Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

removed a question

I have removed a question. Let it be known henceforth that I intend to take a zero-tolerance approach to any further pointless questions from that IP. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As a question, it seems harmless enough, though a bit odd. What's the history with that Kansas IP range? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(See below first) IIRC they're the one who wants to go to India to get their braces (asked twice, claimed it wasn't them despite similar IPs same geolocations/ISP); really, really like bidets/Japanese toilets and feel the need to convince us/everyone else of that; all their friends are holding grudges; for this and other reasons may want to join the South Korean airforce (being part? Korean); are worried the US economy is going to collapse; for this and I think the earlier reasons may want to move overseas to escape their student loan; may become homeless some time in the future but will keep their laptop and brilliant skills so need to find ways to make money; need to find ways to make money anyway with their brilliant skills (or something); and I'm pretty sure plenty of other things I can't recall off the top of my head. P.S. I'm only mentioning what I recall them having said in the past, please don't presume I'm saying any of those things are true or false or that this is a personal attack on them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Sounds all too familiar now. Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't check the diff until now. The IP I am thinking of was the 70.179.169.x one. They also Geolocate to Kansas (the other one is a uni IP) and they're asking similar questions at the moment so I'm guessing it's the same person but I haven't looked enough to link them myself and I don't recall having made the connection before. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so there may be some uncertainty. I'm hoping Looie will step in here and shed some additional light on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly the same editor as 70.179.169.115 (talk · contribs), whose last question was also some nonsense about fireplaces. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit irked how much time we waste debating whether somebody's question is legitimate. Ultimately, our Reference Desk mission-statement says it all: we are a reference desk. So, let's template up something along these lines:

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. This is a resource to assist Wikipedians who are seeking encyclopedic references. Questions that do not fall into this category will be deleted.

This is very simple and polite; we don't need to waste time debating whether the OP is wasting our time. Nimur (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How would that change anything? The legitimacy of "I hope to find some objective stats on calories burned while doing various activities, including cleaning a fireplace. Also, links would help." doesn't have to do with whether or not the questioner is asking for encyclopedic references. Taken literally as written, it's asking for encyclopedic references. Looie's claim in removing it is not that the question wasn't asking for encyclopedic references, it's that the questioner was just wasting peoples' time and didn't actually care about the answer. Most of the "is it legitimate or isn't it" debate is similar situations - they hinge not on whether the question is seeking encyclopedic references, but instead on whether or not the questioner is trolling or attempting to waste peoples' time. From my point of view, most of the back-and-forth in such debates is due to the uncertainty of people trying to mind-read the intents of posters: "Is he or isn't he honestly looking for an answer?" (as well as "Is he asking about pathophysiology of boils out of general interest, or because he wants medical advice about his own boil?") Saying that we only answer requests for encyclopedic references won't change the fact that people will bicker over whether or not the request for encyclopedic references was genuine or not. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be worth a try. The worst that would happen is that it would be ignored, so we'd be no worse off, and someone might actually pay attention to it. Speaking of which, dealing with these trolls often depends on someone paying sufficient attention to patterns to realize when we're being trolled. In this particular case, if this had been the only question the guy had ever asked, it was at least in theory somewhat answerable, maybe by finding a chart about burning calories for various kinds of activities, although I have doubts that such a chart would include the activities of a chimney sweep. However, Looie recognized the pattern and tossed it into the bit bucket. And his reporting of it here served an educational purpose, in raising our level of alertness to that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying no to any proposal to add reasons for deletion. And a template isn't necessary - who will even remember what the name of it is? It's sufficient just to say what is said above, in plain language. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not support the introduction proposed above. The reason is that although the reference desk is functionally a place to seek references for Wikipedia articles, most anonymous editors probably realize neither this nor the definition of "Wikipedians". Although I agree that the aforementioned series of questions seems pointless, we should refrain from removing any AGF questions even if deemed unencyclopedic as we do not currently have as strigent of WP:NOT restrictions for the refdesk as we do for article space, and it would be more productive only to remove questions deemed innappropriate trolling by consensus (except obvious cases). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the trolls think they're doing the right thing. AGF is meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. If you disagree with a basic founding principle of a community you choose to spend time in, you might find it less frustrating to find a community that doesn't operate under or enforce that principle, rather than spending energy informing that community that a basic principle of all activities in that community is 'meaningless'. 212.183.128.14 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Scsbot not working?

Hi. I've numerous times had to manually add the Level 1 Header for the current or a past date because the bot did not add the heading, leaving the section 20-something questions over a two-day span, and I suspect that the bot has a glitchlag. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons, the portion of the bot that adds date headers is not quite as reliable as the portion of the bot that does the actual archiving. (The actual archiving, by the way, is not done based on the date headers.) And for various other reasons, this has never been a high priority of mine to fix, but I'll see if there's something I can do. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

removal.

Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page. Diff APL (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also BOLDly removed the triggering comment, <redacted>. That comment is every bit as off-topic as my comments which you removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

... and I was BOLD and removed an inflammatory (likely) mischaracterization of the comment. Let's keep it civil, people. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> OK, <redacted> OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been BOLD and removed part of Bug's previous comment. Partially because it's his usual bashing of Anon users, but mostly for comedy value. APL (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual double-standard among the ref desk clique - anon's can take shots at anyone and seldom suffer any slings and arrows. Maybe I should start editing via my IP so I could get the clique to defend me if I act like a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the IP had tried to start a political debate, or to "get in the last word" after it had been made clear it was inappropriate I would have deleted the comment outright, instead of deleting part of it for comedy value.

If you take offense at my light-hearted attitude feel free to say so, but if your problem is that you weren't allowed to make tangential political jibes, then frankly I believe that, as a long-time named ref-desker, you are getting deferential treatment that an IP editor would not receive. If the number of politically charged snipes, off-topic remarks, and jokes that appear as though they might be legitimate answers to anyone who doesn't 'get' them, came from a consistent IP address, I'd be here advocating that it simply be banned and save everyone the trouble. I suspect you'd be right behind me on that. (Of course, I always advocate the Scientific Method. You've got your hypothesis. Now try an experiment! Anyone can log out for a week and edit as an IP.) APL (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The other editor chose to make an off-topic political statement, and I chose not to let it stand unchallenged. But don't be so sure of what I actually do take offense at, nor of what my complete views on capital punishment are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I got even BOLDer and removed the rest of it, again partially for comedy value, but also because I'd hate to let Bugs provoke a political debate by trying to "get in the last word". APL (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with APL's removal. Concur on the content of Bugs' counter-removal, disagree on Bugs being the one to make that removal, definitely not happy that it was a stealth edit to the comment. That misrepresents what User:Marco polo posted and is heavily frowned upon here, as I'm sure the participants are aware. — Lomn 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How does it misrepresent his statement? The factual part remains. The editorial comment has no relevance to the factual part. I could have removed the "proud" part and merely left the comment that he lives in one of the 14 (as do I, by the way), but even that has no particular relevance to the fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You did not note that you had altered his signed comment. However, I now find your repeated willful continuance of poor behavior and/or judgment during this issue to be the item of greatest concern. You should not have removed MP's words yourself (it looks bad, given that your comment had just been removed). You should not have removed MP's words without specific notice of having done so (per widespread RD and WP consensus). You should not have dragged your longstanding feud with IP editors into this discussion (see dead horse, thataway). You should not have continued your baiting comments regarding MP, who's not even in this discussion, below. And I shouldn't have to lay this out, because you've been here for years and shouldn't need this sort of babysitting. There was a very simple solution to all this when you saw MP's original comment, and that is to redact the "proud" bit and make a note of "let's please avoid the political aspects of capital punishment, thanks" or the like. You chose a course of action bearing no resemblance to a simple solution. — Lomn 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No one notified me, either. I merely happened to see it here. Nor did anyone else seem interested in removing the equally-off-topic comments of Mr. Polo. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that the clique's double-standard is alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This may sound like a radical idea, but how about if Marco himself speaks up instead of everyone here speaking for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What?!? You've tried to speak for him twice in this thread alone. It was deleted both times. APL (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

< Three Times! --apl > I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You keep deleting my comments. Do they hit too close to home for your comfort level? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. APL (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Then there's no logical explanation other than the old "I don't like it" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't care what you're arguing about. Take a break, relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I removed these two comments, one from Bugs and another from an anon that simply said "lol". [1]

I usually avoid removals from a page like this, but the combined effect of these two comments, as a comment on the institutional raping of virgins so that they could be executed, actually made me feel nauseous. This is not the face we want to show the world.

