Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 14

Different (additional) proposal
Maybe no one should make funnies until the 'Question answered tag/note' has been placed? This may make it easier for any refatoring later. It 'could' also act as a dividing line between serious and not so serious comments. Comments? There Ive said it again! 8-)--Light current 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread the proposal, which is suggesting a tag for questions that have been responded to but not answered. And I also fear you may not be understanding the general thrust of this entire conversation over the past several days which is that the RD is not your own private source of mirth fodder.  Spinning jokes off of questions has to be a relatively rare occurrence.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No I dont think Ive missed the point. I was suggesting the splitting of mirthfull from unmirthfull replies by means of the 'this question has now been answered tag'. Any comments subsequently may be partially or completely mirthfull. Mine is a new suggestion that is intended to please everyone. 8-)--Light current 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I predict that if any Rules are drawn up regarding Reference Desk behaviour, they will be respected by about three people, for about two days. Not to say that your suggestion isn't a good one, of course. -- Chris 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Chris for that compliment! You are probably correct and that means that all this effort by admins will probably have been wasted? Like sloshing your hands in a bucket of water: take em out-- what happens? 8-)--Light current 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway thats not a problem. If mirthfull answers start appearing before the mirth warnog tag, the 'mirth warning' tag can always be moved to separate the mirthfull answers fron the ummirthfull! 8-)--Light current 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL... what can I say. Things were nice yesterday. We'll see about today. -- Chris 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that this has already started to work! I placed a 'serious answer please' tag and moved some not serious answers below (with their own hdg). Another user then decided that these irrelevant answers should be deleted and deleted them 8-)--Light current 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chilling Effect
Though I haven't been following this discussion word-for-word, it would appear that a lot of you guys are missing an essential point.

The editors at the various RefDesks (yours truly excluded for modesty's sake) tend to be extremely intelligent. They're also VOLUNTEERS. They do all this FOR FREE.

Sure there's a lot of fun going on at the various RefDesks, but if you look closely enough, each question capable of generating an accurate response inevitably gets one.

And so some fun goes on, a quip here, an honest debate on a tangential subject there...it goes with the territory.

The main point I'd like to make, though, is to repeat and to emphasize the fact that at the RefDesk we've somehow managed to gather together some really top-minds on various issues. I'm not saying I'm one, but I hope that I contribute as much as possible, and as well, admittedly, I enjoy having some fun in the process.

I just feel I should warn you guys that if you start cracking down unnecessarily on some of the good natured fun that intellectuals like to have with each other in the course of VOLUNTARILY contributing their valuable time to provide insightful answers to interesting questions, some of the best and brightest at the RefDesk will just lose interest and leave.

I'm not saying that I'm the best contributor, but as I said, I try best to contribute as much as possible to questions that are relevant to my field of expertise.

But I warn you, if I start getting "reprimands" for having a bit of innocent fun here or there, I'll just lose interest in the RefDesk altogether. I'd expect that this would occur all the moreso with the truly brilliant contributors. Nobody likes to be treated like a humourless android whose task is to slavishly answer questions, one after another, wihout actually having some innocent fun in the process. They'd just lose interest and the quality of the RefDesk would sink dramatically.

All that I'm saying is to beware of the chilling effect before making any rash decisions.

Loomis 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said! --Light current 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Perhaps Oh, I'm so sorry, the numerous folks who have complained about the state of these pages need to remove the sticks from their asses and you all should just resume your jovial ways?  Through all of this I haven't heard one "regular" fess up and admit there's been a problem, just a lot of you're not a regular here, you can't tell me what to do or well, we're so brilliant, we need to have our fun (and if you make us stop joking around, we'll leave).   Yes, you're all volunteers.  But guess what - so is everybody else involved in nearly all aspects of this site (including virtually all of the admins and most of the developers).  Will a single "regular" please step up and admit there has been a problem, and say something other than "go away, leave us alone"?   Complete this sentence: I'm sorry the joking has gotten out of hand, in the future I'll ... -- Rick Block (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know what I'll do in the future, but for right now, the numerous folks who have complained about the state of these pages need to remove the sticks from their asses --⁪froth T C  03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, perhaps, replace the sticks with carrots ? :-) StuRat 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Admissions of guilt
I think there have been numerous admissions of a willingness to regulate the RDs by some of the regular editors. You only have to look back on this page to see that. There is also an ongoing attempt to develop a framework for answering the questions seriously as you may have seen. There was a problem a few weeks ago where the desks were tending to descend into chaos. THe disurpting editors now seem to have left. That point came and went without any admin comments (as far as I know). There also was a point more recently where a questioner disrupted the desk with 'mask' questions. That has also passed. We have all been guilty of excesses. It is therefore important to build a consensus on what is and what is not acceptable here so that whatever is put in place is likely to be effective. Im sure you can appreciate that. The process is under way. I am quite hopeful that we can achieve regulation whilst keeping most editors happy. --Light current 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone contributing to this discussion has made valid points. Yes, Rick, you obviously have addressed something that has been bothering other editors too, besides yourself. As Light current correctly pointed out though, other 'regular' RD-editors have indeed given their take on the issue. I found one particular set of suggestions by Anchoress quite to the point, and am taking the liberty of reposting it here:
 * Do our best to resist the urge to give joke answers to sincere questions (genuinely witty additions, or those added after the question has been answered are more OK IMO);
 * Keep asides and OT convos with other regulars to a minimum, at least until the question has been thoroughly answered;
 * Rigorously avoid biting newbies and being self-righteous (spelling flames, DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, etc);
 * Speak up when someone makes an inappropriate or unhelpful comment;
 * Resist feeding the trolls by turning insincere, unintelligible or bad faith questions into their own joke threads;
 * More kindness, generosity, good faith and helpfulness; less sarcasm, humour at other people's expense, and inside jokes;
 * Remember why we're here.
 * IMO, these items are helpful when taken into account before posting anything on the reference desk, and I will certainly try to do so in the future. That being said, I don't believe we can have much clearer-cut rules or rigorous process enforcement, and there will always be wiggle-room as to what could possibly be considered offensive, or off-topic and so forth. I might well have reacted equally sensitive to being singled out and receiving templates with block-warnings on my talk page. One of the things I learned (again) while reading this long discussion is that dissecting humor is a rather humorless pastime. I think the message is out now, and I, for one, am confident that all of the contributors who read this page will do their best to keep the reference desk a happy and civil (no, not necessarily boring) place in the future. Let's see how things have evolved a month from now, what do you say? ---Sluzzelin 09:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a fine plan to me. No "jokes begin here" banners.  No "official" rules.  Just reasonable people acting reasonably.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly admit there's a problem. I tell you I'll simply lose my mind if I hear one more question concerning "seagulls". Now that's way over the line.


 * I think I tend to be very good with the humour thing. I'd never begin answering a sincere question with a joke. What bugs me more is the attitude that the RefDesk is meant to me a completely NPOV place. It's the articles that should remain NPOV, not the RefDesk. Often a RefDesk question begs for a variety of differing POVs, in order to provide some dimension to the question. Of course it's not meant to be a soapbox, but what I dislike intensely is those times when a legitimate POV is provided, with the obvious intention of inviting other POVs, only to be met with the same old "this isn't a soapbox" reprimand. Offering an opinion, a specific POV on a question asked by someone else seems to me to be quite fine, and in keeping with the spirit of the RefDesk. Loomis 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, poor KurtShapedBox has seagulls as his hobby, so asks lots of questions about them. That's OK by me, it's just when others pick up on this and ask nonsense questions about seagulls, bagels, and masks, that I get annoyed. StuRat 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If and when joking gets out of line again, please, anyone, feel free to lose your mind, go on a vicious polemic rampage. It's all good baby! -- Chris 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an occassional contributor to RDs. I'd just like to say that I am astonished by the length of this debate, and some of you folks are taking yourselves way too seriously. I'm with Loomis. I enjoy reading the RDs and I contribute answers as and when I feel like it, but if they turn into a politically correct, self policed, guideline ridden, fun free, image conscious, performance rated, spell checked, newbie hugging, fact checked, sanitised, public service nit-picking zone where you have to think twice before posting anything, then I just won't bother. Gandalf61 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the main "new" rule is "please don't be an asshole". There's a big distance between that and the Orwellian hell-hole you describe. - Nunh-huh 11:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, everyones definition of asshole is different. ie you may think Im an asshole and vice versa! --Light current 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's so valuable to get other opinions. If someone tells you you're acting like an asshole, it's time to consider that they may be right. If several tell you, it's time for a serious reassessment of behavior. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would pay more attention if somebody said "you are behaving unprofessionally". If they swear at you, their judgment and professionalism are in doubt, so their opinion is of little value.  StuRat 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WTF do you mean by that? 8-))--Light current 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Im sorry to hear that so many people have been saying that 8-(. But Im sure people will forgive you 8-)--Light current 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointing out the obvious needs no forgiveness. So there will be plenty of forgiveness left over - for whoever needs it. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * THats a great answer and Im sure your right ! 8-)--Light current 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to come into this discussion a little late (I've been busy the past few days). For once, I'm in 100% agreement with Loomis (wow!).  As for the asshole thing, IMO it is never appropriate to be characterising anybody in such terms.  If you don't like their contributions, you can respond to those contributions accordingly, but resorting to ad hominem judgments is an immature approach to issues and is guaranteed to only make matters worse.  Also, about the humour thing, it's futile to be describing any joke as "funny" or "not funny".  What's funny to me might be something quite different to somebody else.  With great respect, I think Anchoress's reposted suggestion above that "genuinely witty additions ... are OK" falls into this trap.  Who gets to decide when something is witty?  I've often made what I intended as a well-meaning, genial and witty remark, only to be reprimanded for offending somebody.  So it is a tricky area, but there are ways of minimising possible offence, such as using smileys.  Let's not get hung up on whether or not something is "witty" or "funny", because we'll never agree on that, particularly as this is an international site where many cultures intersect.  If you happen to laugh or smile at a joke, fine, the communication is occurring as intended.  If you don't, move on.  If it truly offends you, say so but without name calling.  If it doesn't actually offend you, but you think it might offend others, let them take responsibility for their own feelings.  Without being irresponsible, indifferent or insensitive, we've got enough to be doing here without being concerned about how anonymous others might be affected by what goes on here.  These debates are healthy, as long as they don't manage to result in policies and guidelines that stifle creativity and people's natural expression, all for the sake of harm minimisation.  To misquote Gordon Gecko: "Risk is good".  People need to take more risks in their lives.  We'll never become the World's Greatest Reference Desk otherwise.  JackofOz 03:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Please now visit the Draft guidelines section and leave any comments you wish. 8-)--Light current 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Rather than using the stick (which I'm not in favour of, IMO), why not go the opposite way? How about if regular RD posters committed to delivering at least one a) barnstar, b) acknowledgement on a user's page, or c) comment in a thread for an exceptional:


 * 1) Response to a question; an answer that is unusually complete, elegant, or understandable.
 * 2) Joke that is: unusually witty; not unkind, disrespectful or gross; and delivered at the appropriate time in the arc of the thread.
 * 3) Volume of useful answers.
 * 4) Act of patience and/or kindness towards a newbie or someone who just doesn't 'get it' and might be an irritant to others.
 * 5) Commitment to housekeeping duties; be they archiving, removing duplicates, or hunting down previous iterations of the same question.
 * 6) Solution to a problem; way of dealing with an abusive or irritating poster, way of solving the FAQ conundrum, etc.
 * 7) Act of wisdom; self-editing an inappropriate comment.

