obergruppenführeren, have gone through an RfA asking the community whether it trusts them to control the behavior of others. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the intention, I will have to oppose the proposal. As I have already pointed out, legitimate questions on the maths ref desk often neither require sources to answer, or are likely to have such sources available. What is needed is amendments to the guidelines to prevent the misuse of the ref desks as a forum, rather than rules which prevent e.g. the pointing out of mathematical or logical errors in a question because we don't have a source stating that the specific question contains an error - or sometimes simply pointing out that nobody is likely to be able to provide an answer. Consider a question asked recently on the misc desk: "How many of the 61 survivors of the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster are still alive today?" I very much doubt that a source can be found answering the question, and I have to suggest that the most appropriate reply is to indicate that such information is unlikely to be available. There are legitimate reasons for providing unsourced responses to some questions, and I can see no merit in prohibiting such responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a quite reasonable objection, but I don't see how something that much less restrictive is workable. Imagine that you had a couple of regulars who, in your words, regularly engaged "the pointing out of mathematical or logical errors in a question because we don't have a source stating that the specific question contains an error" -- and one of them was Otis Eugene Ray and the other was Underwood Dudley. I am sure that you can see the problem. Perhaps we can find just the right amount of restrictive? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

This proposal requires reliable third-party sources. That seems reasonable, but questioners can and often do seek information from sources that are not reliable or third-party. Thus... how are these expected to be handled? Ignore, obstruct, divert or shun? Shouldn't we be meeting their general reference needs like a real library would? For instance, if they are doing research in a topic area for a thesis, wouldn't they want to seek relevant information from primary sources even if it is for the purpose of refuting those possibly self-published author(s), news coverage or even blogs they are looking for? Plus, there are plenty of nonacademic personal interests to be served too of course. -Modocc (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Imagine a library where anyone can walk around behind the help desk and start answering questions, and there are usually a dozen there, often disagreeing with each other. Now imaging that those asking the questions are a mixture of legitimate library patrons and people who think it is fun to try to get the crowd behind the desk all riled up. And everyone (except me of course) is wearing ski masks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's wrong to demonize people like that for this is an open-sourced project such that some of us are more anonymous than others and we do have disagreement, make mistakes and occasionally make our opinions known. That happens to be the nature of the work here and severely limiting requests and/or muzzling contributors won't help. -Modocc (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then let's rename this, it's not a Reference Desk, it's an "opinion desk". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruption in the form or wp:soapboxing has been dealt with on many occasions, and with any opinions asserted (which some contributors are better at properly disclosing than others) your mileage may vary. But the same is true with media in general, reliable or not, for it is not monolithic. -Modocc (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

All that's needed is to make this site more promonent so that you get more questions and more people willing answer them. This means that we have to face the competition form sites like Stack Exchange, doing so cannot be done focussing on the small domestic disputes we're having. Instead one has to look at how these other sites are oprating and see if we can offer something that they don't offer that is attractive to the general public. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of people "answering" questions, many of them are just giving their own opinions. This isn't about a contest with Stack Exchange, although some of our "contributors" could learn something from that site, it's about making sure Wikipedia stops claiming to have a Reference Desk where people spend their lives promoting their own point of view, their own opinion etc while forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually we have a small group of people who are answering the questions. The social dynamics is then different compared to a much larger pool of answerers. In the latter case, for almost every question there's bound to be an expert available that can give a very good quality answer for that specific question. That deters lay people from chiming in and even lesser experts will exercise caution when answering questions. This stimulates professional behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I barely understand your answer, but it's such a tragedy that there's no "professional behaviour" here at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Would there be a way of expanding the potential pool of answerers? Maybe not enough users know about the ref desks. I was here for several years before I even heard of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Defamatory request for either opinion or legal judgment

A contributor asks us whether a certain business venture is a legal scam, then, realizing his mistake, changes the wording to "not a scam". In either case, calling a business venture a scam is defamation per se and the question still asks for an opinion even if we pretend it is not a legal opinion. I suggest it be closed or removed. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone has taken court action against the company, it's not a question that can be factually answered. It's like asking whether that place that has Ted Williams' body in deep-freeze is a scam. One could argue either way, but unless there's been legal action, there is no factual answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the one asking that question is the same one that asked about whether it's "easy" to drive a high-speed train, and then got snippy with the first respondent.[8] According to the ref desk non-participants here who nevertheless want to nanny the ref desks, we should grovel at the feet of that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Bugs, don't laugh it off, take credit for it! Nobody said we should grovel at the feet of that user, nobody believes that, but you've twisted the conversation in that direction so deftly, and planted the bait so succinctly, that someone is sure to rise to it. Well done! —Steve Summit (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The "according to the ref desk non-participants" bit of trolling right after the same question was asked and answered in the section above was particularly inflammatory. Bugs does have some skills as a Troll. It's kind of pathetic, but he can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees his actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It was asked and rationalized, I'll give you that. As for groveling, that's the standard message we get here from certain users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, your troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools. My guess is that you used Visual Troll++, or possibly TurboTroll 2000.

These first generation tools are quite limited, and there is a severe garbage-collection-related performance hit when you try optimizing the output of VT++ for flaming or insults.

I suggest that you try the latest version of GTC; the Gnu Troller Collection. It is *the* standard when it comes to creating Trolls. It is also Open Source, re-entrant, and is fully compliant with the Triple Troll, Troll-On-Troll and TrollChow protocols. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are those options available for my TRS-80? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: This above is not only not only unproductive, it's counterproductive.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Medeis brought it here to ask about it. When Medeis doesn't ask, they get yelled at. When Medeis does ask, they still get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was referring to the back and forth over trolling when it doesn't really count as trolling, and even if it did, the back and forth over the alleged trolling would not helping. (though funny enough, and not saying it applies to this conversation, but an accusation of trolling against someone raising a legitimate concern can sometimes be trolling itself). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5775 15:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• You are free to your opinion that it isn't trolling. I say that it is -- a comment meant to inflame and induce the target to respond. I tried to defuse the situation with some humor (and from the TRS-80" response I believe that I may have been successful), but when you responded to the attempt at humor it suddenly became clear to Bugs that feigning outrage over it would stir up the pot some more. This is all standard trolling 101 stuff from the days of USENET, and the standard response is for me to ignore your responses to the trolling as well as ignoring the trolling itself. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question does not state "legal scam" so I cannot agree. I also cannot accept that we are in a position to make legal judgements, eg. about "defamation per se". We are in a position to make a much smaller judgement about the nature of something being defamatory, as a general description, not as a legal term. Here I feel it is unwarranted and excessive, because the only factual basis is given clearly by the questioner there. It is that Mars One has "no possibility of actually launching a simple rocket", which is clearly just an opinion, and does not seem at all defamatory. It merely invites the reader to form an opinion based on this claim.

However, the question as posed is silly, and reads to me like an invitation to debate. It is also inappropriate for the Humanities desk, and at best belongs on the Miscellaneous desk. I would suggest a boilerplate warning about not responding to requests for opinions, predictions or debate (the question seems guilty of all three). I also feel it lowers the tone of the desks, and we will do admirably well if we restrain ourselves from otherwise answering it. It would be a better response to the questioner there, and a much more powerful demonstration of our culture and interests, if we could leave the question there with only a boilerplate, and demonstrate our visible disinterest in this manner.

Thankyou for taking this here, and congratulations on picking this up quickly, because this helps us all. I believe calling it "defamation per se" adds a lot of spin, but your approach here is very welcome. Gratefully, IBE (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It initially did say "legal scam".[9] The OP might have figured out that asking it that way would get it shot down immediately, so he changed it, and voila, a debate ensued. Imagine that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction, and having read Medeis' original post again, I simply misread it the first time. I still consider the OP's correction sufficient for that particular asepect of the situation, and it is not up to us to judge the legal aspects. I still consider the problem to be only with the silliness of the question, and my personal vote is only for a boilerplate. If people hat it on the grounds that it is only a debating question, I would nevertheless raise no objection. IBE (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The dilemma is that the ones who already responded would also need to be OK with it being zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, maybe so, just because this is what's causing all the tension, so people are politely going steady. But generally no, we just need some kind of consensus. I am one of the major complainers about hatting, and this is clearly a reasonable case. I have never objected to hatting questions like this, that are purely debate-oriented. It's a problem when someone gives a reason that is out of step with the general views of the community, or states (at the top of the hat) an inflammatory criticism of the question (eg. hat - this question is totally stupid ... - end hat). With moderation comes greater consensus. With minimalism (just the bit that's necessary) come greater calmness and productivity. With consensus and calmness comes a better culture that can also grow, so people can try to suggest stronger ways to deal with unwanted questions, confident in the knowledge that the community's energy will not be sapped by argument, accusation and counteraccusation, and loss of its animating force. IBE (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting is what causes some users to yelp about their precious jewels of wisdom having been erased along with the trolling. Hence, hatting as a compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What are the problems here?

I have a little bit of experience round here of aiding conflict resolution. It seems that the first stage is usually to work out what the actual problems are, according to all parties. I can't see that that's been properly done, so...