If other's disagree, I won't argue it: I'll just have to take a wikibreak for a week, and we all take wikibreaks from time to time. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No hay problema. And the IP was a one-shot from Paris, so it's unlikely you'll be hearing anything from him. It's just that the premise of an executioner raping a virgin just so she wouldn't be a virgin and he could go ahead and execute her, seemed darkly funny, like something from a Monty Python sketch (as with the "Bring out your dead!" segment in Holy Grail.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm here, and I found the thought of a girl being raped so she could be executed funny too, which is why I posted "lol" to you comment. They were in small tags so I don't see the big deal, but if some people can't take a joke then fine remove it. Whatever. 90.10.246.125 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The sub-thread started by AnonMoos is close to being off-topic, it cites no source and looks like someone writing down something he has been busting to write down for ages. I responded - see diff. Dolphin (t) 03:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting point. It would be good to see a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For what an anonymous IP's anecdote is worth (not much, I expect) I too have read of an example of the practice AnonMoos mentioned in an Ancient Roman context - it might have been in Graves' I, Claudius, and/or in other generally well-researched fiction set in that milieu. The particular instance I recall involved the pre-pubertal daughters of someone executed for treason or a similar (possibly trumped-up) crime. I'll skim the book, which I have to hand, but it may take some time and I may have mistaken the source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Me again. The event I had partly remembered from I, Claudius (Chapter 27) concerns the virgin daughter of Sejanus, and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him, here, but I'm fairly sure there was a similar instance involving two girls who were publicly raped on the roof of their family house, which I have evidently seen in some other work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions are worth just as much as anyone else's, don't forget that no matter what anyone else says. But when you decide to contribute anecdotes about medieval rape when the subject of discussion on this talk page is not seeking your completely unsourced and unreliable opinion, expect to be judged as an anonymous editor who likes talking about how women and girls have been raped in the past. That is the precise measure of your contributions here. In any case, I collapsed that part of the thread as it was wholly off-topic and wholly unsourced. Franamax (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"likes talking about how women and girls have been raped"? Bugs said he'd like a source for AnonMoos's contribution, which I recalled as being semi-relevant to the original topic, perhaps mistakenly. I provided a source, from a well known respected historical literary work (recently re-broadcast on BBC Radio 4, incidentally). I deprecated its/my reliability partly because I could not initially remember the reference with certainty, and partly as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to Bugs' well-known attitude to IP editors. That I happened also to remember a distasteful historical fact previously mentioned by one regular editor, and provided another regular editor with the corroboration of it that he had requested, does not in my mind warrant the highly offensive suggestion that I "like" talking about rape. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully support the removal. Those kinds of comments have no place on the reference desk. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In an incredibly appropriate coincidence, the above IP's UK-based ISP is called "Virgin Media". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Another question removed

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

Here's the link [2]. As usual, I disagree with the removal of questions that can easily be answered with reliable sources, but I won't revert. Buddy431 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You enjoy feeding the LC troll, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We feed trolls by removing their questions and arguing about it [3]. We feed trolls by turning the reference desk into a general forum [4]. We feed trolls by making crude jokes about serious subjects [5]. We don't feed the trolls by answering simple questions with reliable sources. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So stop arguing about it already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Here's a discussion group on this operation: [6]. From browsing through it, it seems like some weight loss is expected initially, but, in the long term, most patients gain weight. I suspect that this is because the food goes through more quickly, and this leaves an empty stomach, which triggers hunger. Here's an alternate explanation: [7]. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure LC comes in on Tiscali IP addresses anymore, and Opal Telecom rings a bell as being an ISP that there's been some problems with (although there are also a lot of perfectly legitimate edits through Opal Telecom). And LC sometimes asks plausibly innocent questions that aren't particularly bad, and then follows up with one or more further posts that makes things considerably worse. This particular question to me looks a lot like a set-up for a planned potential follow-up question like "...and what about the weight of a colon that's full of shit?". And if you look at this edit which is undoubtedly LC,[8], you'll see that LC spells the word "can't" without an apostrophe, and often spells the word "I" in lower case, both just like in the post from 92.29.195.245 above. One spelling idiosyncrasy in common might be a coincidence, but sharing two spelling idiosyncrasies when comparing short bits of text seems unlikely. I don't know what all clues Baseball Bugs used to conclude that the question came from LC, but my bet is that he was correct. Red Act (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Baseball Bugs does indeed contribute to Wikipedia articles [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is the kind of stuff LC contributes.[15] Note the Liverpool-based ISP. He just wants everyone here to have no doubts as to his indemnity identity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP just above, as well as Mr. Maturity three paragraphs above, have now been sent to Never-Never Land. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Of course you do, LC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

User:X sprainpraxisL

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

Out of interest, is there anyone other then Wnt who really wants this person's questionable 'question' (in light of their 'enlightening' followups) on the RD? I mean of course [16] Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

And idiot questions about screwing dogs should stay??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Questions about him screwing his dogs are OK, then??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" is escaping you??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and your feeding of the troll in that way has been substantial. Congratulations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk Talk Page

Enough. Nimur has been warned, and I suggest everyone else have a nice cup of WP:TEA and let this die down. Nothing will be solved with this much heat. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the talk page for the Wikipedia Reference Desk. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the operation of the Reference Desk. Disruptive behavior, including long, pointless meta-debates, does not contribute to our objective here, and will not be tolerated. Nimur (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) But apparently Light Current will be tolerated. Good for you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Who decides which disagreements will eventually benefit the reference desk and which will not? -- kainaw™ 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) For now, I am acting unilaterally; when it becomes necessary, I'll just let an admin protect this page and block the appropriate users, as I do not have the account privileges to do so myself. Nimur (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Oddly enough, when I've acted unilaterally and removed obvious trolling questions, I got yelled at. What makes you so special??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Brevity. Nimur (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Ha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) See, the problem is that when an obvious trolling question comes along, someone deletes it, and then some naive soul puts it back. The troll loves that. Every time you argue about a deleted question, you feed that troll. And blocking is a waste. He's got a dynamic IP. Unless you're willing to range-block the entire ISP (which might work - it worked for awhile when he was on that other ISP), you can't stop him with blocks. And you can't stop him with giving a bland and factual answer, as it will just make him try harder. All you can do is revert without comment, don't respond to his complaints, revert his reversions, and most of all STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT. That's the only way to put that moron out of business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Who the H-E-double-hockey-sticks authorized you to be the owner of this page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer

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

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

Why am I hated?

WP:DENY. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
moved from the reference desk, as this is a talk issue. --Ludwigs2 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I am trying to understand why nobody seems to understand me or my questions, in fact, I seem quite hated. This is probably the wrong place to ask, everywhere else is. I don’t know where to go, everyone seems to have a rude suggestion. If anyone has an answer, or can forward me, I would appreciate it. I have begged for email, which won’t happen. Why? Is email off limits I ask, nobody answers. People talk about becoming “unblocked”, to me this is not the issue. I am looking for answers, not argument or insults (some of which have been pretty good, but not applicable). I clearly cannot communicate effectively, maybe instead of trashing, some translating might be offered. I am going to stop now, before I create any more enemies. Thanx. 99.24.236.128 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Your question asks us to explain the opinions of unknown others toward you. First, we are not omniscient, we don't know who you or these others are, and we are therefore unable to answer your question. Second, even if you explained who you and these others were, answering your question would be tantamount to psychological or psychiatric advice, which we aren't able to offer. Finally, we do not allow e-mail addresses because they are feedstock for spambots. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't hate you. You can get a Wikipedia account with a name that you choose, and that can allow anyone to send you an e-mail via Wikipedia (they can't see your e-mail address). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC) From the contributions of the IP, it is a blocked/banned user coming here in frustration. I believe that dialogue channels with ArbCom usually remain open for a long time, unless or until everyone can see it is going nowhere. However bad a start you have made with Wikipedia, IP, it is nearly always possible to begin again from scratch. Adoption and mentoring really work, and I would suggest that you try them, and focus on article quality rather than personal interactions. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Register with a sensible, simple user name. Posting with an IP address does not lead to constructive relationships with other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) That's rubbish. Loads of good editors post without an account and get along fine. Having an account doesn't make someones edits better 82.43.89.63 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) He had a user name. This is User:Wm5200. It got blocked for personal attacks and attempts at outting. This person has no desire to edit wikipedia, so I have no idea how to help them. They have said repeatedly they do not wish to be unblocked/unbanned, so near as I can tell there is nothing further we can do for them. This is a clear case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy and I didn't hear that mentality. I made some simple attempts to reach this person and explain what they did wrong, but they ignored my explanations, and left these long, rambling diatribes. If they wish to edit articles again, I have offered to work with them. However, they show no signs of wishing to edit articles, so I literally have no idea how to answer his requests for help. I am not sure what his purpose is here. --Jayron32 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I concur with Jayron. This user has used numerous accounts and IPs for, well, whatever it is they try to accomplish. In addition to ramblings like the above, I have also received some emails, which are quite peculiar. There really isn't anything we can do, excepte WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I was blocked from answering here by Favonian. Is that fair? Heyboowemissyou (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Has anyone read "Hey from yesterday" at Jayron32's talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyboowemissyou (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'd also suggest reading it, if only for the humor factor. James Joyce wrote in a more linear and comprehensible fashion. --Jayron32 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Troll questions removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, the poster of that question is now blocked for vandalism. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A few of them

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

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

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

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

And this one from a few minutes ago:
92.28.84.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Arabs