--Anchoress 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 8. Continuing to respond in a professional manner, despite being abused by others.

--StuRat 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on this idea

Certainly I agree that the carrot works better than the stick. It does with me. Carrots taste better than sticks 8-)--Light current 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If people cast their minds back a month or two, they may remember thet I proposed a sort of points system for answers (including negative points for bad jokes/inappropraite answers.) I was only half serious at the time, but maybe its time to revisit such ideas as Anchoress has done. --Light current 18:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh, in the preposterously-unlikely event that someone put a barnstar on my page, I'd delete it immediately. Barnstars smack of vanity. -- Chris 18:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah points add too much overhead to what should be a simple system. Barnstars are nice but they're fun to be rare cause then they mean something. Besides I wouldn't want my user page to crash peoples' browsers from all the barnstars! --⁪froth T C  03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting barnstars

I wonder if yould say that if someone actually gave you one. Also to delete it would be grossly insulting to the donor. Do you see that? Much better to leave it and say 'Well thank you so much- but Im sure I dont deserve it!'--Light current 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, archive it immediately, if you must. Removing a barnstar from a user talk page is, effectively, like removing any other message, and is frowned upon under talk policy - but I suppose one could always ask the awarder to remove it  M a rtinp23 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If one was extremely churlish! 8-(--Light current 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "As all of life is but a sham, death is the only sincerity" -- from Hagakure
 * -- Chris 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really hate barnstars, then I found Barn star free zone.png markup which you could put on your user page :S (see here fore the image.) M a rtinp23 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but really, how ungracious to refuse any sort of compliment even though you dont think youve desrved it or think its worthless. 8-( I'll accept 'em from anybody 8-))--Light current 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% there, and I love shinies :) (gimme...)  Yeah - I'll always accept them, and feel that everybody should accept compliments, even if they don't feel that they deserve them.  That's my £0.02 :) M a rtinp23 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you had your award for writing the Archiving bot yet (As I proposed)?--Light current 15:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep - HC gave me it here :), thanks -- M a rtinp23 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay - another one :) - for LC. Thanks :) M a rtinp23 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK you got another one now from me! Well done 8-)--Light current 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love to make a point of acknowledging greatness in my fellow RD posters
 * Anchoress 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sluzzelin 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you care to name them?--Light current 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Existing policies or guidelines
Why is joking on the RDs considered vandalism, and can anyone point to any policies or guidelines saying that it should be so considered?--Light current 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * n.b.: Only non-joking answers will be considered, feel free to delete any joking replies. It has been decided that questions regarding joking aught not be responded to with a joking type response. Oh, and no "smilies" please. :-(  --hydnjo talk 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman !--Light current 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, adding context to Lc's comment). --hydnjo talk 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah even serious physicists can have a laugh. Ha Ha.!--Light current 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines
No offence, but surely you're "beating a dead horse" here, are we ever gonna stop talking about joking on the RD??? It's pretty much the entire talk page now. In fact I'm all for making a new subpage dedicated to it. --WikiSlasher 07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to joke on the RDs if you're wearing a mask though! ;) --WikiSlasher 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The real issue is that a) many people with no prior exposure get first exposure through the reference desk, and so can be put off by joking and in some cases may not even recognizes the joking nature of some comments. b) In general on Wikipedia we tolerate some amount of humor and such in so far as it alleviates stress and such and ultimately makes our editors more productive. However, this is not the same as having entire pages devoted to jokes and rambling discussions. We have Usenet and other fora for that. Furthermore, the Reference desk is somewhat incidental to the actual encyclopedia(useful but still not really part of the 'pedia) and so if anything we should take a stricter view about how much productive/to non-productive editing there should be. c) jokes on the reference desk often quickly turn course or profane. While it is true that Wikipedia is not censored for minors that doesn't mean we need to go out of our way add profanity and similar remarks in non-encyclopedic contexts. JoshuaZ 07:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to Wikislasher, I feel the comments process is coming to a conclusion. We will be able to write the new guidelines very soon. Any way, before this subject arose, this page was empty and dry as dust! 8-)--Light current 15:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When the hiatus has receded and guidelines established, maybe we can make a sub page. THe only problem with doing that is that it tends to remove it from public view and 'out of sight = out of mind'. Im pretty undecided about that. --Light current 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the community decides that we need to have written guidelines then obviously they belong in the WP namespace. There is a section titled How to answer a question at the top of every RD, and I suppose that a link there would be appropriate. --hydnjo talk 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes well draft guidelines can be published, discussed, modified and voted on if necessary. Thats what I meant to say. I intend to publish my version of the draft guidelines soon. If we have guidelines, its easy to see if people are within or without them! 8-) ATM RD editors are being accused of all sorts of things that may or may not be covered by such or any guidelines ot policies. Im just allowing a decent interval for all interested parties to comment on the situation.--Light current 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but I disagree, Light. Even if we had codified guidelines, sanctioned by consensus, it will never be "easy to see if people are within or without them". If rules "easily" dictated process, there would be no need for arbitration on WP and no need for judges and lawyers in real life. Come on, Light, we don't need a set of written rules at the RD any more than we need offensive answers to questions, or templates telling us our jokes aren't funny etc. All we need is some common sense (or am I really being hopelessly out of touch here?). ---Sluzzelin 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We can take care of ourselves without guidelines. In the main WP people actually have to agree on what to put in the article and guidelines are invaluable. In an open Q/A page you don't have to agree on much for it to still work well. --⁪froth T C  00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well of course we didnt/dont need them! Its only the unjustified critisism of a few people that has stirred up this hornets nest and forced the issue! However, without guidelines, any Tom, R Dick, or Harry can accuse anyone of acting improperly and threaten dire consequences.
 * So lets define what improper behaviour is so that we know who to accuse, when and why! Unfortunately, common sense does not seem to prevail amongst the posters, the questioners, the RD staff or the critics. Yes Im afraid you are out of touch with the current tide of and magnitude of feelings on both sides here.
 * RD staff need to protect themselves from unjust critisism and retribution (blocking) by the uninvolved, non contributing, bystanding heirarchy! The best way to do this is to have guidelines that we all adhere to! It wont be perfect and there will be arguments about who is or is not flouting the guidelines, but IMO some simple guidelines are better than no guidelines at all. I think it will silence at least 90% of the current critics. 8-(--Light current 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need guidelines, or rather they won't be useful, because I don't think they can be worded in such a way as to actually stop people who are convinced they are right from being 'unhelpful'. The critisism has not been unjustified, but I would agree that things have improved recently as people have been watching a little more closely. Skittle 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait till you see my proposals. THings have only quietened down recently becuase people thing they can be blocked for being slightly amusing!--Light current 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Light, I understand your sentiments; as stated earlier, finding block-warnings on my talkpage would have irritated me as well. But I'm afraid this attempt at bureaucratizing the RD comes close to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because you got an unfriendly slap on the hand, doesn't mean we all have to start policing each other either. I don't wish to accuse anyone, anywhere for any reason at the RD. For the most part I enjoy the scope of answers provided here, from the dry and well researched, via the tangential and trivial, to the silly and quirky. Yet one of the differences between joking in real life conversations and joking in an online forum is that it's almost impossible to gauge the reception of one's remarks. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be funny, but one is often in for a surprise when assuming that everyone shares one's sense of humor. Maybe comedians need a thicker skin, but it's not that big a deal, really.---Sluzzelin 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Before being negative, why dont you wait and see what my proposed guidelines are?--Light current 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we don't need instruction creep guidelines. Anchoress 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there were two people who got threatened with blocking. Put yourself in our position, being threatened with imminent blocks. Would that cuase you no concern? If we dont know how to avoid these threats, how are we to proceed? And if I got blocked for making one too many funnies, you would all come to my defence? Is that right?--Light current 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Draft guidelines for the Reference desks (draft #1)

 * 1) Respondents should address only the question, not the questioner.
 * 2) Respondents should keep all answers 'on topic'
 * 3) All WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette and WP:AGF rules apply to these pages

--Light current 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the proposed guidelines
Please put your comments here. Please try to be constructive


 * 1) I certainly agree with this. JackofOz 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Very often, side issues crop up which could fall into the category of tangential discussions. Some of these are definitely irrelevancies, but some lead us into fascinating new areas which are very often much appreciated by the questioner.  Questioners don't always know exactly what question it is they're trying to ask, and when we stumble around with slightly related material we sometimes come up with pure gold.  I wouldn't want to put too many barriers in the way of such fruitful meanderings. JackofOz 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree.  JackofOz 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this rule. For example, sometimes questions are anecdotal or personal rather than general, and in these cases it might be helpful to be able to address the questioner for clarification (What country do you live in? How old are your children? ...) ---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont like this as a strict rule, and agree with Jack's statement above.---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this one. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF should apply everywhere on WP.---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on whether we need guidelines at all
Please put your comments here.
 * I don't think we need fixed guidelines beyond WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as explained somewhere above (I'm losing track of where I posted what, with all the text being shifted around.) ---Sluzzelin 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur with Sluzzelin. Lets be careful of instructional creep. Anyone already following existing Wikipedia policy in spirit will keep their responses relevent, polite and helpful (and that means no off-topic, unhelpful "jokes"). That is all we need. Rockpock  e  t