I'd be quite interested to see if anyone disagreed that the following occur at the Ref Desks and are problematic:

1. Replies from regulars (no names, thanks) based on individuals' opinions that aren't flagged as such
2. Newbie/IP biting by regulars (no names, thanks)
3. Regulars (no names, thanks) editwarring with each other by hatting and dehatting or deleting and restoring

• Please say "yes" if you agree that all of these are problems
• Please say "yes" even if you think that there are other problems I've not mentioned
• Please say "no" if you think one or more of those points is not a problem (and it'd help if you said which one and why)

Please restrain yourself and just answer the question and don't comment on others' responses.

One word answers are fine and possibly even helpful.

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Replies from regulars that are totally unprofessional. Not an option, but the sole problem. Hipocrite (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please could you reply to the question asked. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. I thought I'd explain the problem to you clearly and succinctly, as opposed to playing at bureaucracy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Addressing your points individually:

(1) NO - Redundant, as any response without a link qualifies as original research.

(2) NO - Nowhere near the problem that a few here seem to think it is.

(3) YES - Definitely a problem.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That reads like a "no". --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Two of the three, I don't see as significant problems, hence it works out to a NO as per your rules. My other comments are in keeping with your comment "it'd help if you said which one and why." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

True. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No. More specifically (1) happens occasionally but is not a major problem (2) happens occasionally but is not a major problem (3) happens quite often and can be a problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Number 3 isn't how I would describe it. It isn't totally wrong, but in my experience, the people restoring the posts have typically done the right thing by coming to this page and bringing it to the attention of others. I have hardly seen those who remove the posts doing the same. So I cannot agree with the term edit-warring. I would call it tendentious behaviour in hatting/ removing posts, or I would phrase it more neutrally to avoid the suggestion that there are two sides in some kind of battle over hatting/removing. Thanks, Dweller, for your help here. IBE (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• All three are problems. --Jayron32 16:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh?

1. Please say "yes" if you agree that all of these are problems
2. Please say "yes" even if you think that there are other problems I've not mentioned
3. Please say "no" if you think one or more of those points is not a problem (and it'd help if you said which one and why)

So if I think there are any problems at all with the ref desks (like I wish the page was green with pink text) then #2 says I have to say "YES" - but then you can't tell whether I have some bizarre random problem or whether I agree with all three of your issue points (which I don't)...but then you say I should answer "No" if I think any of those three things is not a problem? Eh?!

Totally confusing mess. Not the way to run a !vote poll.

There is one and only one problem here - the rules of behavior for respondents are inadequately described.

The consequence of that failure is that we spend all of our time arguing about who is or is not breaking some imagined rule. Your set of three questions (which don't even scratch the surface of the wide range of complaints and arguments) aren't helpful for resolving the key problem.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem of description, it's a problem of interpretation. No level of describing hypothetical questions and responses will get us to all agree on what is appropriate and what is not. And nothing will ever stop people from making jokes, or passing off opinion as fact, etc. The Wiki Way is open, for better or worse. If you want to see what top-down control is like, check out StackExchange or Quora. Both of those services have moderators/admins who can delete whatever they want, because they in charge. Consensus, BRD, etc just don't apply when you have a walled garden. I don't think WP or even the ref desks should go that way, but there are alternatives out there. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. All three are problems, and number 3 is worst. I think SteveBaker must have misunderstood the intention of the (paraphrased): please say yes even if there are additional problems (like colour choices) thing. Steve (I believe), and I, and many others, agree that the behavour of respondents is the root problem, and the behaviour of regular respondents is what your points address. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• My reading:
  1. Happens very often, but I don't see a rule based (as opposed to a norm-based) solution. Encouraging hatting/deletion of unsourced replies will only inflame tempers. IMO it is best to just set a good example by addressing the OP's query directly, and ignoring joke/unsourced/opinionated responses that one doesn't like.
  2. I have seen this happen and it makes me cringe each time. Don't know how big a problem this is (although frankly this should never happen)
  3. Maybe I haven't being paying enough attention, but I don't know how common this is and whether the frequent and lengthy discussion on the talk-page is in proportion to the problem. To get a rough idea: here are the diffs of all the thread-deletions I could find on the Humanities desk for this year (essentially large byte removals; excluded edits by bot, deletion of one's own posts, and clear vandalism; let me know if I missed any instance, and I'll add it to the list):

Thread/response deletions on Humanities desk in 2015

March 8 (f it is a troll, we don't leave a memorial to all the people he sucked into his game...), March 4 (rv troll), Feb 19 (duplicate question) Feb 6 (revert trolling by anonymous holocaust denialist and his anonymous supporter--this is not the place for fringe soapboxing); also Feb 6 ({{WP:DENY]] this is not he first trolling by noopolo) Feb 3 (duplicate) Jan 31 (Removing sections created by block-evading sockpuppeteer) Jan 26(rv racist troll) Jan 24 (Whatever this is, it doesn't belong here.) Jan 22 (Removing pettiness and making a nicer answer) Note: edit was soon reverted Jan 14 ( (I've deleted this trolling...) there were quite of number of deletions/posts by User:212.96.61.236, whose reasoning I couldn't exactly follow Jan 12 (or did I?) Jan 11 (delete, given OP says he doesn't care about references) Jan 8 (rm trolling)

Now admittedly this is just one desk that I picked at random, and I haven't tabulated hatting (since that is harder to do), but barring 2-3 exceptions IMO most of these deletions appear to be at least acceptable (in the sense that I may not have deleted some of the thread, but I wouldn't have expended much effort objecting either). So is this a big enough issue to require new rules (as opposed to better enforcement/editor restrictions, if that)? Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, or, not really. I don't see 1 as a significant problem. 2 is definitely a problem. I'm not sure 3 is a problem in and of itself, although it is definitely a big symptom of the deeper, underlying problem.

I do have thoughts on that deeper, underlying problem, which I'm going to go ahead and mention here, at the risk of their getting lost in the midst of one of the currently too many separate here's-my-take-on-how-to-fix-this threads. (It's tempting to start my own, but under the circumstances, no.)

I think the biggest problem is that we've lost much of the consensus, collaboration, and camaraderie that makes a place like this work. The disaster area that is this talk page at the moment is all the illustration you need of this phenomenon. There are at least three different factions with pretty widely differing views on what the desks are for and how they ought to work. There are more factions than that with differing views on what the problem(s) currently are. And even more different views on what we should do to fix them. A week or two ago I had it in mind to start a nice little thread under the subject "Renewing our vows" that was going to try to recenter our consensus on what we're here for, but everything's gotten so confused since then I don't even remember how I was going to couch it. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Minor problem, best dealt with by calling for references or otherwise expressing skepticism in the thread itself. 2. Sometimes a problem. The more someone attempts to do "enforcement" (against the IP or against the biter) the more of a problem it is. 3. The deletion or hatting is a problem; it serves no useful purpose. The reverse is generally not. Even the worst trolly pseudo-English crap causes the least disruption when left alone. Wnt (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors who complain on the talk page, but who don't contribute to the ref desks

At the time of my posting this thread, I did a search of all seven ref desks for posts by Guy Macon and Robert McClenon. There were none. No questions, no answers. At the same time, I find 36 matches to Robert McClenon on this page and 42 matches to Guy Macon, along with comments about Nazis and those who want to control others and the ref desks, and so on. (This is about a behavior, not about Guy and Robert personally, they are not the only ones doing this.)