Trolling from banned user removed

There have been a few questions about the Arabs that have been deleted. Why? Are there any questions with the word 'Arabs' that would not be erased? Or are people content to be overly censorial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.64.40 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC) "Arabs" is a vague word, often used ignorantly and pejoratively. It's typiclly used as a generalisation for "people I don't like who come from somewhere near the middle east". If someone asked a sensible question where the meaning of "Arabs" was 100% clear, and not stupidly and provocatively attributing a negative attribute to all members of an ill-defined group, the question may have a chance of survival. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Note: OP has been sent to the burning sands. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Light current

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

Lift ban

Retain ban

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I noticed another deleted question today. My question is this, are the questions themselves objectionable? or are we removing material just because? I can understand RBI policy with regards to article content or trolling comments, but some of these questions appear to have people trying to answer them seriously. I have to ask, what's the big deal with answering a question, if it's not trolling. I am in favor of removing troll posts but legitimate questions just because someone feels they ought to be? that way lies madness. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason has been explained extensively on this very version of the talk page. Please read through the proceedings and if you still have questions, feel free to ask them. You may find the last archive or two informative as well, or is you are really curious, read the archives for the past 3 years or so. The answer is there over and over. Franamax (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kci357

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

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

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

Agree. Discussed here as well, a couple of weeks ago when the pattern was not as well-established. -- Scray (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current's ISP and IPs

There's been some doubt expressed here recently as to whether the recent problematic edits here that show up on geolocate as coming from Liverpool via Opal Telecom DSL are actually the banned user Light current. I, too, didn't recognize those edits as being LC at first, because I'm familiar with LC as having an ISP of Tiscali UK, and an IP within the ranges 79.75.*, 79.67.*, or more recently 88.104.* or 88.105.*[17]. In contrast, the recent edits not only show up in different IP ranges, but show up as having an ISP of Opal Telecom DSL, so at first glance it looks like a completely different user.

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

I also until recently didn't recognize Liverpool as having anything to do with LC, because doing a geolocate on one of LC's old IP addresses doesn't show anything for the city. But geolocate on one of LC's old IPs[18] does give a latitude and longitude, which if you look on a map is on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is an island with a population of about 80,000, that's about an 80 mile ferry ride from Liverpool. Liverpool is the closest city to the Isle of Man on England's mainland with a population of more than 150,000. So the older LC edits and the Liverpool edits geolocate to the same basic area.

Perhaps the strongest link connecting the new ISP name / city name / IP ranges with LC's historical ISP name and IP ranges is that the string of questions about sexually pleasuring your dog started out coming from LC's previous ISP name and IP ranges on January 11,[19] and continued on coming from the new ISP name and city name starting on January 13.[20]

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

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

While looking into this, I also noticed that it's not uncommon to get perfectly legitimate questions here from the 92.29.* range,[21][22] so range blocking that range, at least, should presumably be avoided. But the good edits in that range at least don't show up as coming from Liverpool, so at least it's possible to distinguish LC manually that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your demonstrated willingness and eagerness to feed trolls renders your opinion on this matter irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what it's worth, the Liverpool-via-Opal-Telecom IP has signed his initials to a post, confirming that he is indeed LC.[23] Red Act (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly trolling question?

On the off-chance that it was sincere, I've just provided a brief answer to the recent question WP:Reference Desk/Humanities#muslim_sex_in_india. If, however, more experienced Wikipedians deem the query to have been trolling and delete it, I will not demur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.11 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, so far. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO. NO, NO, NO. BANNED USERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. The alleged quality of their edits IS IRRELEVANT. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. IAR DOES NOT APPLY. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

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

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

That's not true at all, and doesn't hold up to logical examination. It's an argument that I'd expect from an angry ten year old, and I can't help but imagine you stomping your feet,shouting at the top of your lungs. I'm not saying that I agree with WNT, but any rational person can see the difference between allowing someone to ask a reference question of people who have volunteered to answer questions to all comers, and allowing someone to edit a collaborative project. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Whether or not either of those two things is a good idea is another question. But anyone who claims that they are the same or equivalent is not arguing from a position of logic. APL (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

Recently Bugs has seemed paranoid that regulars here are out to get him. Presumably he thinks he'll find a more friendly audience there, and strategically he must ask their opinion before we all align against him and form a consensus that weakens his position. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Explain why. Making blanket statements about the topic under debate and ending them with "Period." does not help. In fact it makes things worse. APL (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

LC isn't old, but he is a man

He lives in the banned, in the Isle of Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. I intended it to be drole. If it was not received as such, I apologize. If you thought I was serious, I retract my statement. If you thought I was merely making a joke (even in bad taste) I stand by it. --Jayron32 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Some thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose. I'm not confident that banned user questions should, in general, be allowed. And I am strongly against half-way measures that mangle a person's question, but still leave it to be answered. Besides being deceptive or confusing to later editors it's counter-productive. Either we believe that the person is wasting our time or not. It doesn't make sense that someone is intentionally wasting our time with three out of his four sentences, but that the remainder is worthy of our serious consideration. However, I would support a judgment call on particular questions if there seems like a legitimate scholarly or intellectual curiosity and desire for a reference. (After all, in that case answering the question would still perform the RefDesks' function at no harm to the rest of the encyclopedia. ) I also support answering, as normal, questions that are on "touchy" subjects but not from known trolls. Many people are curious about, for example, female genitalia, but are not intentionally wasting our time. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have considered that subject worthy of in-depth study, and have made it our lifes work. I am still working on studies of my own, and always appreciate the opportunity to run new experiments. </creepy> --Jayron32 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. Banned users are banned users. Re-writing their questions makes huge assumptions on our part. I have no problem with answering questions on difficult subjects from people who want answers. But feeding trolls is a fruitless exercise. We have enough questioners to sustain us without inventing new ways to let trolls post questions. Invoking IAR generally means one has hit a brick wall in terms of argument; IAR is meant to be invoked when the rules are hampering the project as a whole. I see zero evidence that erasing trollish questions are hampering the project. Frankly, Wnt, it seems that you are really alone on this, for reasons that I think ought to be clear. If you want to answer their questions, set up a blog or something. But don't waste time on the RD trying to come up with ways to let banned users participate — there's a reason they've been banned. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point has been made: A banned user is a banned user. I also see that Wnt's purposeful refusal to accept that anyone could be banned (actually banned, not sort of banned) is pushing BB to an extreme. It is apparent that Wnt is making these proposals and arguments with the sole purpose of trying to get BB to make extremist comments. Then, Wnt can use those comments to discredit the entire concept of banned users. I'm not falling for it. We all know that BB is emotional and his little fits don't matter when it comes to banned users. They are banned. They do not want to be un-banned. They want to do nothing more than score points by getting posts to stick. If you don't understand the game, check out sites like uncyclopedia or encyclopediadramatica where they post their exploits to keep tabs on who is currently winning the troll game (yes, LC recently beat out Avril) -- kainaw™ 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree a banned user is a banned user and their edits must be removed on sight, I would like to see a little more evidence of analysis than "he asked about dogs testicles and therefore he must be a LC sock". Astronaut (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring that the IP address is checked also. If it resolves to LC's location, then it is considered an LC sock. -- kainaw™ 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with WNT that "punishing" trolls or "not letting them get satisfaction" has clearly become a major goal in the minds of some people, when in most cases it really doesn't matter in the slightest. This isn't fourth grade.

But I am opposed to his proposed compromise because it seems like it's a worst-of-both-worlds situation. It still creates an entertaining (for them) contest between trolls and troll enforcers, AND it still involves spending time answering a question that is probably a waste of effort. On top of that it involves editing other people's posts for content, which is widely agreed to be a bad idea on the Ref Desks. APL (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:49.2.4.186

49.2.4.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't want to start a big discussion nor am I recommending removing the long thread on Americans being illiterate but as a word of warning for those who haven't noticed [24] [25] [26] followed by [27] were the first few contribs of this IP Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

[trolling removed]

[I have removed my troll-feeding as well. If anybody rejects, restore it. I apologize for feeding the troll as well. Falconus^{p t c} 16:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)]

[more trolling and troll-feeding removed]

I've blocked 49.2.4.186 for 24 hours for trolling this page, and apologize for previously making matters worse by feeding him myself. —Angr (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think people should get so worked up about "trolling". Don't worry if someone is "putting one over on you" - this place is for exchange of information, not playing dominance games. Off-the-wall comments like that just give us something to talk about - at least they're more interesting than the WP:policy blather that fills up so many talk archives. Like it or not - and I agree, not - there are whole countries where people look up to Osama bin Laden like a hero. Talking to those people in a neutral forum - while demanding reliable sources for background - is bound to turn up interesting sociological information. Wnt (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Osama bin Laden the terrorist or Osama bin Laden the president of the USA? Anyway back to the point. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to post this here. I had thought that by keeping it brief and without recommending any deletions it wouldn't result in a big discussion among normal respondents and by not posting it to the thread it would avoid concerns of the thread being de-railed or meta discussions happening on the RD proper. But there was always a risk the 49 was going to comment particularly since I notified him/her of this thread per the previous fuss when people weren't notified. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