 * I concur with the above two posters. Skittle 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Example chiding post
''I think your answers on the RDs are really great and sometimes hilarious. But do you really think that last one was appropriate. Do you think you could you reconsider it please?''--Light current 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which post is that ? StuRat 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not directed at anyone. Just testing a non offensive response that could be used. Did you feel offended?--Light current 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Until you added the header, I thought it was directed at Sluzzelin. StuRat 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah! you know me. I dont criticise anyone! At least, I dont intend to unless they really get my goat! Im a pussy cat! Meeeow!--Light current 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Light current, I absolutely agree it's important for one to be polite when requesting someone reconsider something they've said. But if the response is "Ok, I've reconsidered and I think it was just fine," what then?  -- SCZenz 00:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then we apply the big hammer! 8-)--Light current 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As a regular...
...reader and question asker, not answerer so much. I've just come to the talk page for the first time and noticed all the controversy about making jokes, and wanted to add my thoughts. Part of the reason I enjoy the reference desk is for the humor. I really like the fact that the answerers show their individual personalities. Could I suggest that if you want to make a joke, you do so, but first try to find the answer yourself, if it hasn't already been stated? I really think it's only a problem when jokes substitute for serious answers. And cheers to everyone for all the good work you do. --Grace 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you for that comment 8-)--Light current 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Still, it's hard to hold your tongue when you have a good joke but don't know the actual answer, or how to find the answer. StuRat 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well basically, I think we have to bottle it up until some serious answers have been forthcoming. I know its painful but....--Light current 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know the answer and you've got a good pun, share it! It's better than nothing and certainly doesn't prevent people who do know the answer from answering. It's the difference between an answer and a joke, and just an answer. --⁪froth T C  03:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
There really aught to be a hatnote at the top of the page directing people who though WP:RD meant Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, what does everybody else think ? StuRat 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Never occured to me. Never seen anyone confuse RD with resolving disputes either (at least, no one posting on the RDs requesting for dispute help). But no harm adding it. -- `/aksha 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, add another piece of boilerplate that will never be read to respond to a problem that doesn't exist. --hydnjo talk 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. --WikiSlasher 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you think is a good idea? --hydnjo talk 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a note at the top of the page saying WP:RD redirects here, you may have been searching for Resolving disputes. --WikiSlasher 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mystery shoppers
Anyone think its a good idea to recruit some normal Wikipedians (editors) to act as mystery shoppers to evaluate the quality (or lack of it) on the RDs. This would involve normal editors possibly acting under sock puppet accounts to pose questions: (some serious some stupid) to the RDs. After a few weeks (say) of tests, we would gather the opinion of these 'mystery shoppers' to try to ascertain the quality of service and the general reaction to the RDs service. Comments? --Light current 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This would take time-wasting navel-gazing to a new extreme, to put it mildly. Shimgray | talk | 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I dont know!. Since the recent spate of criticism, I think it would be good to have a sample view point of wikipedians in general. Also we dont ask you personally to waste your time if you dont want to! 8-)--Light current 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we might come out poorly in such a survey, as they would be accustomed to the standards of Wikipedia articles, which are supposed to be facts only, with sources. The Ref Desk, on the other hand, frequently contains opinions, especially when that's what the question asks for. StuRat 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we have to take that on board. After all, any ordinary user could come to the RDs at any time to ask a question. I think it would be good to get the real truth of the situation rather than what is percieved by a limited number of narrow minded admins! --Light current 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have our share of "mysterious" shoppers already. Anons coming in from nowhere and landing directly into the RD with their first and few edits, suspiciously adept at wiki markup and drawing in troll feeders. And there are other first timers with legitimate and interesting questions. I don't think that there is anything to be gained by "faking it". Just examine reality, the RD as it comes from the real world (alright with a few "fakers" now and then). Anyone out there willing to admit to ever coming in cloaked in the safety of a non-traceable IP? --hydnjo talk 02:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadnt actually noticed "mysterious" shoppers. Too busy answering questiond I guess. 8-)--Light current 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean socks? Yeah but we cant measure it properly like this. We need trusted mystery shoppers to tell us exactly how were doing.--Light current 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, OK Lc, you're our designated MS. Have at it. No fair editing as Lc until the MS section has been archived though. --hydnjo talk 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think people may be able to guess my style 8-)--Light current 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know about that, but your absence for those few days would be a dead giveaway. ;-)  --hydnjo talk 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If he used a normal smiley I'd be dead fooled :p --⁪froth T C  03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeesh Bri, when you make posts that makes us pee laughing it seems also to be a thread killer. ;-)  --hydnjo talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just doing my part :) --⁪froth T C  20:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ;-) just testing! --Light current 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking straight to the contents
On the off chance that anyone might be interested in a comment not about the humor content of these pages, per a suggestion at WP:HD I've added an HTML anchor just past the table of contents (now at all the RDs), so links of the form Reference desk/Miscellaneous skip past the boilerplate. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Rick, the link isn't working for me. Safari browser, empty cache, restart etc. Address box looks to be OK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Contents goes to top of RD/M page.  --hydnjo talk 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me on Safari, but only sometimes. I have noticed some weirdnesses with Safari and links within a page, which I can't precisely characterize.  It's so random (opening the same link repeatedly sometimes does and sometimes doesn't follow the "within page" anchor) I suspect it's probably a timing issue.  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Same here, sometimes reload works but mostly not. The link in my post above worked 2 -3 times after I saw Lc's post so I thought you touched up something, but then it stopped working. Maybe it only will work for me after an Lc post! --hydnjo talk 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Works ok for me. Firefox as is.--Light current 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Same here, works perfectly every time with Firefox. --hydnjo talk 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep firefox works. Too bad it panders to corporations.. spread SeaMonkey! --⁪froth T C  18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The bot
Hi - you may (or may not) have noticed that the bot didn't complete it's archival last night. I've taken a look at the error codes, and it turns out that my internet connection failed. To stop this from having an effect in the future, I'd like to look for some volunteers to run a version of the bot, should mine fail. Being in the TC time zone, I'm not always awake when archival takes place, so ideally whoever (preferably more than one person) has the backup would be in this time-zone. If you're happy to do this, please could you say so below - I'll then email you a link to the files. Thanks, M a rtinp23 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on the West coast of Canada, so I don't know if it would be of any use to you, but I'd be happy to help if I can. I have an extremely reliable DSL connection and my computer is always on. Anchoress 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks - I'm emailing a link to you now. There was another (sigh) problem tonight, but that was a mediawiki bug (I'm pretty sure), but we'll see if there are any errors when you run it.  I'll write a version of the bot to carry out certain archivals on demand, for when it fails on some desks.  M a rtinp23 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I got the email and it's installed. I sent a reply email with a couple of questions. Anchoress 10:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem if the archive fails one day and needs to be repeated the next day, as long as nothing gets deleted as a result. And thanks again, for all your archiving efforts. StuRat 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, really :-). Nothing should ever get deleted permanentley, this being a wiki, and if the bot misses one part of the process, it is always fairly easy to fix.  Nevertheless, I've just finished coding a version of the bot which archives certain desks on demand, by means of passing a command line arguement.  If anybody wants this as a backup, shoul the normal bot fail, just say :) -- M a rtinp23 15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about humorous RD answering guidelines
This discussion is about the need or not to codify a set of rules dealing with humorous or joking responses at the RDs. It is the feeling of some (including myself) that such codifying is unnecessary. Others on the other hand feel that unless specific guidelines exist that they may be subjected to arbitrary blocking or other sanctions for merely adding humorous responses at the RD. This subject has  risen to this level of discussion because of criticism by some to the supposedly humorous responses to questions which the questioner assumed was serious (or not).

From some of the discussion above there seems to be a difference of opinion as to :
 * 1) Whether or not there needs to be a set of rules to attempt corralling humor and,
 * 2) If such a need exists, whether or not such a set of rules could actually be agreed upon and further,
 * 3) Could there ever be a set of rules that would distinguish appropriate vs inappropriate humor which would encompass the various points of view.

I'll weigh in with my own opinion: We could never capture all of the eventualities and subtleties that will arise as we permit and encourage old and newcomers alike to ask whatever question they wish to have us answer. It is incumbent on us to apply our individual filter to these questions and to make decisions as to their intent and merit. If we deduce that it is more likely than not a genuine question or a homework question or frivolous troll bait we ought to respond accordingly without fear of recrimination from others. If the next or subsequent responder feels otherwise then they should feel free to weigh-in from their own perspective of the question. This give and take is the essence of the RD. To have a nagging concern that one's response might be met with "Hey, I think that your response violates section 3.2.5a of our humorous guidelines" is one of the most unwise proposals that I've ever seen.

There is no substitute for common sense. The discussion of the last several days seems that for some, common sense is a difficult concept and that written "common sense" is required. Well, I disagree with that notion. I feel that when the RD community senses that common sense is being ignored or violated it speaks up; we have ample example of that right here. And then, because the offender claims ignorance and demands to be shown a "rule" that has been broken is insufficient reason to fashion a set of rules. Once rules have been codified by a part-time bunch of folks as ourselves then I suspect that loopholes will abound. I much prefer admonishment by one and then several if an unacceptable behavior pattern is observed. This kind of self-policing is far more effective than having a bunch of judges (whoever the they may be) make some official pronouncement three weeks hence that some "meant-to-be-funny" response was deemed to be ... (well who the hell cares some three weeks after the fact).

I feel that at this time we are seeing self-oversight at its best and for some that is an uncomfortable notion. "What rule have I broken?" or "Where does it say that I can't... etc. The RD community at large has made its feelings well known with regard to over-the-top "humor". This attempt to have a set of rules rather than community consensus is foolish at best and potentially harmful to the RD spirit: "the rules don't say that I can't say... " and so on. We seem to be pretty much as one in judging what is and what isn't appropriate. We also seem reasonably willing to call-up a habitual offender so, why would we ever want a set of rules that would surely open to interpretation?

I think that we're doing just fine; we're recognizing and chastising "over-the-top" contributers and seem to be doing well at curtailing their behavior. I'm not saying that anyone's behavior has been bad but just that the community feels that certain behavior is not in our best interest. I also feel that when it has been pointed out by one and then several users chiming-in that individual users do temper their commentary so as to be more in line with expected norms. My feelings have been expressed; do we need a rule-book for behavior at the RD or can we be flexible and fair enough to self-police based on our combined common sense? --hydnjo talk 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I couldn't agree more that we don't need an "RD behavioral codex", I also think that, in hindsight, it wasn't very wise to post templates with block-warnings on other editors' talk pages. I realize this wasn't Rick's intention, but de facto he chose to put his finger on what he (as well as apparently other editors) saw as offensive, in a fashion that in turn risked offending the recipient(s) of these templates - and now we have an entire talk page dealing with this topsy-turvy. In the future, it should perhaps be handled with more caution from both sides (offended and offender). ---Sluzzelin 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edcon)
 * I tend to agree that if blocking threats had not been issued, this matter would not be as serious. One might say it would have been humorous! And if you are going to be blocked or heavily crticised, it should be for violation of one or more WP polices or guidelines. In abscence of guidelines, it is easy for anyone to say:

"I thought that joke wasnt funny, and I take offence at it. It was rude/profane/dirty/in bad taste/not to my liking/not suitable for children/offensive/hurt my feelings/shattered my faith/might have been offensive to someone else somewhere/ so Im going to complain and get you blocked if you make one more funny." The OP has no defence because all those above adjectives are subjective. If you dont get a joke, or dont like it: leave it. People dont have to read the RD answers or questions. This puritanical attitude here reminds me of the Mary Whitehouse campaigns. Sorry I dont think we want that sort of narrow minded approach anywhere on WP. --Light current 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

THerefore, we need a concise set of guidelines. Keep within them: youre not going to get blocked/criticised too much. Step outside them: you may draw criticism upto and including possible blocking. I would like to emphasise that these are Guidelines NOT Rules. We should be guided by them.THey are therfore slightly fuzzy.(Apart from the policy quotations) 8-)--Light current 08:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hydnjo, to answer your three questions from my personal point of view:
 * 1) Beyond the usual WP policies, no set of rules is required. The topic at hand, as far I understood it, is not the quality of humor, but whether a comment (hilarious or not) is offensive. Personally, I appreciate sarcasm, wicked jokes, and scratching taboos of political correctness, but I wouldn't want to produce this anywhere on WP, lest I offend an OP, or anyone else who might feel victimized by my words. (I would never use this kind of humor in a public speech in front of an anonymous audience either, but then I'm not a stand-up comedian.) IMO this item is already covered by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE.
 * 2) The more specific a set of rules would attempt to be, the less it could be agreed upon by any community of editors.
 * 3) Again, I think WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, perhaps with a dash of empathy and kindness in tone, are sufficient to distinguish between appropriate vs inappropriate humor (or non-humor, for that matter).
 * In other words, while I don't feel the need to police others, I also understand those who do, if they feel that a particular post has offended basic WP policies. I just ask them to assume good faith as well, and perhaps communicate their concerns in a more propitiating manner. (Again, it's not about the humor, it's about the offensiveness). Light current, these are just my thoughts, and if you feel that a set of rules would help you balance out your posts in the future, thus protecting you from further criticism, then you should pursue this endeavour. Not everyone, however, will agree to accept whatever guidelines are established. I don't wish to re-escalate the situation, which is why I will withdraw from this discussion henceforth. ---Sluzzelin 09:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments 8-)--Light current 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooo! Look what I found on the RD front pages:


 * Be polite. to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.