This raises the question, who exactly is it that is looking to control whom here? The next time someone brings up "people who want to control the ref desk" or "police it" or whatever, can we have some names and diffs, as I did immediately above with the Penis size question? The unending innuendo above by people who don't even contribute to the desks strikes me as just a little bit odd. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone makes a constructive effort to help resolve ongoing refdesk problems, I call that contributing to the desks. Each of us (well, most of us) has something different to bring to the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Some folks are the "answer refdesk questions" kind of contributor. Others create articles. Others fix typos. Others patrol new pages, or edit templates, or fix BLP problems, or help decide if articles should be deleted. All of us are contributing in our own way. I am involved in dispute resolution, as is Robert. You will see both of us a lot if you search the archives for DRN, ANI, and Arbcom -- usually as an uninvolved commenter, almost never as a named party. The fact that we are uninvolved in the fights that plague the reference desks is a positive, not a negative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I support Guy Macon and Robert McClenon as constructive contributors who need feel no shame about editing this page. I don't care when they last edited mainspace, the ref desks, or anything. We don't need names and diffs until it seems plausible that there is agreement, and some action can be taken. If people name names, this is exactly what causes the thus-named to start getting upset. I'm not going to look for comments about Nazis, because I simply don't care enough, but if anyone engages in reductio ad Hitlerum, I advise them to treat difficult people (no names mentioned) with kid gloves. The people are very touchy, and will take up loads of our time. IBE (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree: We judge the merit of edits and talk page proposals, not motives or experience. Any editor is welcome to look at how we do things and propose and advocate for changes. That's what being a Wiki is all about. Suggesting that only people who are experts or experienced at a page, regardless of namespace, should be involved in editing or improving it is a form of page ownership and there are very few places here where that is allowed. The ownership policy begins with: "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular page." and then goes on to give these examples of an improper statement suggesting ownership: "'You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic.'" and "'You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously as a history search shows.'" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of an admin who actually works on the ref desks, such as Jayron, is in a much stronger position to comment on these things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of Jayron is that no one should be saying that these two cannot comment on the operation of the desks, and that no one should be implying that they are not allowed to help out in any way they want, including conflict resolution and helping establish a framework for preventing said conflicts in the future. Anyone can contribute anyway they have the skills and desires to do so, and no one has the right to tell other users their help is unwelcome, especially by implying that prior experience or certain qualifications as being "part" of some closed-off community are necessary prerequisites to be taken seriously. People should never treat anyone like that, and one should never cast aspersions or obliquely note that someones lack of prior experience in editing as though that made any difference at all to whether or not their ideas should be taken as seriously as anyone elses. That's the opinion of Jayron. --Jayron32 16:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't agree, as to me it's like the old joke, "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules." But your input is worthy of consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In case there was any remaining question about Macon's fitness to be sitting in judgment of actual participants, this is the level of maturity we're dealing with here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated references to "non-participants" and "actual participants" are offensive personal attacks. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No offence, but that little ASCII comic (maybe 2 seconds of chuckling after 30 minutes tweaking, using the preview function, tweaking some more, getting it just right. It also looks like you're calling Bugs fat based on the parentheses use for the torso when pipes (|) would have been sufficient) does not reflect well on your conduct either, Guy Macon. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cut and paste, 15 seconds tops actually. Because at least one person didn't like it, I will replace it with a little bird (also cut and paste) that makes the same point:

    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^` 

Thanks for the feedback. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lame (c/ping someone else's work and copying an ASCII drawing you already used here which I'm fairly certain is meant for discussions of trolling) and beside the point, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 14:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it was the whole point. Just as we have WP:RBI. People here seem to forget the third of these three, taking every opportunity to drag back into discussion when "this IP, geolocating here, did this bad thing" and "that IP geolocating there has been doing those bad things for a while...". That's exactly what the trolls want to read. IGNORE! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we are not discussing trolling at the moment hence my point about that ASCII being reserved for discussions of trolling. What we were actually discussing, and what the actual point was, was that Guy made an unflattering comic about Bugs and then, when called on it, pointed out Bugs' behaviour rather than apologising for unnecessarily immature behaviour in a debate (it's fine to fool around and joke, I do that lot, but if it's at someone else's expense in a mean-spirited way, then it's just not cool). That actually does disrupt things. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I should probably say "participants only on the talk page", which is factual. And even if someone thinks it's a "personal attack", it is as nothing compared with openly fantasizing about gunning down another editor (using the Sarah Palin --> Gabby Giffords illustration as a model). Macon also can't even take his own advice on the matter. So he might be best off to take some time away from this topic, as he seems too emotional and personally invested for his own good or anyone else's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed section title per WP:TALKNEW: "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to change the title, fine, but anchor it, and place your comment at the bottom, since your comment was not the subject of the thread. I've made the title more accurate, since "univolved editors" are totally univolved. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As a courtesy, when I started this thread, which was not about Guy's cartoon below, but about contribution versus inquistion, I placed a notice on Guy's [10] and Robert's talk pages. It was only then that I saw this vicious personal attack, showing Bugs being targetted, raising his hands, and being exploded, composed by Guy Macon on his talk page (since deleted):

  [BUGS DETECTED]   [TARGET AIMING]   [TARGET LOCKED]  [NOBODY  REPLIES]
 .---------------. .---------------. .---------------. .----------------.
 |       o       | |       |       | |     \ o /     | |   \`. || .'/   |
 |     /( )\     | |    -- + --    | |    --(+)--    | |--- *IGNORE* ---|
 |______/_\______| |       |       | |______/|\______| |_ _/_'_||_'_\_ _|
 '---------------' '---------------' '---------------' '----------------'
 --Guy Macon 03:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert's response has at least been to resume editting the actual desks, Guy's has been to play the victim and call me a troll for catching him. I really don't care about this drama, but there is no problem on the desks, no edit warring, nothing of any substance at dispute. But this page is like an unending Kafkaesque nightmare, and it should be made very clear what the inquisitors are doing with their "targets". μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, what the cartoon actually showed was very clearly not someone getting "exploded", but rather ignored. (It has backfired, of course, but that's because we are all guilty, every one of us who posts here, of keeping the Kafkaesque nightmare running.) --Steve Summit (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So you say. But I can't imagine anything more ad hominem than openly fantasizing about gunning down another user, which is what that juvenile cartoon portrays, regardless of rationalizations to the contrary. Macon has lost whatever ethical high ground he might have had before, and would be well advised to steer clear of the ref desk for a very long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And you and Medeis had already lost the logical high ground when you tried to marginalize Guy's and Robert's contributions earlier in this thread (which of course is what I was referring to when I brought up ad hominem). So I think we have to call this one a draw. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. You're equating simple debate to fantasies about murdering another editor. Maybe you should take a vacation too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No rest for the weary, no vacation for the archivist. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of late to post this, but for the record, this subsection section from the beginning has been the very definition of an ad hominem argument. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC) (tweaked 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Yes, it is, but I'm a forgiving sort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, this just says "IGNORE", that's what WP:RBI is all about. It's like a Garfield cartoon where the final frame is Garfield flicking Odie's nose into the future. It's a joke. Just as Garfield isn't really abusing Odie, nor is Guy threatening to murder, or even depicting the murder of anyone. The sooner some here get a grip on reality, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If anyone is interested in my preferences, they are that any and all comments that could be broadly interpreted as trolling, personal comments or baiting receive zero responses of any kind. I don't want anyone to defend me -- my block log speaks for itself[11] -- nor do I intend to defend myself (my previous responses were before I realized what I was dealing with here). If anyone ever has a serious complaint about my behavior, I suggest that you ask me about it on my talk page, and if that does not satisfy you, go to WP:DRR, scroll down to the section on "Dispute Resolution Requests (user conduct)", pick an appropriate venue, and file a complaint. Remember, responding just encourages them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal to do something concrete.

I've suggested several times that we attempt to put together some clear guidelines for the behavior and etiquette for answering questions here.

Each time, the discussion gets derailed very rapidly.

I'd like to suggest that we put together a SMALL group of representative and experienced ref-desk regulars here (perhaps 5 people?) to go off someplace off-list and put together a clear, clean set of guidelines that can be brought back here as the basis of a concrete discussion. Then we can limit ourselves to asking "What's wrong with rule 27(b)?" rather than launching off in random directions.

I don't particularly want to be one of that initial group - but I'd be prepared to do so if enough people wanted me to.

I'm not sure how to get that started...how about nominations and seconders? You can't nominate or second yourself.

Please respond with:

• Oppose (I don't want a group like this to come up with a proposal for new rules)
• Nominate: (username)
• Second: (username)
• No Thanks (username) (I am (username) and I don't want to do it, despite being nominated).

SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nominate: Medeis SteveBaker (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second: Medeis ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, per WP:CREEP, WP:NORULES, etc. Also, I no longer think our problems are due to lack of rules/guidelines. If everyone here followed WP:HERE, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HUMAN, WP:BRD, and WP:DICK, then we'd be fine. Of course, that's just my interpretation of those guidelines ;) - that said I would participate and offer positive, constructive criticism to newly proposed rules if this gains consensus and is brought to fruition. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right - if everyone followed those rules, and if we all agreed on how they should be interpreted in this context - then we wouldn't need any more rules. WP:CREEP doesn't say that you can't create new rules - only that you can't do so needlessly - and if you actually read that guideline, you'll see that it directs us to do what I'm proposing ((1)Solving an actual problem, (2)Doing it clearly (3)Doing it with community consensus). WP:NORULES says that you can (occasionally) break a rule if that makes the encyclopedia better - and that would (of course) apply here.