See [28]. I'm going to regret this, I know... Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual questions asked are basically just "is it possible to get hold of this particular drug", which we could answer. However, the description of symptoms makes it sound like the OP is really after a diagnosis, which we can't give (even if we wanted to - those symptoms are far too vague). I think it is reasonable to have removed the question. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Which means WE DON'T FUCKING ANSWER IT, Wnt. I've deleted your answer. I suspect more of teh epic lulz are to follow. Tevildo (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not address any diagnostic issue, but merely pointed out that the drug wasn't what the OP said it was. [29] I understand that to some people, the height of ethics is telling some poor guy in India who can barely speak English that he should go "ask his doctor", and not point out to him that we have an article that talks about the drug he's interested in, and not tell him that it isn't quinine, let alone pointing out to him that the reason he can't get it anymore is probably because it was widely used and mosquitoes in Asia are resistant to it. (Even I didn't do that last bit, being too lazy to check whether India was one of the affected areas) I understand that you think that I am fouling up the balance of nature, preventing the harsh realities of evolution from taking their natural course, risking some tiny chance that the mysteries of modern medicine might inadvertently make their way down to the unwashed masses --- but what I did not do was provide anything vaguely resembling diagnosis, rather merely cautioning the editor. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with Wnt's post except that it is not an answer to the question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Tango, but I'd say that "the description of symptoms makes it sound like the OP is really after a diagnosis" only if we're being unthinkingly, knee-jerk paranoid about removing anything and everything that's even remotely medical.

The question asked was purely factual. The additional information about symptoms appeared to have been for background only, and did not in any way seem to me to be requesting a diagnosis.

Why not just mention, "of course, we can't offer you any advice about those symptoms", and let the factual question stand? Why go the draconian route of deleting it? —Steve Summit (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A faintly ridiculous problem

Having mentioned Mike and Ikes in the sprawling section on foreigners' surprises in America, I now suspect I might mean Good and Plenty. However, I am unable to edit that section, for reasons that might just be the device I'm using, or a wider problem, or a combination of both. Not only am I getting a pseudo-protected page, when I go into the history and choose the most recent version and click the 'edit' thing (which previously has worked), I can't make an edit not be a conflict (though there doesn't seem to be something changed). No doubt this will pass, as such things do, but it bothers me to be unable to add the caveat to my comment :) 86.164.78.220 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added your clarification. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. As I say, slightly ridiculous, but you know how it is... 86.164.78.220 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Still broken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's ten days later, but I also regularly see stale (very stale) content on the Reference Desk pages while I am not logged in. Shift-Refresh in Firefox fixes it. I do not see the problem when I am logged in. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the problem still happens regularly for me too. As often as not I get a page many hours old, or a day old, or several days old. However, for me, browser refresh usually doesn't fix it. I can only get the latest page with the "action=purge" thing or by going to the edit history page and clicking on the top entry. Is there any chance an established editor here might be so kind as to file a bug report about this? It is a bad and annoying problem that has been ongoing for months now, and that someone surely should be looking at with some degree of urgency. 86.181.168.97 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, bug 10173 says, "When you edit a page, the server send a message to the squids asking them to discard their copy. Seems it's not being done for pages redirected to it." This issue — or at least the one I have personally seen — may well be this because I always use abbreviations when typing in the RD URLs. The bug has 1 vote; if you want it fixed, adding your vote may make a difference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know, I think you may possibly be a genius. I also usually type in the abbreviations. I just went to "WP:rd/l" and "WP:rd/s" and, as usual, they were out of date, this time by about half a day. Then I clicked on the "Project page" tab that links to the "real" pages rather than the redirects, and, hey presto, I got the up-to-date pages. If anyone else who gets this problem is still following this, does this work for you too? 81.159.104.139 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't use the shortcuts and I still get the problem 82.43.89.63 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a puzzle. I have tested this five or six times over several days, and going to the full URL rather than the shortcut has fixed the problem straight away every time. For example, right now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rd/l takes me to a page three days old, whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language takes me to the up-to-date page. I suppose you're quite sure that you're using the full page name -- so that the URL shows like my "language" example -- and not any sort of shortcut? 86.179.118.185 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that I'm using the direct link and not a shortcut. I did notice a long time ago that clicking the Discussion links from the desks to this talk page often resulted in stale content, which seems related to what you're experiencing as they're actually redirects from, for example, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Computing. But I am absolutely using the direct links and still getting stale content. Today has been particularly bad not just on the Desks but on Wikipedia as a whole. I keep having to purge the server cache, even on pages which I purged just seconds before. Edit histories are also returning out of date for me and require me to click "Go" before getting the current version. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, today I too have two instances (language and computing desks) where the direct link is out of date, so maybe I was just lucky the earlier times. Also, the language desk edit history is out of date too, just as you reported. This whole set of pages just seems totally broken, and the situation really is not good. What can we do to raise the profile of this problem? I've tried raising it at Village Pump, but no one seems very interested. 86.183.0.105 (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just added another note at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Reference_desk_pages_still_broken 86.183.0.105 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a long-shot, but you could try looking at the underlying HTML source of the pages, down at the bottom for the "served by" comment. This tells you which Apache machine served up the page, e.g. srv190 for the edit screen I'm at right now. If you consistently the same server, or same set of servers, for the "bad" pages, and different servers for the "good" pages, that might indicate a caching problem that the devs could pin down. Franamax (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I've received stale pages from "srv178 in 0.072 secs", "srv243 in 0.072 secs" and "srv232 in 0.626 secs". I'm not seeing a pattern so far 82.43.89.63 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask Us 24/7 - Resources for Participating Librarians

By visiting Ask Us 24/7 - Resources for Participating Librarians, editors can find a large amount of information about the work of professional reference librarians in the libraries overseen by the Western New York Library Resources Council. Some aspects might be adaptable for the Wikipedia Reference Desk.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Astronomical Question?

Why has a totally innocuous query about stars in globular cluster M13, to which I gave a hopefully not entirely useless reply, been removed from the Science RefDesk? Overzealous removal of trollish edits? Apologies for not possessing the Wiki-fu to link through the page history labyrinth - I'm sure those in a position to answer will themselves have no problem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.106 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Which ID did you ask under, or what time of day? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not been removed -- however, there's been a troll-and-remove cycle going on just below the M13 question, and it's possible that yours was briefly removed as part of that. — Lomn 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

original question

87/90's answer

I can't see any evidence that it was ever removed (although yes, there was a flurry of vandal-fighting nearby). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the known caching problem discussed several times on this page and still being discussed above (and which I've encountered myself), perhaps 90.201 was affected by that. Until the caching problem is fixed I would suggest either always visit with an account or remembering to purge the page every time is the only option. Others seem to have decided to follow the first option (I don't know if I agree with the choice of name though). Nil Einne (talk)

Definitely was absent for a time, as I posted my reply before going to bed and noticed the query's absence the following afternoon. I don't think it was a caching problem as I'm alert to that; I myself guessed at the explanation Lomn mentions. Still, no great matter as it was restored. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this reply [30] and the question it was replying to? If so, as with Steve Summit I see no evidence it was removed and I believe I looked at every edit (there was only about 20) between the addition of the question [31] and [32] which was after you commented here [33] (so unless you had a premonition I'm presuming it was seen before then).

BTW are you sure you aren't thinking of some other question? I don't see any header starting with M13 in the edit log so I presume there was no other question concerning the M13 globular cluster (and it's also a rather oddball to be asked 2 times in as many days if it wasn't from the same OP and the IP appears semi static although it the OP may also use other IPs). However you said you posted the reply before going to bed then noticed the absence the following afternoon. As per the edit summaries shown, you posted your reply at May 26 1141 UTC (about 1 hour after the question was posted at 1052) and then commented on the removal here at May 26 1417-1418 UTC (in other word about 1h 30mins after you posted your reply). Unless you went to bed for an hour or so and woke up in the afternoon (although most people wouldn't describe that as the following afternoon) it sounds like you may be remembering either the time line or the question wrong.

P.S. According to the edit log, since 17:04, 21 May 2011 until the M13 question, the only question anyone from 90. appears to have replied to on the science desk is the Narwhal question. I haven't checked if that ever disappeared. I also haven't checked any other desk since you mentioned the science desk.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these are certainly the query and reply in question (and the reply re Narwhals was also mine - the ISP I'm now on does not provide a fixed IP, unlike their predecessor with which I had 87.81.230.195 for 3 years).

I may well have misremembered the timings, and may also have gone to bed and napped for an hour or so in the interval - regrettably my sleep patterns are currently eccentric and I do not currently have a work- or family-fixed daily routine. The question-and-answer were certainly missing when I looked, or I would not have (immediately) posted my query on this page.