 * Well I never. Well not much anyway! And how does one define little? 8-)--Light current 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just send a trained assassin to the home of the next person to crack wise? Chris 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The assassin would get blocked! 8-)--Light current 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Locked doors can be picked! Chris 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much support for written guidelines about this subject, nor do I believe that they could be successfully constructed at all, nor do I believe that any more energy aught to be expended it such an undertaking. Given those constraints, I don't think that I would be of much help in such an endeavor. If any user should decide to attempt such a construct in his own namespace and call our attention to it then perhaps we might point future "violators" to that page for the purpose of constructive criticism. I do not endorse an official WP set of guidelines regarding such a subjective subject and it's probably time to smooth some of our ruffled feathers and take heed of all of these comments, digest the whole experience and conduct ourselves in the spirit of what has been brought up here. My sincere hope is that the spirit of adherence to appropriate commentary at the RD is far more important than codifying a set of rules or guidelines with all of its attendant overhead of dispute resolution and such. --hydnjo talk 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks but this is the kind of crap that should not be appearing on the reference desk. It could be easily be interpreted as offensive by people who aren't "in" on the jokes. If it continues to appear, I will remove it. For goodness sake think before you type such inanity. pschemp | talk 03:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition
[wikt:inane] Etymology: Latin inanis 'empty, vain'. Pronunciation * IPA:/ɪneɪn/ Rhymes: -eɪn Adjective: inane 1. Lacking sense or meaning; silly.

(Note: no copyvios please, Random House doesn't want us violating their copyright! ~Kylu ( u | t )  01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Quote policies or guidelines please!--Light current 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice attempt to wikilawyer. Its called disruption, and its a blockable offense. Look it up yourself. You are capable. pschemp | talk 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a gross topic, but we handle those all the time. Do you think LC just made up the question and is trolling ?  If not, I don't see what your objection is. StuRat 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain how it disrupts anything. If this is a joke, tell me what it is. I dont know!--Light current 03:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RD Homework Rules
''Following discussion moved from Mathematics RD. Following a question about inserting brackets to make an expression take a given value in which the questioner said "I have about 9 of these problems" and gave one as an example ... " Gandalf61 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As Rainwarrior says, you will have to use "trial and error". You can cut down the work a bit by getting an idea of how big a change you need to make in the sum. For example


 * - 8 + 3 - 2 + 7 = 10 - 10 = 0


 * so if we want to make the sum -2 we need to reduce the sum by 2. We could achieve this by changing a +1 into a -1, but we don't have a +1 term in the expression. But 3-2=1, so if we can change the sign of both the +3 and the -2 terms, we are done. So we try


 * - (8 + 3 - 2) + 7 = -9 + 7 = -2


 * which works. Gandalf61 15:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gandalf61, please don't give out the answers to homework problems like that, only point them in the right direction. StuRat 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, that's exactly what I did. Read what the OP said - there are 9 similar problems, this is only one example. Their challenge is to generalise this method and apply it to the other problems. Gandalf61 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You gave them the exact answer to the problem. There may or may not be an additional 8 questions, but we still shouldn't give the answers to even one. StuRat 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I gave a method that may help them with their other problems, and illustrated it by deriving an answer (there is another one) to the example they gave. You can answer RD questions in your way, and I will answer them in my way. Gandalf61 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you gave an answer, thus doing homework for them. It is irrelevant whether other answers may also be valid, and whether the homework may include other questions. We expect everyone here, those asking and those answering, to read and follow the directions at the top of the page, which state:
 * “Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. ”
 * Posting homework answers, for whatever reason, is an ethical violation, for you and for the questioner. It also invites further violations, and places a burden on others here.
 * Often we have to work harder to give guidance without giving answers. For example, an acceptable response in this instance would be to use a different set of numbers as illustration. We appreciate your wish to help, but please help all of us by respecting the rules of this reference desk. --KSmrqT 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Rmv indent) KSmrq: Firstly, yes, I have read the directions you quote. The questioner did not post their "entire homework questions" and I did not answer them, so no rules were broken. I gave a method and illustrated it by showing how it applied to the "specific part" of their homework that the questioner had provided as an example. "Here's how to work the first one - now try the rest for yourself" - still seems like a perfectly valid response to me. Secondly, "ethical violation" - just listen to yourself - this is the RD, not the law courts. Thirdly, I didn't "place a burden" on you or anyone else - if you choose to spend your time patrolling the RDs looking for "violators" that is your choice. If you don't enjoy spending your time that way then you really don't have to do it - it is not compulsory. Gandalf61 17:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) So it's okay to answer one homework question so long as the user has others that they'll be sure to do honestly? If so, I expect that we at the RD will see a drastic upswing in the number of homework questions students are assigned!  "Please just do these 10 problems for me; they cover my whole range of current work like a very good, concise homework assignment would, but I promise there's at least 300 more like them because my teacher is insane."  (The phrase "please do not post entire homework questions" does not mean "please do not post entire homework assignments" but rather "please do not post  [any]  entire homework questions".  Similarly, the phrase "a specific part" does not mean "just one problem or subproblem" but rather "a confusing part of a question or step in a solution".  Should that be clarified?)
 * 2) Something is an ethical violation even if no one sees it, so long as (for Kant) it goes against one's duties or (for Jeremy Bentham) it causes ill; never mind whether something so public and official as a court is involved. The point is that the homework policy exists to prevent the RD from impairing the education of students by obviating the need to understand their assignments.  It's bad for a student to try to get out of their homework, and it's bad for us to help them &mdash; not only because of the aforementioned interference but also because we should not encourage such behavior.
 * 3) The "burden" stems precisely from my previous sentence: do you really suppose that answering homework questions will do anything but increase the number asked, in hopes that (even if it's against policy) someone will provide cheap answers with no work required? Simply having to sort through such nonsense to find the honestly curious is burden enough, whether or not anyone is "policing" the RD because of it.  The point is that (in the vast majority of cases) anything against the RD rules hurts the RD and anyone who uses it or helps out with it; please don't do that.  --Tardis 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1, 2, 3: Agreed. Furthermore, in this instance (as usual) it was unnecessary to provide a complete answer to even one question. To show the method, it suffices to uses a different set of numbers. And the message that this is unacceptable needs to be public, not just for you, not just for the questioner, but for everyone. --KSmrqT 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a sadly cynical viewpoint. If the questioner says they have 9 questions and I don't have any evidence to the contrary then my default position is to believe them. See WP:AGF.
 * If you want a philosophical argument, consider this one. Who does more good - the person who tries to help others, or the person who discourages others from helping by complaining about how the help is provided ? By the way, there is no homework policy - just a suggested rule on the RD header, which you interpret one way and I interpret another way. I agree with the rule - it's a good rule - I just don't agree that anyone broke it in this instance.
 * Still don't see how I placed a "burden" on you. If you don't want to police the RDs to enforce your interpretation of the rules then don't do it. If you think the RDs are full of "nonsense" then don't read them. No-one else is responsible for how you choose to spend your time. Gandalf61 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "burden" on the other Ref Desk responders is that, once it is known that you can expect to get an exact answer to any homework problem by claiming that it's one of many similar problems, the Ref Desk will be deluged with students doing just that. StuRat 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do assume good faith, but I do not assume that men (or students) are angels. If the de facto policy is "we only answer homework questions if they're not your only ones", how do you expect a stuck student to resist fabricating the valuable other questions?  And even if the majority of posts citing such other problems are genuine (as per AGF), how do we determine which ones?  It's not like we can revert someone's homework if it turns out that they were acting in bad faith!
 * OK... who does more good: he who causes a student to pass, or he who causes a student to learn (and then, presumably, to pass)? This is not a petty discussion of how to help, but rather what in fact is help (and ethical help at that).  As far as "anyone broke it", my clarifications of the RD rules (in &lt;small/&gt; above) made that pretty clear, I think; and the rules, reached by consensus among RD staff, are as much a policy (if a local one) as anything else here is.
 * No one here is "enforcing" anything. But you should be aware that, to whatever extent this discussion reaches one, there is a consensus that your choices of how to spend your time are not appreciated; by symmetry, if you think the RDs are too "anti-homework-answering" then don't answer on them.  --Tardis 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But you don't have to determine which questions are genuine. That's the whole point of the assume in "assume good faith". You assume that a questioner is genuine and telling the truth unless you have evidence otherwise.
 * There is a list of WP policies here. There is no "homework policy". There is no such thing as a "local policy". And there is no such body as the "RD staff" - it's just a bunch of people asking questions and a bunch of people answering them.
 * Well, the public rebuke by StuRat (17:02, 6 November 2006) appeared to me to be a clumsy attempt to enforce a rule which I didn't (and still don't) think I or the questioner broke. And KSmrq's statement that "the message that this is unacceptable needs to be public" makes it clear that the intention was not to provide advice, but to grandstand and make a point. And your appeal to authority by citing "local policy" and "RD staff" follows in the same intimidatory vein. I don't appreciate these debating tactics. But I guess we will have to live with our mutual lack of appreciation. Gandalf61 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we didn't have "assume good faith", we wouldn't need "don't answer homework questions" because we could decide by case whether someone should get a question answered (i.e. whether or not they were asking in good faith). But since we have it, we have to have the additional rule about homework so that our assumptions of good faith don't get us into trouble (helping too many dishonest students).  There's a difference between assuming good faith in encyclopedic edits and assuming truth in background for RD questions; AGF doesn't even mention the latter (except to say that lying is evidence of bad faith).
 * Would you prefer that the homework... thingy... for the RD be called a "guideline" or perhaps a "micro-cultural norm"? Moreover, does it make a difference?  The point is that it, like "real" policies and such, should be followed unless there is a good unusual reason or there arises consensus that it should be changed.  As far as "RD staff" goes, feel free to interpret it as a transclusion of "that set of [English] Wikipedia users who frequently read one or more sections of the Reference Desk and, perhaps in addition to posting questions, provide answers on a regular basis" for efficiency.
 * This point has split:
 * If anyone had been attempting to "enforce" anything, they would have removed or changed your text. (I actually did this once recently, for an obvious homework question that wasn't even said to be part of any series; at least one of the answerers disagreed, but this discussion didn't happen then.)
 * Please elucidate your claim that no one broke the rule (as I clarified it to pertain to single homework problems; perhaps this whole thing results from multiple interpretations of that rule's current text).
 * As far as public discussion goes, I think it's obvious that the goal is to inform you and others of the "indigenous psychointellectual bias" (or whatever) we have against bad kinds of homework help, and that said "regional recognized practice" is in fact recognized and supported. Putting that in front of more users than read this page is reasonable, although I wouldn't say that it was mandatory or even obvious.
 * I have made no appeal to authority, which is a statement that a proposition is true because some authority states so; I described a consensus, which is authority here. The homework rule isn't a factual proposition, it is a rule (of whatever sort), and of course authority makes the rules!
 * As already noted in (2) here, quibbling about use of the words "policy" and "staff" is not particularly helpful. --Tardis 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(rmv indent) Well, we are going in circles now, so I will state my position one more time for the record, then leave the debate.
 * 1) I have no problem with the "no homework" rule. It is a good rule.
 * 2) But it is only a rule. The word "policy" carries certain connotations in Wikipedia (see WP:POLICY) and to describe the "no homework" rule as a policy is a misleading attempt to give the rule more authority than it actually carries.
 * Or it could merely be imperfectly careful use of language. We're running afoul of WP:AAGF here, but isn't it bad faith to assume that calling something a "policy" is an attempt at deception?  (No one called it "an official policy on the English Wikipedia", as such things as WP:NPOV describe themselves.)  --Tardis 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither I nor the OP broke the rule as it is written - although we clearly breached some folks' interpretation of the rule.
 * It is my opinion (though only an opinion) that the interpretation of the rule as pertaining only to entire homework assignments borders on daft. But perhaps interpreting it that way is more common than I would guess.  Once more: does it need to be revised?  --Tardis 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If StuRat or anyone else had wanted to offer advice on how to respond to RD questions, they could have left a message on my talk page.
 * 2) But the intention was not to offer advice. The intention (as stated by KSmrq and Tardis) was to issue a public rebuke and make a public example of me. There is another excellent RD rule which says "The Reference desk is not a soapbox".
 * Do not presume that you know others' intentions. In particular, I did not join this discussion until it was on this talk page, and I was the one who re-removed it from the project page (so that it would not be forked) and put the notice up that the discussion was on-going.  So how was I trying to make a public example of anyone?
 * I'll admit that the tone, at least of my posts, has been a bit stronger than merely to offer advice. But that was simply because I believed (and still do, as it happens) that rules were being broken rather than simply sub-optimal posting being done.  --Tardis 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You stated your intentions above: "...the goal is to inform you and others of the "indigenous psychointellectual bias" (or whatever) we have against bad kinds of homework help, and that said "regional recognized practice" is in fact recognized and supported. Putting that in front of more users than read this page is reasonable...". So, your intention was to issue a public rebuke, and the more public the better. Gandalf61 21:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) As I had been criticised in public, I made a robust defence of my actions. And I will do so again if similar circumstances arise. Gandalf61 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... okay. That is what the talk page is for; why does it sound like a threat?  --Tardis 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing, a suggestion...
Instead of continuing to argue, how about we discuss a common-sense way of avoiding this disagreement in the future. What I would do in this case would be to make up a new problem that's similar to the given example but doesn't use exactly the same numbers, and then solve that. Does that seem good to everyone? -- SCZenz 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That certainly satisfies all rules and causes no harm; I fully support it. --Tardis 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A comment about "only" one of ten: If I am teaching a class of 25 students, and 24 of them answer all ten questions themselves, while one of them answers nine questions but copies an answer for one, we have a problem. It is not fair to grade all the students equally, because they have not done the same work. Nor is it fair to the one student to force that situation by providing too explicit an answer. We are all in favor of helping people better understand mathematics. It usually requires only a little extra effort (as SCZenz and I have both suggested) to avoid raising problems like this. Most of us think the benefits are worth the effort. We hope you, Gandalf61, will agree. --KSmrqT 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if the editors who choose not to answer such questions can't tolerate good faith, polite answers to such questions, the best solution is for editors who choose to answer such questions to do so on the OP's talk page. Anchoress 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to have failed to make my position clear. I did not offer the initial criticism, though I support it. My intent is not a rebuke or grandstanding. And I believe the homework answer was provided in good faith. What I am saying is that a mistake was made, one that can and should be avoided in the future.
 * One part of the mistake is that it invites abuse of the reference desk; this can be lessened by a private post. However, the teaching and ethics issues are the same. Students need to wrestle with problems and find solutions for themselves, both to better understand the subject and to build confidence. It is not fair to other students who do all the work while the poster gets the same credit for doing less. Nor should we put the poster in that position by providing too much of an answer. I also think it is naive to believe that students who are willing to cheat to get homework answers will not also lie in their posts.
 * Will all readers of the reference desk be familiar with these issues? I don't think so; and I think it is a good idea to raise them for all to see. Furthermore, we can avoid all the issues, not by using a private post, but by using an altered example. Again, this tactic is something that must be taught.
 * My view is that Gandalf61's answer was 98% good, and 2% problematic. My intent is to explain the problem with the 2%, and to offer one simple and practical way to avoid the problem in the future. --KSmrqT 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
We should have a general feedback page where people who ask questions can comment on the responses they get, how helpful we are, how we could improve the way we answer etc. Who's with me? Reference desk/Feedback if you want it to be a new page. Also we will need to have a link to the feedback section on the rest of the RD pages. Or just a link to this talk page encouraging feedback. Who's with me? --WikiSlasher 09:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [making extra edit in between these square brackets because I accidentally marked the last one as minor...]