  But when things go as badly wrong as they have been for the last year or so, some people benefit from a clearer statement of the implications of the big picture rules that guides Wikipedia in general. Take, for example, the way we handle trolling. Deriving the best way to handle trolls from those very basic Wikipedia rules isn't easy. There are many possible interpretations that you can take away from them. That results in multiple approaches to handling them, which by my count includes:

  • hatting the entire thread
  • hatting the answers
  • hatting the question
  • deleting the thread
  • deleting the thread - but only if there are no answers yet
  • deleting the just the answers
  • deleting the just question
  • ignoring the question
  • seeking an admin to handle the matter
  • providing simple, factual, boring answers
  • insulting the troll
  • posting jokes about the troll
  • discussing the troll here on the talk page
  • not discussing the troll anywhere
  • using a template to identify trolling threads

  Not one of these 15 alternatives can be clearly identified as "The Right Approach" from those core principles that you identify (although some can certainly be rejected). Yet without a uniform, standard way to identify and handle trolls, we're going to continue to feed them and collect more of them. So, I maintain that we need to sit down and decide what the best common-sense approach to trolling is that is compatible with the core Wikipedia principles - but provides a simple interpretation for everyone to follow, so we don't have 15 different approaches, applied patchily and with massive disagreement. That disagreement distracts from the work we do here and feeds those trolls with precisely the weird 'kick' they get from trolling us. Similar problems arise with people adding jokes and sarcastic replies to threads...with how we handle medical and legal questions. The core principles don't tell us what to do in any of those situations - and if we wish to have a peaceful, friendly and productive set of Ref Desks, then (sadly) we DO need more rules...and we (mostly) shouldn't be ignoring them. SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My response to your bit on trolling is already expressed in my opposition post further down, SteveBaker. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 12:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose on transparency grounds. I don't think that what we need is a small group to go off in private and propose new rules. If I see the names and agree that it is the right list of names, I may strike my oppose. I agree in principle with SemanticMantis that we shouldn't need more detailed rules and guidelines, but we obviously do, because the generality of the general rules seems to clash with the strong feelings of some editors. Weak oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposal is not that this group of editors set rules that everyone must obey. The idea is that they draft a set of (hopefully) reasonable rules. Then we can seek consensus to either adopt those rules, or amend them and adopt the amended version...or of course completely fail to adopt anything whatever. There is no lack of transparency. The problem is that in a group of a couple of dozen people, it's very hard to get some coherent vision put together without getting side-tracked. My hope is that a small group can stay focussed long enough to put out a set of guidelines that can at least be discussed at a concrete level. SteveBaker (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support as willing to try just about anything at this point. Fear of failure has resulted in paralysis, and we need to get out of the habit of responding to every proposal by searching for reasons why it won't work (they are always there to find). If we have to try ten things to find one that improves things even a little, then let this be number 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Nominate: SteveBaker ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second: SteveBaker. A deep understanding of Wikipedia policies and the reasoning behind them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nominate: Robert McClenon ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second: Robert McClenon. He has been a thoughtful and calming influence at WP:DRN and there is every reason to believe that he will do the same here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nominate: SemanticMantis ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second: SemanticMantis if you guys decide to do this though I'm opposed to this whole thing. Semantic seems to have displayed the best understanding, out of most people here, about the actual problems and also has displayed a much better understanding than most here about how trolls operate. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nominate: Abecedare ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The current rules are fine, there is no disruption on any of the boards except this talk page, and the notion that some subcommittee would choose new rules among themselves is counter to policy. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, read what I actually wrote. This small group PROPOSES a set of rules - when we have some set of rules, the whole group can discuss and we can try to seek consensus. I am absolutely not proposing that a small group imposes rules on anyone. SteveBaker (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Think Senate subcommittee, if you're American. If you're not, think something equivalent. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Um, you do realize that the US congressional subcommittee process is not universally thought of as a good thing, right? There are complaints that the head of the subcommittee has near-dictatorial control over the agenda of the subcommittee and thus which bills are presented to the full congress, and that regular members have little ability to amend/influence the contents of that legislation after presentation. Throw in allegations that bills are actually written by whatever special interest group has the subcommittee chair in their pocket, and you have a view which doesn't find the subcommittees very representative. - I'm not saying that that would happen here, but I'm guessing once a completed proposal - any proposal - is made, some will present it as a fait accompli and arguments on accepting/rejecting it will include "We must do something. This is something. We must do it." and "Why are you rejecting this? You're just an obstructionist! (And secretly helping the trolls, perhaps?)" - Saying this, I also realize people will now swear up and down that it won't be the case *this time*, and then will be completely underwhelmed by the irony if it actually does. Oh, well. I just wanted to articulate why people might not be convinced by the argument that the elite subcommitte "just proposes" a plan, and views accepting a subcommittee as equivalent to accepting whatever proposal they come up with. -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely agree with SemanticMantis (I nominate him if it is to go ahead, although I don't support the proposal per se). Happy with the team as suggested so far. Constructive suggestion, but can we at least wait until @Dweller:'s process has run its course? It looks like the best way forward. IBE (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per SemanticMantis's reasons, and strongly suggest once again that if you guys do this that those involved do their due diligence before writing any guidelines about trolling and I would be vehemently opposed to anything else as it would be both written out of ignorance and incorrect. The basic starter information can be found be at https://encyclopedia dramatica.se/Troll (you'll have to remove the space to use it, and a warning that it is NSFW as there are porn ads on the side that can be blocked with a script-blocker, and there are pop-ups every now and then so have a pop-up blocker on) and then individual notable cases of trolling can be researched from there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the alleged problems are way exaggerated (especially so by non-participants), and that the core dispute remains just exactly what constitutes professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Intellectual jousting is all that we are really discussing. I think it is highly unlikely that we are going to formulate effective procedures for responding to posts that are to some degree seen as not on the level. The best procedure in my opinion is to engage in tentative dialogue with an entity posting such an inquiry. Furthermore it is not all that important that we respond properly to the extremes of such posts. What really concerns us is the middle ground of these sorts of posts. These would be the inquiries we have not conclusively determined to be problematic but about which we are suspicious. One suggestion that I would offer is that at the top of each Reference page we include mild language that suggests that it might be helpful if the person posing an inquiry remain available for further dialogue in order that we can tailor our responses to the needs of those posting the inquiries. This alone may help to weed out the number of spurious requests for information. We need to be wary of inquiries that seem to be off-color in any way. We don't have to be nasty but anything that raises a red flag warrants further clarification in the form of follow-up questions. In other words we should want to put the burden of legitimacy on the person posing a questionable inquiry. I think that many of us ask legitimate questions but that we don't state them clearly. The dialogue that I am recommending not only addresses the trolls that we are discussing but also those that we are really here to assist. Rarely can one question at the top of a thread be appropriately addressed by twenty responses beneath it without any further input from the original entity posing the question. The banter can be fun and productive for us but strictly speaking we should be guided by the requests of the person posing the original inquiry as well as their refined formulations of their original question. These should be available further down in the thread and we should encourage that. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not the first to oppose this attempt to formulate solutions because you already know the solutions. Sadly, there is little agreement among that group. If only we could identify the one truly wise one among you, we could turn over control of the whole thing to him or her and we'd be done. My suggestion (and request) to you, and the others, would be to put your ideas into a concrete and concise proposal, and I think such a proposal should be given a chance to work. We can try only one thing at a time, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We should be encouraging dialogue between those fielding the question and those posing the question. More such dialogue is called for. A dearth of give-and-take speech leaves us vulnerable to carefully worded questions that lead us off on a wild-goose-chase. And even legitimate questions benefit from close interaction with those attempting to provide assistance. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's a statement of general refdesk philosophy, not a concrete and concise proposal. To deal with actual real-world situations in a somewhat consistent manner, we need something more specific, and in a separate section. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Steve actually has a very good point about a smaller group getting less side tracked. Even with good intentions, it is nearly impossible to keep a large group on point without an administrator or meeting leader (but that is not the wiki way!). So I'm beginning to come around to the notion that a "sub committee" would indeed be a good way to draft content. Of course such a proposal would go through standard procedures of consensus before adoption. However, even if I change my !vote to support - there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus in favor. On the other hand, if any three or five users want to get together to draft policy content, they don't need consensus to do that, though it would probably help the chances of eventual reform. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Could it be that the problem is us? If we are the problem, we should be discussing how we could better man (or woman) the Reference desks. We should refuse to entertain absentee inquiries. That could almost be software-controlled. All questions without further input from the OP (original poster) after a preset measure of response is automatically removed. A troll has increasing difficulty maintaining the appearance of legitimacy with each additional post that they make. Also we should not be guessing what the question might be. We should see it as our role to try to clarify questions. That may mean asking the OP if they are specifically asking about ABC or if their interest is in XYZ more generally. The OP has to be present to engage in ongoing dialogue. The alternative is that we go off on tangents discussing among ourselves a variety of interesting topics but not necessarily what even the most on-the-level OP might have been asking about. A troll is someone who is pulling your leg. But that phenomenon cannot be indefinitely sustained. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: OP followup: While it's nice and preferable to get followup info and a dialogue with OPs, I don't think we should demand that. At least a few of us believe that part of the value of the ref desks is to build a "database" of Q and A and references. Since WP has high pagerank, ref desk hits actually come up pretty often if you type a similar question in to google. My point is, even if an OP writes the question, walks away, and never reads any answers or gives any feedback, that question and responses can still be useful to other people, present and future. I think you're right though, the problems are indeed at least in part due to us, as a whole. I would like to get a bigger pool of regular respondents, and encourage our legions of lurkers to start helping out too. But that's a topic for a different day... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We need not "demand" but we can suggest the advisability of would-be questioners to try to remain available in case respondents wish clarification of the question being posed. At the top of each Reference desk are a series of bullet-points, to which such a suggestion could be added. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Per SemanticMantis, you don't need consensus to go write a draft, but don't expect me to legitimize it before I even read it. The main issue though is that I see the attempts to do rules enforcement here as the main source of the disruption. Wnt (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is to legitimize before reading, but rather to let the community suggest a pool of qualified/respected members of the group. Let's be honest, there are certain groups of 3-5 editors that I would generally trust to come up with something reasonable that would qualify as a good starting point, and other groups that I would not. I assume the same goes for most regulars who have been around long enough to form opinions on the general temperament and skills of other regulars. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right - we clearly don't need any kind of permission to get together a bunch of people to group-write a proposal. But the problem is that a spontaneously formed group would likely be comprised of like-minded people with a common set of ideas - resulting in a set of proposals that would be unacceptable to far too many people. I was hoping that this approach I've been suggesting here would result in a more balanced group with a wider mix of views - and thereby result in a more widely-acceptable set of proposals. I don't expect anyone to "legitimize" anything before we see that proposal. It's been said at least three or four times already: The idea here is to come up with a coherent set of proposals - the full group here would have to discuss, possibly amend, and possibly reject whatever the small group came up with. SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I take your point. A group of e.g. you, me, medeis and Robert would have to come to terms with many different viewpoints than a self-selected group would. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And it's not hard to imagine that if a diverse group like that could come up with set of clean guidelines for respondents, that it would be more likely to be acceptable to the wider community. Of course, getting to a set of guidelines that a group like that could agree on would be tough - but at least the discussion could be tightly focussed and goal-directed and not generate the mountains of bad feelings and attendant upset that yet another round of debate will inevitably cause here. It's no accident that my nomination was for Medeis - who I probably disagree with more than anyone else here. I really want to see that diversity of opinion. SteveBaker (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