I'm really not overly concerned about the whole thing, whether it was a server glitch of some kind or an accidental edit during troll-combat; I was mainly concerned on behalf of the OP, who had asked a very perspicacious question whose restoration I wanted to prompt if possible (and to which TenOfAllTrades later gave a further informative reply). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.187 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation is an inaccurate tool at best

I note from the above discussions (and archives), that some people put a lot of faith in geolocation as one of the tools to help identify banned users. Unfortunately such location guessing can be very inaccurate. For example, I checked my IP address at IP2location.com and the location came back as a city over 200 km away (some rival services also guessed incorrectly with other distant cities, and some services got the correct city). While Opal/Talk Talk/Carphone Warehouse surely have some customers in the Isle of Man, the vast majority are based elsewhere throughout the UK. To use the small population of the Isle of Man as an argument for a particular IP being more likely operated by a banned user, is a poor choice of argument. I my experience, all geolocation can tell you in the UK is the location of the ISP's equipment, and not the location of the customer. Astronaut (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm back at work, I also checked my IP geolocation from there - they usually gave a location over 400 km away in the wrong country! Astronaut (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ip2location.com gives me an answer that's over 100km away from my true location. (In the wrong state, no less.)

I've used other iplocators that correctly locate me within a couple of miles, but get other IPs very badly wrong.

Such is the way with IP locators for whatever reason. APL (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight... An IP shows up and immediately asks a question about Uranus with some reference to it being stinky and brown. Then the same IP asks about the possibility of shooting tomatoes out his anus. It is noted that this is likely a troll because his questions fit a well-known troll's pattern of idiocy and the IP address geolocates to the same place that the troll's previous IP addresses have geololcated to. But, since geolocation is not accurate, we have to assume that this is not the same troll. Right? ...OR... This complaint is completely ignoring the fact that geolocation is only used after an IP's questions have been shown to be similar to a troll's previous questions. -- kainaw™ 12:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He was probably referring to posts like this one from Looie : "This IP geolocates to the Isle of Man, as do many that are clearly associated with LC. The population of the Isle of Man is 80,000. What are the odds that there are two different editors from the Isle of Man who both ask large numbers of trivial Ref Desk questions?" In reality, the population of the Isle of Man is completely irrelevant. APL (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

APL has it exactly right. Of course two questions about Uranus/anus from the same IP address = troll. But saying this IP must be the same troll as last month's question about jerking off dogs, from a different IP address, is a stretch too far. As shown above, you can't really say the two are the same troll just because they both geolocate to the lightly populated Isle of Man. The potential population runs into the <insert number of that ISP's customers> in the UK. In my opinion, that reduces the likelyhood of it being the exact same individual troll. Ban them both based on content, but don't leap to the conclusion that it is yet another LC sock because you believe he is in the Isle of Man. Astronaut (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The geolocates for the user in question, along with the nature of the questions, are consistent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't in question. APL (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm as much for taking care of LC and other trolls as anyone else, but what they're saying is that "IP geolocates to Isle of Man" really only means "IP is based in the UK and is owned by one particular ISP whose IPs frequently geolocate to Isle of Man". So while it does give some evidence towards the IP being the same as previous trolls (and I'm certainly of that opinion myself), it's not that damning on its own. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. It's just a piece of the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation is best for determining the country. If a known troll who usually has a German ISP suddenly turns up on an Autralian network, either they're on holiday or they've found an open proxy, which should be blocked immediately. I find better information in the WHOIS report (linked from IP contribs page) which better shows the entities controlling the IP ranges, and shows the ASN(s) at the bottom. This is the same thing as the router IP address Red Act mentioned when using traceroute above. In that case, every IP address was managed by AS13285, which will be Opal Telecom's main point-of-presence on the internet. IP address ranges managed by that AS could share the entire address pool (which could be how Lc keeps migrating to new IP ranges). So any IP question/followup that looks a little weird or is following a downward trend or at rapid volume and is from the same AS, the probability of it being Lc goes up dramatically. It's still only part of the puzzle though, for sure. For instance the Carphone Warehouse IP routes through another AS after AS13285, AS43234 manages the 92.8/13 netblock (and 92.0/13) as an independent address pool, so you have to weight things like mobile access, trolling from the local coffee shop, etc. versus the chance of a totally independent user. One thing to keep in mind is that there will be no lasting damage done if anyone is not completely sure about whether an IP range is related or not nnd does nothing. Time always brings the truth with this character. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My IP geolocates about 20 km away from its real location. --98.221.179.18 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by "Looie496"

Three of my posts have been deleted by this person, with the explaination being that I am a "banned user". Yet I am not a banned user, and the questions are perfectly reasonable and unremarkable. Looie496 added to one post I had un-deleted that he thought I was someone called "Lightcurrent". I am not "Lightcurrent" and I've never otherwise heard of him or her.

The deleted questions were "Colourful butterflys" from the Science desk, "Length of time of feelings of jealousy" from the Humanities desk, and "Reflection" from the Language desk.

Can Looie396 please be prevented from deleting any more of my posts? Thanks

Edit: I have now seen and skimmed the posting about "Lightcurrent" at the top of this page. While LC might have ISPs starting in 92, that does not mean that all ISP addresses starting with "92" are his/hers. I use a large ISP and the ISP number changes every time I log on. Wouldnt it be better if you just deleted individual questions on their own merits? 92.15.1.9 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not really been following this whole thing, but the banned user comes from the ISP "OPAL TELECOM DSL" whereas the OP of this thread is from "CARPHONE WAREHOUSE BROADBAND". They do appear to be different people. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if you've been inadvertently harmed by overzealous attempts to fight banned users. I will leave a note for Looie. Also, I suggest you sign up and get a name here, to make this less likely to recur. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in Britain - a comparatively small island with a population of 60 million. So saying I am near some bad person is not informative. Also a very large number of people use the same national ISP - millions, probably. "Opal Telecom" seems vaguely familiar by the way - Carphone Warehouse probably rent other ISP services as well as having their own. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, either it's a really incredible coincidence or I have a serious misunderstanding of how Geolocate works. This IP geolocates to the Isle of Man, as do many that are clearly associated with LC. The population of the Isle of Man is 80,000. What are the odds that there are two different editors from the Isle of Man who both ask large numbers of trivial Ref Desk questions? Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

80,000 is enough people that having two Ref Desk posters from there isn't all that surprising. However, I also expect that the Isle of Man is just where the ISP is located, and that they serve customers from a broader area. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting Isle of Man from? According to geobytes.com the ip is located in Norwich 82.43.89.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandings on how geolocate works? Oh that's easy. I can tell you how Geolocate works. It works poorly.

Seriously, some ISPs have access points with far reaching sphere's of influence, but still just geolocate to the big city they're located in. Or occasionally to the small town conveniently located between two big cities.

On top of that, every once and a while it's completely wrong. Occasionally you'll find IP addresses that you know for a fact are on one continent, but geolocation services show them on another. I don't know why that happens, but I assume it's something to do with out of date databases.

All that said, however, I'm suspicious of this post by 92.15, (it hit's all the right points and uses all the right lingo, weird for a first-time user.) but I don't care. If it is him, and he wants to crow about tricking someone into answering question about butterflies I don't know why we should spend any effort depriving him of that pleasure. APL (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a note I left on a desk a few days ago: oh no, an internet vandal has maliciously enticed us to discuss things we are interested in! I really don't understand the hassle that erupts over this stuff. Nimur (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of principle. What's the point of going to the extent of banning an editor, something that's not done lightly, if nobody cares when they come back under another guise? We may as well never ban anyone. Such a policy may have merits, but it's not our current policy. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's far more important to not delete questions from innocent bystanders than the catch every post from banned users. I'd apply the "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the absurdity of this before,^[34] but some people assured me that LC could be recognized - despite his personally making up 1/16384th of the Internet - because he only asked questions about sex, feces, and racism.^[35] And butterflies, and jealousy, and reflection, I guess. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I said, and I will thank you not to misparaphrase me. Let me boil this down to simple terms, since you don't understand (or refuse to understand by choice) the situation. It is obvious you cannot recognize LC when he appears. If that is the case, then don't get in the way of the people that can. Let me repeat that: if you are not good at recognizing him, leave that job to the people that are. If we have to explain every permutation he makes to his editing patterns to you every time he makes them, it would lead to stupid discussions like this where you feed this troll every time he edits. Plus it lets him know how we know it is him, so he can change his patterns intentionally, which just sucks you Wnt into his trap again. Just stop it. Answer questions, work on articles, and leave the sock hunting to the big boys, because you obviously don't get it. --Jayron32 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32, Wnt provided a diff that contains exactly what you did post. Neither that post nor the one above exemplify the civility that one reasonably expects from a "big boy". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, you are using the "appeal to authority" argument, with you as the authority. Why should I believe that you know when it's LC, and WNT doesn't ? If you can't prove that it's LC, I'm not going to be convinced that it is solely because you say so. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that this is LC. I'm just tired of Wnt prolonging the drama. You should know by now that everything I say is always wrong. You can be assured that if I think something is true, then it is false. --Jayron32 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do whatever is necessary to enforce all rules" has never, ever, been a "principal" of Wikipedia. In fact, IAR and other related guidelines, were invented specifically, not to cause chaos or to generate an excuse to do whatever you want, but to force people to think pragmatically about their actions instead of following the rules blindly. In this case, blind following of the "rules" is allowing LC to manipulate you and Bugs like puppets into whipping up a fury every two weeks. It is against Wikipedia's most fundamental principals to blindly follow the rules when they have obviously failed.