 * What would be the point of this exactly? To warn/ban users who don't give decent answers, perhaps? Sounds good to me. ChrisWright1979 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or jokey answers! 8-)--Light current 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not with you, Wikislasher. I am with someone else. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Or maybe cryptic answers? I did in fact suggest this a few days ago: the idea of Mystery shoppers. That is People who could be trusted acting under socks then reporting back. Difficult to organise fairly though unless a number of volunteers came forward declaring their willingness to participate in such a scheme. I dont think biased people should be allowed to take part. So that would exclude the current RD editors and admins.--Light current 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a system for this, with all the confrontational baggage of exluding "biased people" that's involved...? Anybody can make a sock and ask questions with it&mdash;I don't see how it would violate WP:SOCK to do so&mdash;or just ask a question while logged out.  Also, what do we gain by doing this?  The entire process, from question to answer, is completely public&mdash;thus if I pretended to be a confused 7th-grader, I don't see how we would learn more from the RD's response to me than from its replies to actual confused 7th-graders.  Am I missing something? -- SCZenz 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Becuase the only feedbak we get at present is generally negative feeback from admins who think their job is to police RD using their own special views of how they think it should be run and threatening to block users who do not comply with their own biased views.--Light current 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try again... What special privileges do you think an officially-designated neutral "Mystery Shopper" would have? And what would those privileges accomplish? -- SCZenz 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I truly don't understand what system you're proposing, or what problems you think it will solve. Can you explain? -- SCZenz 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The assertion that the only feedback we get is from irate admins is specious nonsense. Check out today: at least three questions have "thanks" type feedback from users. We regularly get that sort of thing. LC appears to be grinding his own axe, for a change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didnt say they were irate. I said they were biased in favor of their own narrow minded views. Was that a Fruedian slip?--Light current 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As usual, Im trying to be helpful in suggesting a way of inmproving things. If you dont think my idea would help matters, Im sorry for mentioning it.--Light current 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey LC, c'mon... What do I have to do to convince you that I don't understand what you're proposing and I'm asking for clarification? I'm saying I don't see what this idea would do, not assuming it wouldn't do anything.  Throwing out ideas is great, but it's so much better if you're willing to explain and discuss them with other users. So again... How would the "Mystery Shoppers" idea work in practice, and what would you expect it to accomplish?  -- SCZenz 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry im really not in the mood to give you an answer ATM with all this shit being thrown at me by admins. Im trying to stop myself getting blocked!--Light current 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the feedback to be included right there with the question. That way, it's easy to find. Links to a "feedback page" will likely be broken when both pages get archived. StuRat 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with StuRat on this. Having feedback anywhere else but with the question to which it is relevant is counter-intuitive and user-unfriendly.  JackofOz 06:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, let's establish more overhead that will be unused to fix a problem that we don't have. :-(   --hydnjo talk 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK how about this - we just have a sentence near the top of every RD page encouraging feedback i.e. "We welcome your feedback!" or something better - I can't think of a good way to put it right now. --WikiSlasher 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already something there to that effect.--Light current 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When I'm flagged with DYOHW, will I not get a response?
If so, that's very sad because anyone can flag anything with "Do Your Own Homework" and the ethics of Wikipedia editing tend against deletion.

My case is that of a problem that is emphatically NOT homework (Nov 10 "An algorithm for a statistical problem"). I did a lot of work in framing the question, a LOT of work, and I suppose that made some people think "teacher's question" in their pattern-seeking brains...but I'm neither a teacher nor a student, but someone who was hoping to come to the reference desk to get some direction, maybe even an answer. I appreciate the time and work that may be involved in such an answer, because it is not a simple question, but neither am I asking anyone to do my work for me. I have done all that I feel I can do with my resources so far and have come to get that nudge that will push me over the current hump I'm on and allow me to go further. Thank you for your time, if you are reading this query about DYOHW or if you read the original question.--Peter Kirby 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding context, this commentary is about this question. --hydnjo talk 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It generally does mean we will ignore it, unless we get more from you, like what you've done so far, approaches you've tried that failed, approaches your friend told you to try, etc. StuRat 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying really hard to Assume good faith here, but it's just not working. If you really created this problem from scratch (or even just from least squares fitting ideas, etc.), why does it include these phrases?
 * Your answer should contain...
 * You may write with pseudocode or with a specific programming language...
 * Comments for clarity are important.
 * For an outstanding answer, please also return...
 * I can't see how someone investigating this on their own would use those. Are you saying that you borrowed the problem from somewhere?  Then how did you do "a lot of work in framing the question, a LOT of work", as you said just now?  And if you're "neither a teacher nor a student", why does your user page say you're a student?  (I can only assume you meant not a student in this field, maybe?)  I've nothing against the proper kind of help with concepts and ideas and getting started, even with real homework.  But your initial post didn't even ask a question!  What else were we supposed to do with it but mark it dyoh?  --Tardis 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I borrowed the problem from myself. I posted it to "Google Answers" in this format (with the phrases "You may" and "For an outstanding answer": they were appropriate to Google Answers, but apparently not as appropriate in this forum). All of the research that went in to the question is my own. (Well, I did use library books to get the formulas, etc.) My user page is out of date. Thank you for your time, but I did not post a homework problem. --Peter Kirby 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that several homework problems--really and explicitly homework problems--were not marked DYOH. Perhaps the rule needs to be stated more explicitly as "don't post anything that would require a lot of thinking and working in order to draft a good response"? I thought I would be in the clear based on the fact that this is not homework, but perhaps if answering is work then this is enough to strike it down. I would hope not, because some of the better and more noteworthy problems are going to take some work. In any case, I have reworked my problem into a question in response to Lambiam. --Peter Kirby 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The basic problem here is attitude. Answers on Google Answers are payed for, and it is acceptable to make demands when you're paying for something and you can expect a certain level of quality. Here on RD, we're not getting payed, though some people here may be just as qualified to answer your question as those on GA. We don't often explicitly give references for our answers, simply because it usually isn't required within the RD context. Whether you're intentionally acting arrogant or not, approaching a volunteer who is used to people acting grateful for their help, and giving him restrictions, tips on how to be "approved", and telling him what is "acceptable form" for his response, you're going to be seen as such on RD. Consider appreciating the charity that you are so intent to use to it's fullest. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  10:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If your question clearly sounded like a homework question, then you really can't blame people for noting so. If this isn't a homework question, then perhaps it would have been wise to explain when asking the question.