She has my second. Do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Wnt: To pick apart your objection...

  you don't need consensus to go write a draft -- indeed...but see above.

  but don't expect me to legitimize it before I even read it. -- that was never part of the proposal here. I'm asking the community to suggest a good sub-committee to come up with some better rules - whatever they'd come up with would still be up for community discussion, amendment, or outright rejection.

  The main issue though is that I see the attempts to do rules enforcement here as the main source of the disruption. -- I take slight issue with this comment. The problem lies with attempts to enforce an imagined set of hypothetical rules that are not widely agreed upon..."unwritten rules". My contention is that if we had a set of consensus-driven rules that provided clear definitions of infractions AND what we agree is an appropriate reaction to those infractions - then people who take joy in enforcing those rules will go from being a pain in the butt to being heroes who patrol the pages and enforce the rules. Conversely, people who insist on 'firing from the hip' and taking actions that are not community-sanctioned would be in clear violation of our guidelines - and could be dealt with accordingly.

  SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• A completely reasonable proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Proposed guidelines for Reference Desk

Should the following guidelines be implemented by local consensus at the Reference Desks?

A. Hatting of posts and threads

A. Original posts (questions) and threads (original posts followed by responses) shall not be hatted.

Survey

• Support as proposer Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Hatting a discussion is the equivalent of the Streisand effect at the ref desks: it draws attention unnecessarily to that which was ostensibly inappropriate in the first place. --Jayron32 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Hatting draws attention to the content, which on any view is the last thing we should be doing. Tevildo (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've always disliked this option. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support But needs qualification. I hatted one the other day because it had been moved to another refdesk. A comment at the end stated that it had been moved, but I felt that wouldn't be enough to prevent continuation of the old thread. Removal would have been the wrong move since a pointer to the new location was needed for the OP and earlier responders. There is occasionally a good reason for a hat. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove and use {{Moved discussion to}} to provide the pointer. NE Ent 10:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Hatting seems pointless to me. If you want it gone, delete it if not...then leave it alone. Hatting of "evil" content is also likely to evoke a curiosity that will probably result in MORE people reading it, not less. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Hatting of questions, whether appropriate or inappropriate, has been found to be ineffective, and in fact encourages trolling. Note that, as written, this rule is binding not only on general editors but also on administrators. There is never a need to hat original posts or whole threads. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Occasionally, it's useful to use some form of boxing to hide a large amount of text. It might be an idea to recommend a suitable template for this, with the essential caveat that only the person posting the text can employ it. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd support that - when the hatting is simply collapsing a section that people won't really be interested in...and done by the person doing the posting...and with a clear reason and/or summary of the content that's inside the hat...then that ought to be OK. SteveBaker (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question. Is this proposal only about hatting per se which collapses the discussion, e.g. {{Hidden archive top}}, {{hat}}, and {{collapse top}} or is it intended to also include those forms of closure which put the discussion in a box and advise not to modify it, e.g. {{discussion top}} and {{Archive top}}? If just about the collapsing ones, is it intended that the other two be allowed? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was primarily referring to true hatting, which collapses the discussion, which has in the past been an approach to troll questions and to irrelevant discussion. Putting the discussion in an open box with the advice not to modify it is not a common practice at the Reference Desk. I have no objection to doing that if the original question has been answered and there is side discussion, but some other editors may object to that practice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I really feel that this is a good example of the disadvantages of hatting. (Do I comment on who did it? Perhaps it's not necessary). I've changed the message to something less - prominent. Tevildo (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

B. Deletion of posts and threads

B. Original posts (questions) and threads (original posts followed by responses) shall not be deleted, except by administrators, unless the original post is a duplicate, is incomprehensible (e.g., not in English), or is not a question.

Survey

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• I won't support or oppose, so count me as neutral for the following reason: I am very uncomfortable granting any power to administrators that is not tied to the use of their tools, which we do not grant to the everyone. If an editor can do it then they should be allowed to do it, unless we specifically ban someone. That's how Wikipedia has, does, and should always work. It's an open community, and I don't like rules that grant a special class of people special privileges, excepting those privileges tied to the toolsets they have been granted (like admins, stewards, etc.) That all being said, the reason that I won't oppose either is that I begrudgingly realize that something has to be done here to establish some order, and frankly, I don't see any other possible solution the regulars here have the stomach for. That all being said, the best you'll get out of me is "I won't oppose this." And I'm still not comfortable saying that, but accept that it's probably the best we will do. Sorry for the long "vote" but I felt the need to fully explain myself. --Jayron32 00:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. See earlier threads for further comments. We need to allow for the fact that admins are not perfect, and some method (not necessarily formalized) of questioning deletions will be needed - we may also want to allow people to delete their own posts. However, the basic principle of non-admin deletion being prohibited should have a very positive impact on the situation. Tevildo (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Not "per nom", since the proposer didn't give any rationale for me to agree with. The best WP:DENY we can deliver is no response at all, including removal. We should minimize the size of the hole created by the very vague word "incomprehensible". It says "not in English", but it also says "e.g." ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Um... - I agree that posts shall not normally be deleted - but I don't agree about the automatic presumption of deletion of "not in English" and especially not with "not a question". The latter is easily misinterpreted and might result in certain editors deleting things that are clearly asking for information but where the OP simply didn't phrase it very well. A polite "What exactly is your question here?" is often enough. SteveBaker (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Too rigid in all aspects
  1. There are questions that I would unhesitatingly, and I believe uncontroversially, delete that fall outside the listed categories (won't spell out per WP:BEANS, but think BLP, threats, etc).
  2. Also as Steve points out we should make a best-effort attempt to answer good-faith queries even if they are not posed in English rather than blindly delete them; the appropriate response may well be just politely saying that we are unable to help (and I have responded more substantively in the past). Also we shouldn't delete an OP post, "My friend said that galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light" just because they forgot to add "How is that possible?" in the end. This is not Jeopardy!.
  3. As Jayron explains above (and, has argued previously) limiting actions that other editors are fully capable of carrying out to admins alone, is not a good idea. If certain editors are deleting/hatting discussions inappropriately, compile evidence and restrict them, rather than restricting the whole class of regular wiki volunteers.

So while I understand (and share) the motivation behind this proposal I believe it is too rigidly prescriptive about what should be delete; what cannot to delete; and who can delete. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose per Abecedare. Too prescriptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This "If an editor can do it then they should be allowed to do it, unless we specifically ban someone" idea keeps popping up, but that's not how Wikipedia works. For example, anyone here can replace the signature on this post with their own, but that does not imply that they should be allowed to do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that a neutral concern has been stated by an administrator evidently in response to the phrase "except by administrators". I didn't say, but mainly intended, that this would have to do with the occasional need for admins to do the super-deletion of redaction, which is an administrative tool, in response to purely disruptive material, etc. Maybe a closer can take this into account in April. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• An editor says that if other editors are hatting or deleting discussions inappropriately, a list should be compiled and they should be reported. My reason for proposing this guideline, and I am willing to consider an alternate guideline against deletions, is that, in my opinion, there is a considerable amount of inappropriate deleting, but it doesn't violate any specific rule. That is why I think we need a rule. If we want to drop the admin exception, that is all right with me. Admins will still be able, based on higher policy, to redact purely disruptive material. However, what we currently have is that some editors do a lot of hatting and deleting, and other editors think it is inappropriate, but there is no rule that says not to do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

C. Non-permitted questions

C. Original posts (questions) that request medical or legal advice may be answered only with statements that Wikipedia does not give medical or legal advice. Responses that give medical or legal advice may be hatted or deleted. Original posts that appear to be homework questions may be answered with statements that Wikipedia does not assist with homework, and with pointers to appropriate articles.