Relax. Enjoy life. The world will continue to turn if you don't play the part of Internet Cop for a while. No one will be hurt if we answer a couple of pointless questions about butterflies or sex. And if LightCurrent gets pleasure out of it, that doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't bother you either. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who are you addressing, APL? I introduced the issue of principles, which you've misquoted back at me as "principals". But then, I'm not one of those who are "whipping up a fury every two weeks", on this or any other issue, so I don't know who that sentence is addressed to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize completly.

I intended to refer to people, as a group, that justify demonstrability disruptive deletions with the "principle" that banned users must not post under any circumstances, as if that single concern should be elevated above all others.

"Principals" was, of course, a spelling error. APL (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite surprised if 92.15.1.9 isn't LC. There are at least connections between 92.15.1.9 and LC that seem unlikely to be coincidental. The ISP of LC's DSL line generally shows up as Opal Telecom, which is currently a brand of Talk Talk. 92.15.1.9's ISP shows up as The Carphone Warehouse, which Talk Talk started out as a subsidiary of, although it looks like Talk Talk and Carphone Warehouse demerged about a year ago. Traceroute says that 92.15.1.9's immediate router shows up as being Opal Telecom's[36], just like LC's immediate router. IP2Location says that 92.15.1.9's latitude and longitude are 54.166997, -4.482106,[37] which is on the Isle of Man, and is the exact same latitude and longitude that IP2Location gives, for example, for 88.104.81.205,[38] which is an IP that LC used in January.

The Carphone Warehouse is primarily a mobile phone company. My presumption is that LC's ISP shows up as Opal Telecom when he's using his DSL line, and shows up as Carphone Warehouse when he's connecting to the internet via his mobile phone. It looks to me like he's been using his DSL line when he doesn't mind being identified as being LC, and connects via his mobile phone for posting generally innocuous stuff. The exceptions I've noticed that look like LC in terms of content but are coming via his mobile phone are this topic he started here on the ref desk talk page, and these pokes at ref desk volunteers.[39][40] And note that the latter of those two edits suggests a familiarity with the ref desk regulars that's inconsistent with a newcomer to the ref desks, who's so new here that he's never even heard of LC. Red Act (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, It wouldn't surprise me if it was LightCurrent, but the difference is ... I don't care. Not in the least. It's nice and relaxing. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the IP who can't resist telling us how evil the British royal family is every few days LC? Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this yet, but I just wanted to say that there have been quite a few changes in the UK ISP market in the last year and I have been a victim of these. When I first started posting here I got banned because of this, but I did ask to be identified as a bona-fide poster and become immune from this blanket block, which has indeed happened. Opal Telecom is an overall ISP for people who used to be with TalkTalk, Pipex and Tiscali among others. The 92. subnet (or whatever it is) may well have hundreds of thousands of subscribers (if not millions) and to just block that particular part of an address isn't exactly fair on the rest of them. Just finally, not everyone who is new here is also new to the internet: I was posting on the internet and reading Wikipedia for many years before I took the plunge to post. And actually, I hadn't heard of LC until all this hoohah erupted a few months ago! By the way, it's possible Opal Telecom is based in the Isle of Man for tax reasons. Its servers may well be distributed on the mainland. Just my 2p worth. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, kids, if you don't stop this petty bickering, I'm going to turn this Wiki right around! And quit pulling each other's hair! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Light current has been de facto un-banned by APL and Wnt, who refuse to help enforce the rules. So the best course of action from here on out is to forget the ban and treat him as a regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Y'know, Bugs, this I'm-going-to-take-my-toys-and-go-home attitude of yours -- where, if you don't get what you want, you then try to dramatically punish yourself and everybody else by arguing for the hyperbolic opposite of what you wanted -- is (a) childish and (b) tiresome. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Nowhere in your comments do I see a denial of the truth of what I said. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Because arguing with you is a pointless waste of time; you'll believe what you want to believe. But if you insist: LC has most certainly not been unbanned, by those two or others, de facto or otherwise. Although their behavior has been annoying, APL and Wnt are under no obligation to "help enforce the rules". Finally, forgetting the ban is obviously not "the best course of action", and to assert that it is is a textbook example of WP:POINTy behavior. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) You and the ref desks would be better served if you directed your wrath to the editors who don't believe in the banning rule and fight it at every turn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) So I guess it's my turn to say, nowhere in this comment of yours do I see a denial of the truth of what I just said! —Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) So now you want LC banned once more, after saying just a few posts ago that we should let him have his way? Honestly, keeping up with your constant changes of direction is exhausting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I have not changed direction. I'm saying that IF the rules are not to be enforced, THEN he's de facto unbanned and should be considered as such. Furthermore, after the direct exchange we had with him a couple of weeks ago, I'm convinced that he wants to straighten up and fly right. So give him a chance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Trouble is, it's not down to any one of us to unilaterally override the ban, or act as if the ban had never been placed on him. We may as well pretend there's no rule requiring reputable sources, or assuming good faith, or whatever else we might find momentarily pesky. If you believe there's a good case for having the ban overturned or at least suspended, I'm sure there's a proper process to follow. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Trouble is, you've got a couple of users who have openly stated that they do not intend to follow the banning rules. Those 2 users have effectively "un-banned" LC already, regardless of "process". Meanwhile, LC has already been given a path to follow to get formally unbanned, if he choses to follow it. Meanwhile, I have already stopped either deleting wayward questions (LC's or anyone else's) and will also no longer point out when it's an obvious trolling question or a question from a banned user, as the smart ones here know better than I. Those 2 users, in particular, continue to insist that IAR overrides bans, which is not true (as admins have pointed out), but they don't care. So I'm done fighting the trolls. Let the smarter ones do that from now on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Relax, Bugs. The rest of us are going to keep reverting banned users on sight, regardless of your characterization of what those two other editors are or aren't doing. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Sure. And every time you delete it, they'll argue with you about it. Have fun! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC) As usual, you exaggerate. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We who respond to questions think we are capable of deciding for ourselves whether to answer a question, and I am one of those who don't research the background of a questioner in order to judge first whether they are "good enough" to answer. Deleting a question unfairly discriminates between those who responded to the question before it was deleted, and those who will never get a chance to consider the question. If anyone knows or strongly suspects that a questioner has trolled recently or is banned, then that is relevant information which can be posted under the question for all to see, without deletion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And then one of the troll-enablers will delete that comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree that would not be a good thing to do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the troll-enablers agreed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and avoid the childish practice of making up insulting labels for other posters. Thanks. APL (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how little regard you have for rules, you'd best not be quoting rules to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a message at the top when I edit: This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Reference desk. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Helpdesk or the New Contributors' Help Page. The above discussions is not in any way trying to improve the RD, for the reason that it has been repeated too many times to be useful. --98.221.179.18 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's about how to handle trolling questions and questions by trolls. Hence it is, in fact, about improvements at the ref desk. And the reason it keeps getting repeated is that the troll-enablers refuse to help enforce the rules. LC told me recently that no one really cares about the ref desks, and that's why the rules aren't enforced. I'm beginning to suspect he's right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My syntactical analysis of Light Current's (?) communication to Baseball Bugs reveals a high frequency of omitted apostrophes. Obviously trolls can be detected this way and their subversive prose consequently deleted. The beauty of the scheme is that it can harm neither dolphins nor English-competent posters. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A note for the humor-impaired: Cuddlyable3's suggestion here is an example of what's called a joke. Please don't anybody fly off the handle and start a long, flaming discussion arguing about the idea of actually detecting trolls or deleting posts on this basis. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be bad. Worse than bad, in fact: it would be apostrophic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubs hands cackling softly. Heh, heh the trap is laid. Now the rascal is bound to post with faultless punctuation. It will be easy to spot that troll now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a bad move, I must say. A post containing faultless punctuation would be indistinguishable from ... well, from my posts. I'd better start making some deliberate errors - ugh! I hope God will forgive me. But I have a problem: I have no experience in making errors of any kind. Just how does one make an error? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How? By deliberately misspelling nearly every word, as one recently-reverted troll's entry was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion, while no doubt meant well, is too shockingly radical for me to seriously consider it. My delicate constitution would never recover. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're all overlooking the obvious. LightCurrent seems to repeatedly misspell words like "color" with a 'u'. I recommend preemptively banning anyone who exhibits the same crazy habit. APL (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it's farewell from me. It's been a fabulous 7.5 years, but all good things must come to an end ... apparently. Have nice lives, y'all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, people have different spellings for various words. "Colour" may not be valid in the U.S. but it is in say, New Zealand, and other words like "center" in the U.S. are spelled "centre" in other countries. People in the U.S. are typically used to American spellings since that's what's used locally, people from other places are used to different spellings. It's like the dates. In the U.S. people use month/day/year while others use what seems to make more sense: day/month/year.