Marking it with "homework question" doesn't mean other people won't answer. I still read questions even if someone else has said it's a homework question. But often such questions don't get answers, not because they're homework, but just because the question is impossible for us to answer. Homework questions sometimes either have a very obvious answer already answered by our article...or is so vague we have no idea where to start. It's hard to answer a question when you have no idea what level of detail to go into.

Plus, people here are all just volunteers. Everyone volunteers for different reasons. Personally, i find the discussions quite interesting sometimes, and fun to participate in. I'm happy to volunteer my time to help someone by answering a question which i understand, but i really can't be stuffed helping when it looks like someone's just cut and pasted it from a homework book and dumped it here. -- `/aksha 11:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your answers in reply to my query about DYOH. --Peter Kirby 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RD guidelines clarification - not an advice column
I propose we add text to the RD header, clarifying that we are a reference desk that assists in finding information, and not a general advice page. Thus although users may ask very general questions that include situations, details, and hypotheticals, they should in the end be asking for information and not users' opinions on what they should do. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. Could save a lot of trouble. We dont give opinions! YES (Hang on that sounds like a guideline 8-))--Light current 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also that could get us out of the:
 * 'How do I persuade my GF to swing naked from the Golden gate bridge' questions!

--Light current 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, when you say "header" do you mean the Wikipedia:Reference desk header or do you mean the WP:RD/(specialty) headers?  --hydnjo talk 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The specialty headers; miscellenous in particular. -- SCZenz 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What's wrong with giving a bit of advice and opinion every now and then? That'll probably just cause more problems as people won't read that, then post a question asking for opinions/advice etc., then it'll get removed, and then the answerers will have to respond to everyone's complaints. --WikiSlasher 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with advice questions is that it encourages presentations of diverging opinions, and from there the use of this page as a soap box and a discussion forum; these things distract from the purpose of the page. Furthermore, many users have not been able to apply common sense with regard to what advice questions are inappropriate to answer; since writing hard-and-fast rules is too complicated (we can't, as LC humorously suggests, really prohibit questions starting with "How do I persuade my girlfriend to..."), better to take the temptation away entirely.  I believe there is a consensus among most interested users that the reference desk has become so chatty that it does not fulfill its mission efficiently; I intend to take steps to reverse this trend.  We can, and should, remove questions that distract us from our work, and the fact that people will complain doesn't dissuade me. -- SCZenz 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Opinion and fact are not as distinct as you think. In language, for example, what the majority of people think is right, is, by definition, correct. Language is nothing more than the summation of human opinions. Much on the Humanities Desk is similar, as are Computer Desk questions about which device is better, and many Misc Desk questions. Even "soft" sciences, like psychology, are mostly about opinion. Only the Math Desk should be relatively free of opinion. And even there, questions like "what math do you think I need to be an economist" are inherently opinion. Adding such a rule will only confuse things further. StuRat 09:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah look at the Copenhagen interpretation! 8-)--Light current 15:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the headers are already clogged with so many rules that nobody can stand to read them. We really don't need any more, we need to prune down the rules we already have. StuRat 09:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the rules need to be pruned down. Why not start with my proposed guidelines which seem to have been put on the back burner since certain interventions from outside. All existing instructions should be thrown out. Lets start again based on what we want the RDs to be. BTW what do we want the RDs to be? 8-)--Light current 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I dont see eye to eye with SCZ on lots of things, I do have to (somewaht reluctantly) agree that the RDs should not give advice. We already decline to give medical, legal advice financial advice. We need to extend that concept to other areas.
 * Now the problem I see is the difference between advice and opinion. AS StuRat correctly says, some answers will depend upon the opinion of the RD editor:


 * Xs opinion is you should look at our pages then make your own mind up
 * Ys opinion is that you should ask your teachers
 * Zs opinion is that you should do your own homework

Also helpful suggestions that RD staff may make are of necessity their opinion of what is helpful. --Light current 14:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat we don't want more header rules; however, it should be obvious that a reference desk is not an advice page. Therefore, advice questions (particularly inappropriate ones) should not be answered, or perhaps should be answered only with facts rather than opinions. I believe this is already 100% clear, but I am at a loss with what to do when the behavior of question-answerers doesn't reflect this. Adding a header item may be the wrong approach, but I'd like to see other suggestion. -- SCZenz 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You know my proposals: a proper minimal set of guidelines. Your edit summary mentioned common sense. But we've already illustrated that your ideas on common sense (not saying youre wrong) differ from at least two other editors (not saying we're wrong either) 8-)--Light current 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a discussion of what I consider common-sense principles of the reference desk, here on this talk page, that we can refer back to? That might be better than cramming a bunch of rules somewhere. -- SCZenz 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I cant see why you cant join in the existing discussion thats been going on for a couple of weeks now on this very page! Im sure we'll all be interested to hear your views.--Light current 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think I'm doing? -- SCZenz 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorrry I thought you were trying to restart it from ground zero ignoring all previous discussions. My mistake!--Light current 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiddlin' with the good ol' RD
It's hard to believe the copious amount of tweaking of the RD that has been proposed during the past few weeks. From delineating what is or isn't a joke or homework, to providing chastising or "done" templates/banners, to boilerplate expansion explaining that RD doesn't stand for "resolving disputes" or defining "advice", to mystery shoppers and feedback pages, to well, I won't go on. All for the most part attempting to be a substitute for common sense on the part of answerers or further burdening the few questioners who actually read the boilerplate. All thirteen of our current "How to ask a question" guidelines are ignored on a regular basis because few will ever read the fine print before diving in, that is after all human nature.

So, what happened to "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? Are we substituting instead "if it ain't broke fix it anyway" or perhaps "if it ain't broke break it"? --hydnjo talk 18:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, "it aint broke", when measured in any objective fashion, like number of questions posted and answers given. It's only "broke", to some, based on their highly subjective POV. StuRat 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's broken. It is being misused in ways that are detrimental to its mission and which, in some cases, may cause us to lose users.  In general, the problem is not with questioners (who indeed will not read the fine print) but with question-answerers who aren't using common sense or keeping in mind what the page is for.  I actually don't want more documentation or headers, but efforts to talk to question-answerers about problems seem to invariably result in a statement of "it's not against the posted rules". -- SCZenz 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I wrote a comprehensive explanation of the current things that are going wrong? Should I give examples? -- SCZenz 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Im afraid that would just be your POV! What we need is a set of guidelines that ALL present editors and critics can agree to. We were in the process of doing that when you joined the disscussion. If there is no agreement amongst RD editors, its not going to matter how much a small number of people shout and scream; It aint gonna work! You must bring along the workforce with any new proposals. ATM it doesnt seem as if you are succeeding 8-( --Light current 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to start a discussion, not to impose rules. But don't claim that it's a small number of people who share my concerns, or that our views don't count because we don't edit the reference desk as often as some&mdash;you'll find that both these statements are inaccurate.  Likewise, I am disinclined to agree with your assesment of the manpower situation, or with the idea that just those who answer questions get free reign to say what they want simply because they're not so easy to replace. -- SCZenz 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with SCZenz that the main problems aren't with the questioners and a comprehensive tallying of examples of inappropriate responses would only lead to another 257 kilobytes of defensive posturing and mock outrage. I do think that it is important to continue criticism of inappropriate behavior as has always been done. Community pressure on "bad" behavior will eventually win the day. --hydnjo talk 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So far efforts to politely discuss the problems have not led to changes, but then again efforts to be more direct haven't gone well either. I'm not sure I agree with your optimism... do yo uhave any concrete suggestsions for how to move forward? -- SCZenz 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the no progress part as I have noted some willingness on the part of some to scale back as a result of pressure from the community. --hydnjo talk 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether RD editors are difficult to replace I couldnt say. You might look back in the histories to see what the turnover is and why they left. I dont remember asking for free reign, in fact Im asking for guidelines as I keep saying! You must try to keep up with the argument! Any way I thought you said elsewhere that you were joining our discussion not starting your own! 8-)--Light current 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's traditional in Wikipedia discussions to start new headers from time to time, so I'm participating in the discussion right here. I don't think we can give enough guidelines to satisfy you, especially when so many of the points in dispute are agreed (by most users who have looked) to be common sense. -- SCZenz 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you looked at my proposed guidelines you would find thare are actually just very few pertinent ones. THese should cover all cases including lack of common sense which by all account I suffer from. 8-)--Light current 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then please, just follow your own guidelines.  --hydnjo talk 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do usually follow them but they do not seem to guard aginst critisism or threats of blocking. THats why we need to get this thing sorted once and for all. 8-(--Light current 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes what one lacks in common sense is made up for with intransigence. --hydnjo talk 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah some people are good at that!--Light current 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to be able to take criticism constructively, and listen to the points that are raised. That way you can learn. -- SCZenz 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Learn what? How to adopt other peoples views and bigotry/biases? Even when its unjustified and quotes no rules being broken? And the people critsising are always right? Yeah?--Light current 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no rule against farting in church but most folks seem to have the good common sense to keep it to a minimum. --hydnjo talk 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that where all the pews come from ? StuRat 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadnt actually thought of that one! No doubt I would have used it if I had! 8-))