Survey

• Support as proposer. This merely restates existing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if and only if we strike the "hatting" part. Questions that ask for medical/legal advice should get the boilerplate and be left alone. Any responses except the boilerplate "we don't do that here" template should be deleted. --Jayron32 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. See below. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support strike "hatting." Hipocrite (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this is long-standing policy here - and it is enshrined in our guidelines. Worth mentioning Kainaw's criterion. SteveBaker (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose as redundant. What does ths add that is not in the current guideline? The problem, as I see it, is not that many editors disagree with this in principle, but that editors in good-faith disagree about what constitutes asking/giving medical or legal advice. Example, solely for illustration and thought (please do not discuss this any further as part of this RFC): did this question/discussion cross the line because the OP is clearly talking about himself and mentioned disorder; responses mentioned Asperger syndrome and many psychological disorders? Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Mild Support - Sounds perfectly sensible in most situations. Eman235/talk 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• As I see it, there are two issues with this proposal as it stands. Most importantly, it's in conflict with A and B above, as it allows both hatting and non-admin deletion. I would support the proposal if "hatted or deleted" were changed to "deleted by administrators". Secondly, the wording of the current guideline is "medical, legal or other professional advice", and what counts as "other professional" advice is a matter of disagreement which it's not appropriate to discuss in this RFC. For the moment, I would recommend adding the "other professional" to the proposal so that it is aligned to the current guideline. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• This appears to disagree with A and B in allowing non-admin hatting and deletion. It is not in conflict, because this has to do with the hatting or deletion of responses, and A and B have to do with the hatting and deletion of original posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I've updated my opinion accordingly. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

D. Hatting and deletion of responses

D. Responses to original posts (questions) shall not be hatted or deleted, except by administrators, unless they provide medical or legal advice, are duplicates, are incomprehensible (e.g., not in English), or are unambiguously not responsive to the original question.

Survey

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if and only if we drop the exceptions. If we're going to do this (and see above for my explanation why I am still uncomfortable with this) then we need to go whole hog. Again, not happy to have to do this, but I don't see any other way. --Jayron32 00:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support if not outright prevented. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated. I would support this if it simply read "Responses to original posts shall not be deleted except by administrators" with no further caveats or exceptions. Tevildo (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose still a wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I wish it wasn't needed, and it wouldn't be needed if a small handful of regulars simply stopped doing things that invariably lead to criticism and pushback, but that is clearly not going to happen, and thus this proposed rule, while not perfect, is far better than what we are doing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support...mostly. There are perhaps a few other corner cases for deletion (eg WP:BLP violations, WP:NLT and WP:NPA) - but your sentiment here is correct.) SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - What SteveBaker said. Eman235/talk 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 'Does "It's a wiki" mean that anyone should be permitted to delete anything? If so, this goes against very many Wikipedia concepts, and may be a misreading of the concept of a wiki. If it doesn't mean that anyone can delete anything, then can the objection be clarified? (Comment to future closer: If this really means that anyone should be able to delete anything, then please take that into account in considering strength of arguments.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Needs copyediting, since as written the proposal implies that anybody can delete responses that "provide medical or legal advice..." and that administrators are not even so restricted. I believe the intended proposal is:

Responses to original posts (questions) shall not be hatted or deleted, unless they provide medical or legal advice, are duplicates, are incomprehensible (e.g., not in English), or are unambiguously not responsive to the original question. Only (uninvolved?) administrators may make such deletions

I have mixed feelings about the proposal itself, although the "not responsive to the original question" addresses a major concern I had Proposal B. And I can see that if one removes the "Only administrators may make such deletions", the proposal will lose all its teeth, so I am conflicted enough not to support/oppose at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable guess as to what I meant, but that is not what I meant. I meant that uninvolved editors, whether admin or not, could delete medical or legal advice, duplicate answers, incomprehensible answers, or answers that were clearly out of place. I meant that admins could use the admin tool to redact purely disruptive material. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I indeed misunderstood your intended meaning (as I guess did some of the other readers). I would suggest simply removing the "except by administrators" part, since the power/responsibility to revdel, and the circumstances under they may do so, is defined by wikipedia-wide policy and cannot be granted/removed by local consensus in any case. As for the rest, I support this proposal. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Other

Reserved for threaded discussion of other issues about Reference Desk behavior not covered above. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion before threaded discussion

This is RFC useful - but I think it only scratches the surface of our problem here. We're not only concerned with hatting and deletion. The issues of how we handle tolling, how we deal with poor-english posters, how we handle respondents who put crappy jokes in as answers without small-fonting them, whether we require a reference in every answer, whether individual editors are allowed to take on the role of quasi-admins...there are a TON of questions here. IMHO, we need to create a new, comprehensive set of "GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDENTS" that covers the entire spectrum of response patterns here. Simply saying "NO! You can't hat trolls" simply begs the question of how we actually do handle trolls. Many people when faced with your questions, above are going to say "What? You're removing any defense against trolls?!" - when what is truly needed is a step-by-step guideline for the identification and handling of trolls that incidentally says "Don't hat them"...or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree that we need detailed guidelines, and I supported efforts to develop such guidelines, but that effort seemed to be getting nowhere, possibly because those guidelines had to use common-sense phrases such as "usually" or "in general", and efforts to advance those discussions didn't seem to be working. I welcome efforts to write more general guidelines, for which these, if adopted, can serve as a part. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The larger the proposal, the harder it is to reach consensus; that's axiomatic at Wikipedia. I welcome these little steps as an experiment to see if we're capable of making any progress at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Mandruss. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who thinks that additional rules or alternative wordings for the proposed rules would be in order may add them with another RFC, and possibly call them E or B1 or C2 or whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Oh, look, another RFC insisting on the right to tell shitty jokes on the RefDesk! Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the concept of "It's a wiki" and how that doesn't guarantee the right to tell bad jokes. (This is not meant to be a wise-crack, but if anyone is allowed to delete anything, then isn't anyone also allowed to add anything? I may misunderstand. If so, please explain.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Other other

This is doomed, as have been all the other discussions relating to poor behaviour on the ref desks. Those who behave poorly and inconsiderately have sufficient backing for their approach. Those who object don't have sufficient backing to gain a community consensus otherwise. That means the status quo remains and those of us who believe we are responsible Wikipedia editors should continue to advise anyone who will listen that much of the bad behaviour at the ref desks should be overlooked in the hope that they will see the nuggets of proper cited ref desk info amongst the plethora of personal opinion, inside jokes and IP-hounding and IP-biting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

68.102.58.146

Resolved

68.102.58.146 (talk · contribs) has asked the same question at least three or four times, and refuses to take the advice given. Should anything be done about this? Several users are getting a bit exasperated. (And by the way, he's already been blocked a couple of times for this kind of thing.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The question should not have been engaged here in the first place, since refdesks are not for questions about why Wikipedia articles have not been created. They should have been directed to the Teahouse, a place specifically designed for handling clueless people. If they persisted here, it would be handled as disruptive editing. Now that we have thoroughly muddied the issue by mishandling it, the best we can do is reset, apologize to the user, and start over from square one. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I've never heard of this "Teahouse", maybe you could explain that better to the user. As for apologizing, he has been told several times to take his request to the article creation request page, which he even said he would do, and yet came back with the same question again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 19 March 2015 UTC)

WP:TEAHOUSE is basically a Help Desk designed to be especially friendly and tolerant with newer users. It's handled by editors who have limitless patience and say things like, "Hi! Welcome to the Teahouse!!".

He has been told several times to go elsewhere, but his question was also engaged multiple times by at least two users including Jayron. That sent a very mixed message, which is what I meant by "muddied the issue". He should have been advised once to go elsewhere, maybe twice, and subsequent posts here should have been met with disruptive editing warnings on his talk page, along with repeats of the advice to go elsewhere. As the last resort, ANI. Basically we created our own nightmare through our own lack of self-discipline. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He wanted to know how to get the article created. His options are to go to the page where you ask for articles to be created, or to create an account and do it himself. He has been told several times to take one of those options. He was blocked twice in December for exactly the same behavior, so a warning is likely to fall on deaf ears. I was going to take it to ANI, but I decided to get some input here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, he already went to that Teahouse, two days ago,[12] and still keeps coming back with the same question. You're saying the Teahouse is for the clueless. Where do you send a user who's too clueless for the Teahouse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Was the process I described above followed? No. Hence the problem. It's that simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He was told multiple times about the two options he has, but he refuses to do either one. It's that simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is not a single warning on his talk page about disruptive editing at a refdesk. Instead, you just keep arguing with him here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you had actually looked at his talk page, you would see that he already knows how to request article creation, and that he has received multiple warnings for disruption of various kinds. He has likewise been directly challenged many times on the various ref desks and at the Teahouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to seek a temp block for disruption at the refdesks, you need a history of warnings about disruption at the refdesks. That's not there. In my experience this is most often in the form of user talk page warning messages produced by the templates listed at WP:WARN, not by comments at refdesks. If you think the other warnings are enough to seek a block, then go seek a block. A short block is often the only way to get through to people with a hearing problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already turned him in at AIV. If you think he's not been sufficiently warned, go talk to Jayron. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that will be declined because of no history of "clear vandalism", which is what is required at the top of WP:AIV. He has 3 vandalism warnings: one that is three months old and stale, and two that were mislabeled as vandalism by the same editor. If I'm not mistaken, clear vandalism requires clear malicious intent. Needs to go to WP:ANI for disruptive editing if anywhere, I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Stale"? It's the same guy. I think what he's up to is that one of his article requests got turned down at the article creation page, so he doesn't expect that to work. Instead, he hopes to pester someone into creating the article for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we sanction people for things they did three months prior. Anyway, you cited disruption in your report, and disruptive editing is not vandalism and is not what they handle at AIV. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What they handle at AIV depends on the competence of the particular admin who happens to work on it at any given moment. Some of them take a careful look at the situation and make a wise decision. Others are too lazy to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The next logical step is ANI, but I would rather get some consensus here on how to handle it and hopefully avoid ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be no question about seeking consensus about how to handle this. The larger consensus for all parts of Wikipedia is already clear, and was expressed quite well by Mandruss:

"He should have been advised once to go elsewhere, maybe twice, and subsequent posts here should have been met with disruptive editing warnings on his talk page, along with repeats of the advice to go elsewhere."