Also, isn't it easier to just revert or delete questions that seem to be troll questions (or whatever the lingo is) as opposed to trying to ban specific users. Users can just make new accounts and it's far more difficult to prove some user is a sockpuppet than to make another account. Nevermind the fact that multiple people may end up using the same IP address. I suggest just deleting the non-serious questions, instead of doing the much more tedious work of banning. Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of English variants. Are you aware of a mode of speech where people say surprising or ironic things that are not literally true?

Seriously, I'm Sorry if I wasn't communicating clearly, but my comment was the latest in a long thread of obvious jokes. (Surely you don't think that Bugs and Papyrus seriously advocate misspelling every-other word as a sort of secret code?) APL (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack asked how one goes about making an error, so I told him. Not advocating it, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Topics per reference desk section

The top level reference desk (the page associated with THIS talk page) describes the range of topics for each section of the desk. However looking at the pages themselves, I see the intro blurb doesn't describe what THAT page covers. Would it be a good idea to include the list for each page in its intro blurb? -- SGBailey (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Each of those pages has a box with the statement "Welcome to the _______________ reference desk." That box can have, centered on the next line, the information copied from Wikipedia:Reference Desk. For example, the computing reference desk can have "Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The goodness of the idea depends on the proportion of questions that we feel are placed on the wrong page. Are they enough to matter? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The goodness surely is partly dependent on how it affects users of the desk rather than the answerers. In other words, would having that info in the header make it more useful for folk to ask a question. I guess some (probably small number) may be unsure if they are in the right place and give up rather than determine where they should post. Equally, would it harm to add it? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would wonder how someone managed to get to a topic-specific subpage of the Ref Desk without intentionally doing so (either because they know the shortcuts, or because they came from the main Ref Desk page, which as all of the category descriptions). It is necessary to balance our desire to include every bit of information we think might be helpful against the disinclination of new users to read that information—a disinclination that grows in proportion to the length of the instructions.

We fight a constant rearguard action against 'instruction creep' in the page headers as it is. For most of our readers, I suspect that the "Ask a new question" button is actually off the bottom of their screens when they open up a Ref Desk page; we should consider very carefully before making that problem worse. For the editor who can truly find no better place for his question, we have the Misc desk—and we have helpful editors who will move a misplaced question to the correct desk. (I've just expanded the description for the Misc desk at WP:RD to emphasize this; let's see if my change sticks.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have to do page-down to get to that button, and even at that, it's at the bottom of the page. Also, on the main page, I have to scroll or page down to see all the desks, as only the top row of them appears when I go to the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to requests for advice about self harm - best practice?

I'm raising this as a response to this question. Such questions border on requesting medical advice (as the implied question is "is my friend cutting themselves good for their health?") but it would clearly be a dereliction of a wider duty to simply blank the question according to the letter of the reference desk guidelines when someone is trying to do the right thing to help their friend. My view on this is that 1) it should be stated that self-harm is not a good idea (leaving any ambiguity on this point doesn't seem to me to be sensible) 2) the OP should be strongly advised to speak to a medical professional 3) the OP should be directed to the wikipedia article on the subject and to an appropriate external link e.g. a recognised charity dealing with self-harm. Most All of these have already happened in this case. My question is threefold, firstly, does a policy, guideline or even an essay exist on this (WP:SUICIDE doesn't really fit)? Secondly, is a stronger response appropriate (as recommended in WP:SUICIDE), my inclination is not, due to the potential for heavy handed intervention to make things worse (such heavy handedness is entirely appropriate where a life is at stake as for suicide threats, but that is not usually the case for self harm). Finally, how should responses such as those by User:Sjö be dealt with? In my view, although given with the best of intentions and containing some good advice (i.e. "read self-harm") it crosses a bright line in the first sentence "Well, it won't lead to internal bleeding and eventual death" - which we don't know. There are deaths due to self harm, and we have no idea what exactly the OP's friend is doing. I would appreciate your input on these issues. All respondants to the post in question have been informed of this thread.Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to raise pretty much the same point, until WP decided to bug out on me with some server error. Anyway, in my opinion some of the answers provided so far steer pretty close to being medical advice, but like Equisetum I am hesitant to remove the post altogether. One thing worthy of consideration is that while the poster may well have a friend who is self-harming, it could also be the case that the friend doesn't exist and it is the poster themself who is self-harming. To be honest, I don't really know what is the best course of action in this case. Astronaut (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My response in that part might have been out of line, even if there was a qualifier. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Sjö (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the three points. I don't feel we have to go any further than that. I don't think we need guess about medical outcomes. Whilst Sjö may or may not be justified (probably is) medically speaking, I don't think it's a good idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the three points, and if they aren't written down somewhere perhaps they should be as a way to handle similar questions (not only about self-harm).Sjö (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. First, who would determine what constitutes self-harm? Would someone getting a tattoo be harming themselves? How about body peircing? Or exposing their children to chicken pox? What if they want to do something that could be dangerous to themselves, but it might not be harmful, like building their own base jumping equipment? I don't think we should be going around encouraging people to hurt themselves, but what they want to do with information is really their buisness. Information may be used in a harmful manner, but information itself is not harmful. Googlemeister (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We currently advise people seeking medical advice to contact "their doctor", or a registered health professional. Perhaps we should direct those giving reports of self-harm, either to themselves or by a friend, to call their local support line (do we have a listing of these handy)? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 16:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread... I almost don't want to ask what happened. When we don't know what to do, the right answer is to trust individual editors, rather than hitting upon some solution nearly at random and forcing it on people. Few people are going to say "go for it", after all. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are all the reference desks protected now?!

Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of having those reference desks in the first place? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What have you seen that leads you to believe they are protected? I am seeing nothing. Bielle (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've visited the Science ref desk and the Entertainment ref desk, and the top row of tabs on both of them says "View Source" instead of "Edit". And when I point the mouse at the "view source" tab, it says "This page is protected. You can view its source [alt-e]". The Humanities desk is not protected, though. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: it's only the Science and Entertainment desks that are protected -- the others are not. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with Wikipedia which no one seems to be fixing. See here for the last discussion on it. The desks are not protected, but appear to be protected for some users. Try purging the cache of affected pages like this and it should return to normal 82.43.90.27 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try this. Thanks! 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Overlap with WP:LIBRARY & no crosslinks here

Until moments ago I was unfamiliar with either this set of Reference desks or the WP:LIBRARY(WikiProject Resource Exchange Shared Resources). After years of editing here, I suppose it's about time I familiarized myself. =D Soooo...I discovered this Reference desk (and its children) via a link to it over there @ WP:LIBRARY. I do not find a link here (maybe I haven't looked enough) back to WP:LIBRARY though, and I am a little confused as to what is the difference in purpose between the two. It seems as though you are both up to the same thing, but could someone explain this fork to me clearly? I was thinking of adding several resource materials that I own and would be willing to share, to the list over there at their WP:SHARED, but before I do, I would like a clearer understanding of what the distinction is between these Reference Desks & that Shared Resource Library WikiProject. Do they collaborate? Are they duplicitous? If I had a question on a given topic or needed access to a particular source, would one of these Reference desks, or that Library, be the more appropriate place to ask it, and if so, why? If this is already clearly explained somewhere else that I can study, so as not to waste your time re-explaining it, that would be great. (I just asked the same question over there, so I'm planning to consider both projects' take on it) Thanks much. duff 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Resource Exchange is intended to share not-easily-obtained resource materials between committed editors interested in improving Wikipedia articles. Such resources include scans of books and other print documents, web articles hidden behind paywalls, personal newspaper clippimgs, and such-like, also contributors there may have access to specialized search engines which can yield web-available or non-web links to material which will help you to improve an article. The Resource Exchange is most helpful when it provides access to copyrighted materials to one individual, for the purpose of improving this general knowledge encyclopedia, which can be easily defended as a fair-use exemption from copyright law. Results from the REX are often communicated privately.

In contrast, the Reference Desks are an available resource where questions may be asked of general interest and not already covered by our existing body of encyclopedia articles. Sometimes those questions result in improvement of our articles, but in almost every case the results are communicated publicly right here on the desks, with publicly available web-links and the general knowledge of RefDesk participants.