 * C'mon now Stu, I left that bait hanging for Lc not you. Also the SBD bit. --hydnjo talk 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont! its better out than in. BTW shall we make that the hdg of a new thread? 8-)--Light current 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What others think about you -- does it really matter?
Aha! so is that what SCZ has been on about? ie think about what others would think of your comments? Actually I dont really give a damn. If I did I wouldnt still be here and wouldnt have contributed over 25k edits to WP. If admins want to piss off the prolific editors they're going just the right way about it 8-(--Light current 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not matter what people think of you, so much as what people think about your edits. If many of your 25k edits are crap, then the fact you've done 25k lends less weight than it otherwise might. You get no license to act outside the norms of the group merely because you treat the RD as a discussion forum. I look forward to the day when you stop whining about admins, when you get off this trip about how vital you & your posse are to the RD (cf. the strike "threat" from a week or so ago), and when you finally get it into your head that in a collaborative environment, it does matter what people think. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Why dont you review some of my edits before passing cooments? I look forward to the day when you stop whining and get off my back. Maybe it does matter what some people think. But not you I think $:-(( --Light current 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tagishimon is blunt, but he has some points. It's become fashionable for some people (of whom you and StuRat are by far the most vocal) to use the page as a discussion forum sometimes rather than a reference desk, and a lot of us are asking now for it to stop.  It does matter what the community thinks the RD is for, and if we think it's being misused.  You can't keep shrugging off our suggestions either as "personal biases" or admin oppression, or giving the irrelevant defense that there are no posted rules.  If you do, you'll leave people with no choice but to remove inappropriate comments&mdash;which is emphatically not desirable, at least not in my opinion. -- SCZenz 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Illustrate the discussions1 8-(--Light current 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will give some examples on your talk page when I have time. -- SCZenz 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also look at some of the other discussions in which I have not taken any part.--Light current 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of my posts are quite short, as I deplore long-winded discussions. Only when I am asked to respond to a post with a huge number of points, am I forced to make such a large contribution myself.  As for what the community thinks, yes, that is important, although I define the "community" as the posters and contributors to the Ref Desk, weighting the opinions of the regulars more heavily than the passer-bys. StuRat 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Stu, the length of anyone's comment/response is not the issue. It's the persistent tagging of legitimate questions with sarcasm, off-color comments and double entendres intended as humor. It should be obvious by now that many of those tag-lines are not perceived to be as funny or as clever as you may think. Most of the commentary so far is suggesting that you think twice before wit-bombing the questions and calling further groans of "there they go again". It should be abundantly obvious by now that there won't be a set of rules codified about this as that will inevitably lead to skirmishing the loopholes and we don't intend to take on that overhead burden. There does seem to be a commitment however to somehow curtail unseemly responses in the guise of wit and humor. I urge all to be introspective about the admonishments which have surfaced of late and if you think that it may apply to yourself then it probably does. --hydnjo talk 04:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I regularly get quite good feedback on my jokes, such as this one, 3 hours ago, from an Admin: . StuRat 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not saying all jokes are a problem, just some of them, and asking you to listen to comments on those. -- SCZenz 07:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok so which jokes are a problem and which arent? Do you have any guidelines on this topic?--Light current 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As for what the community thinks, yes, that is important, although I define the "community" as the posters and contributors to the Ref Desk, weighting the opinions of the regulars more heavily than the passer-bys. You're dead wrong here.  We're all Wikipedians, and we all get a voice in how all pages are run.  We don't need more factions on Wikipedia, and especially most especially we don't need factions that seek to control very public "face of Wikipedia" pages like the reference desk. -- SCZenz 07:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So I get a say in how your user page is laid out?--Light current 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we just disagree there. A specific problem with somebody who never contributes themselves is that they are immune to criticism, since they've never done anything to criticize.  This allows them to be infinitely critical of others, without any risk of ever having to be put under the microscope.  It's a basic issue of fairness. StuRat 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think your notion of fairness trumps what's good for Wikipedia, you've got your priorities backwards. Criticism is not a game of exchanging blows on an even playing field, it's supposed to be constructive. -- SCZenz 08:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's test your theory. Say you are making a decision on whether to delete an article.  On one side, you have Admins with thousands of edits each.  On the other side, an equal number of anonymous I/P's, none with any edits.  Which opinions do you consider to have more weight ? StuRat 08:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) '


 * You weigh what they said, and how it fits with the good of Wikipedia as a whole. Sure, you trust experienced users more, because they have a better idea of Wikipedia's mission&mdash;but that does not translate into giving people with more time at the reference desk more weight, because the standard of what's good is still judged for Wikipedia as a whole. And frankly, you're not even arguing for the good of the reference desk, you're arguing for what you enjoy doing whether it's good or not. -- SCZenz 08:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just your opinion. I believe that a Ref Desk patrolled by the PC police will be very bad for posters who have questions that aren't rated G. StuRat 08:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the opinion of a lot of people, and it's squarely rooted in the definition of reference desk. And what's this business about PC police?  Nobody's proposed to stop answering requests for information of any kind, even if it might disturb some&mdash;I have proposed to stop answering requests for opinions and advice, whether disturbing or not. -- SCZenz 08:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That would apply to the question on how to remove "skid marks", for example. StuRat 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was mostly a request for advice and opinion, but I agree there was some potential for a factual answer. It should have been answered primarily with references and Wikipedia pages, where relevant, not used as a jumping-off point for a detailed discussion. -- SCZenz 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that they may not know what is involved in giving a good response. For example, if they say "cite all your sources", they may be unaware of the hours of work that can take, sifting through thousands of potential Google hits to find a good source.  Had they spent much time doing this themselves, they wouldn't be so quick to criticize others.  StuRat 07:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're here to help people look things up, and find information. Giving them facts on authority is second-best, especially because we look like more of an authority than our individual users are.  But yes, giving answers is better than nothing&mdash;as long as the facts are true and precise, rather than just the opinions of the answerer. -- SCZenz 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You've only looked at the example, not the general case: Another issue is that they (non-contributors) may not know what is involved in giving a good response. StuRat 08:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I a non-contributor because I usually only answer questions in my field of expertise, and only if they've not already been answered? Does my experience teaching and tutoring in mathematics and physics, from 2nd-graders to prison inmates to undergrads, perhaps give me some insight?  I think it's rather presumptive to assume that people who haven't participated a lot on this particular set of pages are less likely to know how to answer questions than those who have, especially since these pages are somewhat dysfunctional. -- SCZenz 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's only your opinion that they are dysfunctional, the number of questions and the number of good answers appears to be as high as ever. Your standard for dysfunction is apparently anything you don't personally like. StuRat 08:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My definition of dysfunction includes: too much discussion and opinion that gets in the way of answering questions, offensive remarks that do not help answer questions, opinions that are not well-differentiated from facts, and incorrect answers. There are some examples of this lately, but really not all that many; the trouble here is that the response to pointing out problems is very frequently negative. Find a counter-argument other than "that's just your opinion"; it's been told to too many people with too many concerns lately to be useful anymore. -- SCZenz 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, your only problem with the Ref Desk is that people don't do what you tell them to do ? StuRat 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(Indent reset)
(Indent reset) The problem with the reference desk is that it is not serving the function of a reference desk, which is the function given to it by the community. I have outlined some details of why it is failing in this task. And I'm very far from the only community member who has voiced concerns about it. -- SCZenz 08:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It most definitely IS functioning as a reference desk, since questions are being asked and good answers are being given (many by me). Next to this, any other concerns are secondary. StuRat 08:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes yes, but not always. I was wrong to say it was failing entirely.  However, the places where it is failing need to be addressed.  You appear to be actively opposed to this, despite a large number of requests. -- SCZenz 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to changing, if you can give me an example of where my behavior has prevented a good answer from being given. StuRat 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarly mine!--Light current 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not putting a list of grievances against you personally on this page&mdash;if really want me to, I'll send you some specific concerns privately, though. You might think about the fact that there may still be problems even if an answer is eventually correctly answered; intermediate wrong answers are not desirable, neither are opinions that may be confused for facts, nor is extended discussion/argument acceptable.  The reference desk will not be a soapbox or debate page for anyone; that is not it's intended purpose, and you may not claim the right to use it in that manner. -- SCZenz 08:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps part of the difference between us is that I consider myself an inclusionist (one who only believes in deleting things which almost everyone agrees are truly horrid) and you appear to be a deletionist (one who believes in deleting anything they don't personally like). StuRat 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not encyclopedia content, and even if it were your analogy is irrelevant; both inclusionsts and deletionists agree that articles should contain only relevant and verifiable facts, and have other things removed. This is a public face of Wikipedia, and it must highlight our best capabilities, not demonstrate our capacity for anarchy.  -- SCZenz 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The main difference on articles would be that inclusionists would leave in articles that deletionists would remove as "not notable". We tend to ask "what harm does it do" ?  If we can't come up with a tangible, measurable way that it harms Wikipedia, we would leave it in. StuRat 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That does not apply to text that is bad for the article; irrelevant content makes articles worse, and it makes the reference desk worse too. This is not a difference wikiphilosophy.  You are, rather, proposing that the reference desk should ignore Wikipedia's core policies.  -- SCZenz 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 (Reset indent - SCZ)  No, but I do feel that the standards for talk pages should apply to the Ref Desk, not the standards for an article. In other words, deleting the contributions of others should only be tolerated in extreme cases. StuRat 09:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the RD is much like a talk page: it has a specific purpose for the good of Wikipedia, but it is not a formal article. You are mistaken about how talk pages are to be used, however.  Below I start a new section with some talk page guidelines and other general rules that apply to this discussion. -- SCZenz 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've included relevant portions which describe how talk pages, and, by extension, the Ref Desk, should be used as an open forum for discussions. StuRat 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret the pages. I explain more below, but nothing you quoted contradicts the statement that irrelevant remarks may be removed from talk pages (and by extension, the Ref Desk). -- SCZenz 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't "interpret" them at all, just reprinted portions here, as you did. And one of the rules most definitely does contradict your contention that other editors contributions can be removed for merely being "irrelevant": Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).  The standard for it to be acceptable to remove other's comments is thus "libel or personal details", a much higher standard than what you personally find to be "irrelevant". StuRat 10:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You did interpret when you said talk pages "should be used as an open forum for discussions" just above. That's not what the text says.  See below. -- SCZenz 10:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation..." says just that. StuRat 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, as long as the "speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge" are relevant and answer- rather than argument-oriented. -- SCZenz 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page and general rules that are critical for the RD
From Talk page guidelines: From Talk page guidelines Also, some general Wikipedia policies that apply:
 * The policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research.
 * Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article [or, in this case, how to answer the given question]. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
 * Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. . . . The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
 * Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
 * From WP:NOT, Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia.
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:BITE

Unsigned by SCZenz.

More talk page rules that are critical for the RD

 * There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation...


 * Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary, which can be validated by a third party. Someone's disagreeing with you is no such proof!


 * Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps convincing others and reaching consensus.


 * Be positive: ...should be used for ways to improve [the Ref Desk], not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of [the Ref Desk]. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.


 * Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.


 * Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).


 * Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks like this and ends up like this.