We don't need consensus. We already have it. We need the discipline to follow the larger consensus that already exists instead of some of us deciding to answer, others deciding to hat or delete, and others arguing about the actions of the first two groups. This is also known as "how we screw up the handling of disruptive questioners again and again, never learning from how poorly it worked the last dozen times". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, he's created an account and is now happily taking care of his own business without bothering anyone else anymore. Can we consider this done, since he's not trying to make work for anyone and is now working in good faith to make Wikipedia better? He's doing good work, and no longer being a pain in the ass. There's really no need for us to keep discussing his behavior when he's moved on, taken our advice, and is no longer being trouble. --Jayron32 14:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hallelujah! I have withdrawn the AIV complaint. AIV is pretty well backlogged at the moment, so one less item won't hurt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That is, resolved until the next guy like him comes along, since it appears nothing has been accomplished in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing has been accomplished, and you deserve credit for it: some of us have been introduced to / reminded of the Teahouse, which looks to be able to substantially better apply WP:AGF and actually help people than the RD's currently are. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So shut down the ref desks and send everyone to the Teahouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron's right that we don't need to discuss the OP's behavior further, but I'd like to say a few more words about our own. Here are some words and phrases I think we shouldn't be using much in cases like this:

• "clueless"
• "disruptive"
• "vandalism"
• "refuses to take the advice given"
• "I've turned him in at AIV"
• "He might be from the part of Kansas where they can write but can't read"

When someone seems to be confused, or overly excited, or to be having trouble accepting our advice, or whatever, here are some of the things we might assume (in no particular order):

• they're only barely familiar with computers
• their first language is not English
• they're having trouble with their web browser
• they've never edited Wikipedia before
• they don't understand Wikipedia jargon
• they read that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
• they haven't discovered where our replies to their queries are
• they're under 10 years of age
• they're over 70 years of age
• they have a short attention span
• they're used to exchanges of at most 140 characters each
• they're mentally or emotionally challenged in some way

But here are some things we should not leap to assume (also in no particular order, other than that they're waaaay below everything on the previous list):

• they're a troll
• they're deliberately wasting our time
• they're ignoring our advice
• they're causing a problem
• they're vandalizing Wikipedia
• they're causing a problem that something must be done to correct

I'll grant that 68.102.58.146's behavior might have seemed strange or annoying. But why were several people so quick to assume bad faith, to accuse him of disruption, to escalate to AIV? Why, especially given all the recent suggestions right here on this talk page, couldn't people simply have ignored the fellow if they didn't feel like helping him further?

There seems to me to have been a lack of AGF here. And quite aside from the disregard for a core Wikipedia principle, this is also quite contrary to the interests of the Reference Desks. It's been accurately observed that one of our problems is a decline in the number of good, engaging questions. Now, why would a newcomer (other than perhaps a real troll) want to ask a question on the RD's today, if it's so clear that this is how they might be treated? --Steve Summit (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"So quick"? This kind of thing has been going on with that user since December. I'm glad he finally took somebody's advice, over 3 months later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we please try to stay on topic?

Among the many reasons that almost none of the discussion on this page has gotten anywhere is that the following pattern keeps happening:

1. Person A makes a serious point and invites agreement (or disagreement)
2. Person B or C immediately replies with an inflammatory comment which is almost (but not quite) completely unrelated to A's point
3. The reply in (2) being inflammatory, a horde of people jump on it, either agreeing or disagreeing, but in any case absolutely ensuring that
4. The original point in (1) is now completely obscured, and no one ends up responding to it at all.

So please, let's not do this, and if it keeps happening, we may have to find an acceptable way of refactoring the 2-3 subthread so that point (1) is clearly left open for discussion. --Steve Summit (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's part of the reason for the subcommittee. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The core problem is the lack of good faith shown to established editors. Too often, these discussions begin with "What are we going to do about [user]?" rather than "What are we going to do about contentious issues - such as how to identify and handle requests for professional advice?" When it starts by attacking someone or some ones, naturally those attacked will defend. And it goes downhill from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll post this here, but someone can move it elsewhere if necessary. We currently have 169 live question on the ref desks at this time, with few or no hats, and some contested deletions that are abnormal, so I will ignore them. I again assert that there is no real problem on the desks, but just as Rob alluded to, my opinion that this page is the real problem. We have the phrase in American politics, a "do-nothing congress", as if that were a bad thing. But murder and treason and counterfeiting and assault and criminal negligence and practicing medicine without a license are all already illegal. Sometimes congress doesn't need to do anything. Just implementing rule creep for the sake of rule creep is not progress, it's regress. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ask your doctor about X: medical advice?

I'm wondering about this edit [13] from the question on the Humanities desk "Teens more intelligent?":

See your general practitioner. Things they can test for like a thyroid deficiency can make you quite slow.

I'm not objecting to the "See your general practitioner" per se, I'm just concerned that suggesting a particular condition ("like a thyroid deficiency") that wasn't specifically mentioned by the original questioner might cross the line into "diagnosis", and thus runs afoul of the guidelines against providing medical advice. I thought I'd post here to see if there was a general consensus one way or the other about it. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• A few years back, we used to completely remove such questions and replace them with the boilerplate template {{RD-deleted}}. We stopped doing this because it upset some users who would rather play doctor by giving unreferenced medical advice than actually doing what is just and proper. I'd like to see us go back to removing the question and simply leaving the boilerplate again. --Jayron32 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the question itself is borderline at worst. Yes, the questioner involves their own situation with it, but at it's core it's a medical information question rather than a medical advice question. I think Abecedare's response [14] is perfect in that respect: it answers the core medical information question with a reliable source, explicitly avoiding going off into the questioner's personal situation. I think (hope) that the questioner would be satisfied by that "authoritative", general response. - I think the issue comes up more with answers "rising to the bait" and potentially crossing the line into medical advice when the question might merely skirt it, rather than necessarily being an issue with the question per se. I wonder if that's the reason consensus can't be reached: instead of discussing what to do about problematic responses, everyone is bickering over whether or not to remove the borderline questions which "caused" them. Or to put it another way, we spend so much time on debating how to address what *they* do wrong, that we completely ignore fixes for what *we* do wrong. Lots of ink has been spilled on what to do about medical advice questions, but relatively little on what to do about medical advice answers. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As Jayron knows perfectly well, we stopped removing questions because people disagreed over what constituted a request for medical advice. Even in the case of questions worded as explicit advice seeking, there has always been a way around it, just giving references and putting a boilerplate. There were few of us who wanted to play doctor, although there may have been people doing this who were uninvolved in the discussion. We don't need your flippant summaries, please Jayron. IBE (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave references, not diagnoses or advice. Except "Ask your doctor". That was unreferenced. But it's a good idea to get some ideas of what might be causing a symptom before you ask a doctor. They're busy, and often don't have the time to consider much more than what they're already thinking before sending you off. Never hurts to ask "What about x?" InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So yet another serious proposal dies.

My last proposal to get something done about the mess that is "problem handling" here on the reference desks failed (to my utter amazement) on a 2:7 !vote. I simply cannot understand the position of the opposers - and they are not responding to my clarifications of their objections.

So another (IMHO, reasonable) suggestion dies.

• Do people imagine that there are no problems here? Judging by the long string of complaints and arguments on the subject, I don't think that's a defensible position.
• Do people actually enjoy the rancor and debate? If so, then there are a lot more trolls out there than we thought!
• Do people seriously think that we're going to fix this problem piecemeal? I don't think that's likely...but if so, then we need to state the list of problems we have and start at the top of the list and work down, fixing each one individually. I can't see that happening.

My last proposal didn't even suggest a set of rules - just a way to draw up a set of draft rules for further debate...and even that got voted down!

I don't get it. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane person around here!