Bottom line: if you're looking for the complete text of an academic journal article or chapter of book, ask at the library. If you want people to search their resources to identify multiple materials to help you edit an article, ask at either the Library or at a RefDesk. If you are asking a question out of pure curiosity, use the RefDesks. The Library is for editing articles, RD is for everything else. Franamax (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And to address cross-linking, it is entirely appropriate that the Library link over to the RefDesks (which are a great search and knowledge resource), but we will not be linking the other way. RD is a very (and explictly) public resource, and we won't link to a location where idle curiosity could result in potential contributory infringement of copyright, i.e. buy your magazines somewhere else. That said, and I forgot it in my first post, YAYY to the Library and if anyone has good access to paid resources (includes access to your own public library website, which I bet can access a ton of journals and you can order up a book on loan within a few days to read it for someone else) and wants to help others improve articles, please do put WP:REX on your watchlist to watch for requests. Less so WP:SHARED, which is out-of-date but still possibly useful as a resource. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. Yayyyy for the Library, indeed! I put the page you suggested on my watchlist & will keep an eye out. I have a couple other questions about the Library that I'll ask here only because YOU answered both, and your primary answer was here. =) Does it still make sense to add available resources that I have (including that of my local/regional library system) to the outdated list at WP:SHARED, or better just to watch? Does the Library wikiproject have a participant page and/or a groovy button that I can plop onto my userpage to celebrate my participation, advertise the Library resource to other editors, and find my way back when I want to? duff 03:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point - we should prominently link to WP:LIBRARY from all these pages, since this is a standard service people expect from a dead tree reference librarian. Wnt (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You show a profound (or wilful) misunderstanding. No-one at all, anywhere, ever, would expect a dead-tree reference librarian to make them a photocopy of the book and deliver it to them while they sit on the couch at home, in permanent form. Do your best to destroy the Desks Wnt, but please do leave the Resource Exchange alone. It has actual value to this wiki. Franamax (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's what I had in mind.[41] It doesn't look like "destroying the wiki" to me, just common sense. Sharing materials under Fair Use is not piracy, and we don't have to act like 1980s warez doodz telling each other not to post the pirate BBS number where people will see it. Wnt (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah OK. :) That seems fair enough to me. suspicious as I am. The emphasis very much does need to be excluively on article work, as it's the only possible way we can justify the page(s), and so long as we are very clear and unobtrusive, as you've done [42], I think I'm OK with that. Might change my opinion, but looks alright for now, as it's in the small print, and mo-one reads even the big print unless they are actual diligent editors. I'll provisionally retract the wording above - no harm, no foul (both ways)? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should also say clearly that in academia, it's been absolutely normal for researchers to walk over to the library and get their interlibrary loaned articles as photocopies, or to take the book they've received by ILL and photocopy large portions. A good digital camera or scanner offers an even cheaper and easier method. Academics end up with filing cabinets and DVDs full of articles like this - though admittedly no one on Earth can predict what the outcome of an actual civil suit would be. If you don't see a difference between fair use and piracy, well, it's because the difference is pretty much imaginary, based on trivia and customs. Copyright is an unworkable, dying system - not our fault. See American Geophysical Union vs. Texaco^[43] to see what a peculiar distinction it is. Wnt (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me be equally clear that if you, as a private individual, wish to photocopy copyrighted material in your possession (temporarily or not), that is entirely your decision. If you wish to use the WMF servers to make such copies available or to enable such copying where it is not undoubtedly linked directly to improving articles, then the authority is the Wikimedia Foundation which owns the private property. Your own notions of the relevance of copyright law and statute are immaterial. I didn't notice your name listed at the WMF trustee election, maybe you should stand next year. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start WP:LIBRARY. So far as I know it's OK with Wikimedia. If not, then somebody better figure out what the situation is. But there is no WP:ILNEVER banning links to Wikipedia projects!

To be clear, the first time I saw WP:LIBRARY (which was only a week or so ago) the first thing I thought is, great, I can get any article this way. Just find the abstract or some related content online, put a quick mention of what I know in the article, request the material, do a bit more editing. Take some notes I would have taken anyway, and I can get people to pirate me whatever I want. Of course, paying people to edit by giving them pirated articles is not covered by Fair Use. But letting people share references so they can join in the editing project is fair use. The contradiction results because the copyright system itself doesn't make sense. But we see from Google and YouTube and probably most other successful Internet companies - not to mention the nation of China - that "violating IP" and getting away with it is a fundamental prerequisite of successful online business. Take from that what you will. Wnt (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, too, from one actual diligent editor to some others. So ahh, any thoughts on those other questions? duff 04:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you have resources available, do list them at WP:SHARED. I've made a note to seek out someone who can make a list of inactive editors like at the Translators WikiProject. If you list with a current date in your sig, people will be able to find you. I think the "participants" page pretty much is the SHARED page, so that's where you "sign up". :) As far as a userbox, there might be one, but me in partikalar would be a bad one to ask about adding userboxen to pages, as I've never done it. Poke around in that project a bit. There is a barnstar for being a librarian, I know 'cause I created it and awarded it twice. :) Franamax (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Also, no worries...very interesting sidetrack that was/is. I poked some, and found this which is a terminally groovy userbox, and works. I think that some such templates have taken this a step further and somehow consolidated the code down into a simple one-line template, but I don't know how to do that yet & don't wish to pursue it further at this time. Maybe some coder among you will. There's also this, {{User WikiProject Resource Exchange}}, which when added seems to place a link that says that, on the user's page, and also adds the user to the participant page, here. Part of the code for the userbox I first mentioned, also does that...adds the user to that page. Simply FYI. I'll see what I have that makes sense to add to the WP:SHARED page. Thanks for all your help. duff 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"I am a mechanical engineer now i need a notes for the following topics"

I've long been mystified by the large number of questions like this one that are basically a copy/paste of a textbook question in various high-end fields (engineering, medicine, etc.), usually posted by someone in South Asia or Africa. I think I've found the answer. I googled part of the linked question and found this site, which will pay you for posting answers to textbook questions. It's clear from the impossibly vague non-question that this person has a poor command of English; I think s/he is just posting topics from the site to us and then posting our responses back to the site for pay, without necessarily understanding either direction.

I don't know that anything can or should be done about these queries (other than ignore them), but I thought people would be interested to know. --Sean 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Treat it as "No homework questions" as far as I'm concerned. Use Template:Dyoh — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At least they aren't pretending the questions are coming from a science magazine Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone that we don't know persuades someone else that we don't know to part with money for some references that they could have got for free here, it's not our concern. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed question

Really? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this question (though how answerable it is, I'm not sure). There may be a problem with the first response, but that does not justify getting a Template:Rd-removed stuck on it (which is for questions that ask for medical advice, not answers that give them). If Jayron32 isn't willing to reinstate the question, I will do so in a couple of hours, barring any strong consensus to the contrary. Buddy431 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now notified everyone involved: [44], [45], [46], something that Jayron should have done when he deleted their comments. Buddy431 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Buddy431. The question may have been written a bit better to make it completely impersonal, but it is well within the rules. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is OK - the answer that "I would try Modafinil", not so much. It should be apparent that potency depends above all on dosage, and if one drug were clearly better in all ways at any dose, the others should no longer be regarded as satisfactory treatments. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not be reinstating any questions today. I do want you all to remember that in all things, I am always wrong. But I will take no action. You are free to do whatever you want, keeping in mind my universal, permanent, and unwavering wrongness in everything I do. --Jayron32 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of seeing Jayron32's self deprecatory rhetoric that begins to look like masochism when it is used so often (as a reflex defence mechanism?). In this case Jayron32 is simply right. The question asked for a relative evaluation of medicines, which is fraught with dangers, not least because it would amount to the ref. desk giving advice to a prescribing doctor which we are not qualified to do. The selection and dosage of ADHD medicines requires a doctor to make a continuing assessment of the patient's progress and is not to be done just by picking a brand from the shelf. When any likely response to a question will be irresponsible' the question should be deleted as Jayron32 has done. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a defense mechanism. I have admitted my mistake and moved on. Are people not allowed to admit their mistakes when presented evidence of them anymore? I don't understand why I cannot admit my wrongness? I can't imagine you live a life where nothing you have ever said or done turned out to be incorrect upon further analysis... --Jayron32 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. One time I thought I was wrong about something. Turned out I was wrong about being wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See, I had the opposite problem. I once thought I might have been correct about something. Turns out, I was wrong about that too... --Jayron32 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you wrong now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Jayron32 20:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the question was fine. I haven't looked at the response, but agree with Wnt that that kind of blatant recommendation like "try... X" is over the line. Matt Deres (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The posting by IT Zach P is not a question. It is a request for an existing article to be edited to add further information. The appropriate place for the request is on the Discussion page accompanying the article on ADHD medication. One of our Users might be motivated to supply the requested information and suitable sources. I have no objection to IT Zach P's posting being restored to the Reference Desk. Equally I would have no objection to the posting being transferred to the appropriate Discussion page, and IT Zach P being advised of where the request has gone.

The reply by Phagopsych contravenes the guidelines about medical advice at the Reference Desks. IT Zach P's posting was not a question so Phagopsych's posting should not be regarded as an answer. Phagopsych's posting should not be restored. Dolphin (t) 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the question [47]. Buddy431 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The first respondent to the question deduced that the OP was asking about treating himself, which is a fair (though not necessarily solid) conclusion to draw. To say there is literally "nothing" wrong with the question is not necessarily a solid conclusion either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I thought and, from our own family experience, this is why I offered the advice. I appreciate this should be left up to GPs and specialists. Really sorry about this. --Phagopsych (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologize. To you (and others here) it looked like a request for medical advice. As someone wisely pointed out, after the question was (unwisely) reinstated, there is really no quick-and-easy answer to the question... and that he should... guess what? See a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)