So what's it to be? With no guidelines about how we deal with trolls, inappropriate responses to questions and inappropriate questions - what should we do? In a lawless town, mob rule soon takes over. I see no reason not to get into the ref desks and simply do what the fuck I like - undoing more or less everything Medeis does - deleting Baseball Bugs' posts on sight. Whatever I, personally, feel is the right thing to do? Why not? A whole bunch of people around here seem to think that's OK.

Is this the kind of place we really want to work?

The volume of questions here has been spiralling down the drain - and when you eliminate the junk questions, decent content is vanishing even faster. I can see the death of this valuable service looming if we don't clean our act up and become a whole lot more professional. Yet even the simplest, and (I thought) least controversial proposal to improve things gets shot down in flames.

I just don't get it.

Well, don't say I didn't warn you all. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Read Jayron's comment in the section immediately above for some insight on why this never gets resolved. It's an endless loop, and will remain so until (or if) there is consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

But Jayron's advice won't be put to conensus !vote and written down as a guideline for the future - so operating practice will 'slip' just as it has been doing - and history is doomed to repeat itself. Jayron may or may not have the right idea (I think he has) - but unless it's a rule that we work that way, what's to stop people slipping back it.

Nobody (well, almost nobody) disagrees that offering medical advice is not allowed. That's because that's written down in our guidelines. But precisely how you deal with that was never formally decided - so you get people choosing to do the wrong thing. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

With this, I was trying to give some encouragement to the user. How do you figure that's "inappropriate"? Or did I assume too much good faith on the part of the OP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It falls contrary to my opinion of how medical questions (which this, IMHO, is) are to be handled. So I took matters into my own hands and reverted your post. There is nothing to say that I have to justify this position. Welcome to the new face of the reference desks. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is nothing to say that I will have to justify reverting your reversion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Steve, failing WP:BLP or some other reason like personal attacks, simply deleting posts as you did with InedibleHulk's here is way out of bounds. I see from the edit history you did this with four posts. I will leave it to others to handle, but I think this is way out of bounds. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:SteveBaker: Please read the essay on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point again, and explain either why you did that, or why your action was justified in deleting multiple answers. It appears to me that Steve, having failed to get a committee appointed to propose new rules for the Reference Desks, either decided that we don't have rules, or decided to show what the consequences are of not having rules. I don't think that anyone else, except maybe User:Hipocrite, who made the ambiguous comment "It's a wiki", which might mean "We don't need any rules", really thought that we don't have rules. I had been about to explain why I, in particular, opposed Steve's idea. I still will explain why I opposed it. However, I had not expected that Steve would become part of the problem that he was trying to address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki, so when things should be deleted, we delete them. If you want guidelines about when to delete things, feel free to base those guidelines on something. If you want policies, you will be unable to get the broad consensus require to enact a policy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The above comment by μηδείς/Medeis does not in any way respond to what SteveBaker wrote, instead complaining about his alleged misbehavior. This is the wrong page for posting such complaints, and I strongly suggest not responding to it under the basic principle that Responding to trolls in any way only encourages them. And yes, I do realize that I am in this comment responding to a troll. This will be my only comment on this, and I look forward to the day when all the good-faith editors automatically ignore trolling without being reminded. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I look forward to the day when you stop fantasizing about murdering other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, are you actually suggesting I should have started a whole nother thread on this? The above comments indicate the deletions well poorly received by more than one editor. I don't know how things work in your country, but in the US we judge acts on their merits, we don't declare people "criminals" and assert that their every act is trolling because they are trolls. I contribute a lot of good work here, and you contribute sniping, literally. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, Steve, your mistake with the subcommittee proposal was to ask for permission. If an individual doesn't need permission to bring a proposal, why should a group? You have nominations and seconds for four members, I don't see anyone flat out refusing their nomination, and even a subcommittee of three would probably be enough to develop a viable proposal. That idea isn't dead as far as I'm concerned. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you make a good point. I say SteveBaker should go ahead, make the best proposal you can, post it and read the objections, revise it if any of the objections are valid, then post it again. If the result is acceptable to most people, we all win. If it gets shot down, that just puts the final nail on the lid of the coffin showing that we cannot solve this and ANI cannot solve this, so it should go to arbcon. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, the more I think about it, I don't think the ref desk can really work substantially better (which is part of the reason I've moved on from spending a lot of time on it - and other things besides that too). There really isn't a way to codify how people should handle problems when it comes to more open ended dialog such as we have here - as opposed to article space, where it is easier to judge the merits of a contribution (in general). But, even if we came up with some lovely list of perfect methods and rules, and etc., I'm not sure what the end goal would be, from what I can tell, nothing really compels anyone to follow them, not in any hard way. There's major disagreement now over how certain people conduct themselves, yet none of the parties involved seem to be able to do anything about it, what would the final outcome of your idea be able to do to make people follow it? What prevents a handful of folk who don't like those ideas from becoming regulars and flagrantly ignoring it? The Wikipedia setup seems far more suited to dealing with encyclopedia style edits, as mentioned, they are easier to assess - whereas something along the lines of the ref desk would seem to function better with reasonable moderators in charge (people who can be trusted with that authority, etc.). Honestly, I really love the spirit, and idea, of what this section is supposed to be, but I don't think it can function much beyond where it is now, by the very nature of being a part of Wikipedia. --This is the conclusion I've reached based on my time here (and I lurk way more than I say anything). I may, honestly, be very very wrong, and if I am, please enlighten me (and if your proposal has the hopes of going somewhere and the power to back itself up, then if I'm wrong, I'll jump fully on board (for what little that's worth)).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) My own opinion, as I was mentioning earlier, is that a big part of the problem is that there is so little consensus at the moment, in particular on how best to approach these big problems we might or might not have. And since basically nobody trusts anybody, if someone (either you, or the 4-5 other people who've tried it recently) sits down to write up a careful analysis of (one version of) "the problem" and charts a course towards resolution, too few people jump on board with it for it to get any traction. I'm not sure anyone is well-respected enough to lead a reform movement right now (although there are certainly plenty of people who wish they were).

Another big problem, of course, is that this talk page is an absolute disaster area. I seriously think we won't accomplish anything until we all take a deep breath / cup of tea / jaunt up the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man, and wait for all these overweight threads to expire, and start from scratch in a couple of weeks when hopefully at least a few of us have clearer heads. --Steve Summit (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Well, don't say I didn't warn you all." "Welcome to the new face of the reference desks." That looks very much like an admission that he was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Steve Baker

User:SteveBaker wants to know why his proposal to create a subcommittee to propose new rules for the Reference Desk was not accepted. I see that there were different reasons for opposition. Some posters said that there isn’t a problem on the Reference Desks themselves, only on this talk page. Other posters didn’t think that the issue is with the rules themselves, but with how the rules are being applied (such as with disagreement about what constitutes medical advice). I in particular opposed because I didn’t see the need to kick the can down the road by appointing a subcommittee, when I thought that the way forward was by the Requests for Comments process. There are several reasons why various posters opposed Steve’s idea. I don’t think that any of those who supported or opposed thought that the existing rules, or the lack of rules that Steve now thinks we have, would justify arbitrary removal of responses. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

People are free to support or oppose a proposal developed by the subcommittee. I don't think they can oppose the subcommittee itself. You are free to decline your nomination, but I hope you don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the RfC process might work a lot better if we tried one thing (line item) at a time, rather than an entire overhaul at once. I support bringing back the old guideline asking users if they have used a search engine, and asking them to tell us what articles they have read, and providing a link to the info on the web they are referring to. As for disputes over the application of rules, ask two Rabbis and you'll get three opinions. The poor will always be with us. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I also count 7 "Oppose" votes, so I must be one of those. And you tell me I failed to reply to your follow up! I can't find any follow up. I did state that we should wait on the Dweller-initiated proposal, since it comes from higher up and is backed by experience. But your "serious proposal", which I genuinely disagree with, but not vehemently, came straight after Dweller's thread. In fact, I was rather miffed at you for failing to respond to my point about this other process. We can all ping Dweller on his talk page and ask him to keep going with this, and throw our support behind something that has a chance of working, as I have done. I see no other way forward. I used to agree with you to the point of wanting to give you my proxy on almost anything, but this has changed radically, and I can't identify with you in this thread. I agree the ref desk ain't what it used to be, but I think Dweller is more likely to have the solution than you. IBE (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: can you actually reply to this please? I specifically want to know whether you intend to support Dweller's process. He is experienced at solving conflicts on Wikipedia, and I feel we will have more luck with him. The constant deluge of flowcharts and more discussion and subcommittees is getting a bit much. IBE (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see much promise in Dweller's approach - and I have a TON of experience in conflict resolution at Wikipedia myself. But I'm tired of trying to push this particular giant rock up the hill - so I'll duck out for a while and see if anyone else can do something. SteveBaker (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: Thanks, and that's fair enough. For you or anyone, the advantage of Dweller's process is that it comes from outside. Not that your experience doesn't count, but this is external to the people involved, and looks promising to me. I hope we will at least support it, since I think we need outside de-stressing influences. IBE (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)