StuRat 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of these seem to more comment on your feeling that I and other users have unjustly treated you in our requests that you modify your RD statements, but in any case... I agree that communicating, assuming good faith, being positive, and being concise are all important.  Not editing others' comments or changing the text is of course fair, but it being unacceptable to change your remarks in no way prohibits their complete removal if irrelevant. -- SCZenz 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's precisely what it means. They don't want you removing your own comments, as that may leave orphaned responses to your comments, or confuse people who try to find your comments.  They therefore suggest striking out text which you no longer believe to be correct, so as not to disrupt the flow of the conversation.  Another suggestion, for something really bad, is that it be removed, by the author, with a comment added in it's place explaining what was removed and why. StuRat 10:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're simply wrong about what the text says. Orphaning comments is bad; it should be made clear that they're removed so everyone knows the context is altered.  But this does not change the fact that they can be removed, which is stated clearly on the very guideline page we're discussing.  The suggestions given are about not changing your own text, or changing others'; to say they contradict the part about removing irrelevant remarks requires twisting the words severely. -- SCZenz 10:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong, what it says is quite clear: "Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so". StuRat 10:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It says, as you quote, "your own words." However, others can remove your words to insure complaince with talk page guidelines, as per the statement (for example) that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."  If you want to do a close reading of the text, that's what it says.  -- SCZenz 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense, you can't remove your own words, but others can ? They must be talking about something completely misplaced, like a discussion of Bush (the President) on an article about bushes (the plant), in which case the comment should be moved to the correct talk page, and a suitable note left behind.  Going off on a tangent, on the other hand, is allowed.  For example, we frequently get "How do I..." questions, and respond that "Doing what you want is unwise because...".  This isn't a direct answer to the question which was asked, but is still related, and thus allowed. StuRat 11:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Editing your own comments is only misleading, so there's no reason to do it. Others, however, may take it upon themselves to enforce the talk page guidelines, and this is explicitly allowed.  Tangents are certainly removed in some cases; for example, on Talk:0.999..., arguments about the truth of the statement "0.999...=1" are routinely removed as being irrelevant to discussing how to improve the article.  Whether to remove a particular tangent is a judgement call, and factors to consider in making that judgement might include whether the tangent has other problems as well (e.g. it being an argument or opinion rather than a fact, or a potentially-offensive and unhelpful joke). -- SCZenz 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get that at all. Knowing whether 0.9999... = 1 would seem to be critical for that article, so such discussions should be encouraged on the talk page. StuRat 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is well-sourced as a proven and undisputed mathematical fact. Further discussion serves no purpose. -- SCZenz 11:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. If someone claims to be able to disprove it, their proof should be examined, and any flaw explained to them, so they learn something, rather than feeling humiliated by having their comments summarily deleted, and learning nothing, as a result.  This is another good illustration between the difference in an inclusionist, like me, and a deletionist, like you. StuRat 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is, in fact, a separate "arguments" page for this purpose, and removed comments are put there. But the main talk page is kept on task, per the talk page guidelines. -- SCZenz 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. However, that makes this case an ideal example of my suggestion, that, at most, misplaced discussions should be moved, and doesn't illustrate your point, that tangents can be freely deleted by anyone, at all. StuRat 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(Ident reset)
(Ident reset) The arguments page has been suggested to be discontinued as a waste of time, and this would be consistent with talk page guidelines. But yes, I agree that moving irrelevancies results in fewer hurt feelings than outright removal, and so it is a good thing if possible. Now tell me... when I remove inappropriate remarks and misplaced discussions from the reference desk, where should I move them to? -- SCZenz 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If there isn't a good place to move it, it should be left where it is. There are four places where we do regularly move things, however:
 * This talk page, if the discussion is about the Ref Desk itself. For example, suggestions on Ref Desk archiving policy.
 * To the talk page of the relevant article, such as if somebody wants to change the info on Hitler's religion.
 * To the Help Page, if they have a general question about how to use Wikipedia.
 * To another Ref Desk, if they've asked a math question under Humanities, for example.
 * StuRat 11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't quite answer my question. Where do you suggest I remove discussion that is irrelevant because it is off the topic of the question, or is turning into an argument rather than assistance in finding information? -- SCZenz 11:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the general guideline is that materials removed from the main article be placed on it's talk page for further discussion. So, that would mean here, if no other place seems appropriate.  A link should also be provided, so they can find the moved material.  StuRat 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a fine plan. And I suppose this would also be the right place to remove remarks violating WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL? -- SCZenz 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The only valid reasons given for removing the contributions of others are libel, personal info, and being totally irrelevant. That does not include what one user, according to his opinion, finds to be a violation of either WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL.  Instead, if they can convince the author that it violates either policy, then the author can line it out or redact it.  This process is critical, in order to avoid edit wars and humiliation.  Again, remember that the goal is to minimize the total amount of offense caused.  If you remove a comment that may possibly offend somebody, at the cost of almost certainly offending the author, then you have failed to minimize total offense.   StuRat 12:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal is unacceptable. If one user violates a policy, I will not be told that I can do nothing to rectify the violation except interminably argue.  We usually leave CIVIL and BITE violations in, but this is not suitable for such a public project page, which is of such importance to bringing in new users.  "Avoid[ing] edit wars and humilation" is not my first priority in this regard.  -- SCZenz 12:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a proposal, it's the talk page guidelines, which say not to edit or delete the contributions of others, unless they meet the standards of libel, divulging personal info, or being totally unrelated to the topic. If you propose adding exceptions for CIVIL and BITE violations, then form a consensus and change the rules for talk page behavior.  Until then, you should respect the existing rules. StuRat 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I should not, and I will not. The RD is similar to a talk page in many ways, but as it is a public page intended for new users the rules on WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE violations will be different; it's just plain common sense.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if the rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia, one should ignore them.  As an experienced user and administrator, I am putting my foot down on this point.  I intend to remove comments that hurt the reference desk, and hurt Wikipedia's overall mission, through blatant newbie biting or uncivility.  You have every right to report me to the the Administator's noticeboard, either now or when I do it, and I will accept the consequences if community consensus is that I am doing the wrong thing. -- SCZenz 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you, as an Admin, are going to willfully and intentionally violate established policy, that would be the appropriate response. However, I will do you the favor of waiting until you actually violate WP policy, hoping you will reconsider this intransigent attitude before then. StuRat 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What policy am I proposing to violate? I plan to remove comments from a project page that, in my judgement, violate policy and are clearly harmful&mdash;these particular removals are not explicitly supported/allowed by policy, but in this case they are supported by common sense, as I have taken great pains to explain. -- SCZenz 12:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Those removals are explicitly PROHIBITED by policy. Furthermore, this discussion shows that you are well aware of that policy, making any such removal a willful and intentional violation of WP policy. StuRat 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh? They're prohibited?  Where? -- SCZenz 13:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here: "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission..." StuRat 13:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That section is under "Don't misrepresent other people," and refers to the problems of making someone appearing to say something they did not. It's not a catch-all statement that "every reason to remove comments that isn't given here is prohibited," and reading it that way is pure wikilawyering. -- SCZenz 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, I am now off to bed. If you, or anyone else, are wondering why I had such an extended discussion on this, I'd like to make it clear: I was trying very hard to avoid the confrontation that now seems inevitable.  It would be so much better to reach some agreement than to put my foot down, but I have explained all I can; my choices now seem to be between confrontation and accepting the status quo, and I am doing what I think best for Wikipedia.  I urge you to rethink your rights- and policy-oriented view of how Wikipedia's priorities are set, and consider rather a framework based on the goals of individual pages and how they contribute to the Wiki overall.  If you don't, then I'm worried about what might happen.  If the community tells me I'm wrong, well, no big deal&mdash;I'll end up with a few strong suggestions to pull away from the reference desk for a while and not worry about it, and I'll do that.  If my position here is supported, I hope you respect that and we avoid further trouble, because insulting you or losing your contributions to the RD is not at all what I want.  Have a good evening. -- SCZenz 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Don't misrepresent other people" section has the explanation: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place...". Deleting a portion of the exchange which took place is clearly going to violate this.  That is why they provided for very few exceptions to this "no deletions" rule, and only for very serious violations (libel, disclosing personal info, and discussions totally unrelated to the topic), as opposed to mere "tangents" or being "non-PC". StuRat 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My goal is not to minimize offense. My goal is to minimize offense to new users, who we are trying to recruit through having this helpful page.  Experienced users, who should know better, ought to be able to take their licks. (I've taken some big ones in my time, believe me.) -- SCZenz 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That logic is flawed in two ways. First, having made more contributions does not make one thicker-skinned.  Second, we should be more careful not to insult long-time users, not less, as their contributions are likely to be greater in the future than a likely one-time use newbie, provided we don't insult them so badly that they leave in disgust. StuRat 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, to a point. When experienced users say, "do what I want or I will be insulted," we are past that point. -- SCZenz 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They aren't saying any such thing. They are saying you can't just delete other editor's posts based on your opinion, when that opinion is totally unsupported by established Wikipedia policy. StuRat 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of first point in section above
Your first point is quite important and requires more thought. I agree that personal experience and speculation are useful in answering questions, but the text makes clear that these are intended to lead to verifiable facts in the long run. If nobody has time to provide verifiable facts here at the fast-paced RD, then views based on "personal experience" or "speculation" should be clearly identified as such; failing to do this misleads our readers. -- SCZenz 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the need to identify replies as speculation. For example, in a response to a recent Science Ref Desk question I said "I believe that they have sent an audio transmission faster than the speed of light."  I did not need to identify this as speculation, as I believed it to be true, even though I did not cite a source.  When then asked to cite the source, since this person seemed to be genuinely interested in the source, rather than just being argumentative and trying to make work for me, I did so. StuRat 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You did identify your reply as speculation and/or as something you recalled but didn't have in front of you. You wrote "I believe..." and then wrote what you recalled. Good job in this case! -- SCZenz 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice back-handed compliment: "...in this case". StuRat 10:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to give a back-handed compliment, but you're right that it reads that way. Sorry about that. I should have written "you did the right thing in this case," to make it clear that it was nothing but a statement of fact. There's another case where you have not done the right thing in this regard, as we've discussed. -- SCZenz 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, which I've responded to, point by point. StuRat 11:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of those points have come up here again, in more general terms, so there's no reason to go into those details; I rather just intended to clarify why I wrote "in this case." But can I ask... do you really think that, in general, you need not identify your speculation and/or recollections when you have no source? -- SCZenz 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think that it's normally quit obvious whether a statement is speculation or fact:
 * Speculation: "Most cat's live for 10 or 15 years."
 * Fact (made up, in this case): "Cat's have an average lifespan of 11.3 years, with the oldest known cat having lived for 22.7 years."
 * StuRat 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but sometimes it is not obvious. Would you agree with me that in the cases where it isn't naturally obvious, it should be made so? -- SCZenz 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it's not obvious. If it doesn't cite sources, then it's obviously unsourced. StuRat 11:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Our readers are newbies and may not know that. This page looks authoritative; newbies will not know, without some reading, that those writing arguments are still just regular users. They may take any answer as correct, regardless of how it's presented. It's thus very important to give sources or make it clear you don't have any. -- SCZenz 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now here's where humor could play a role. If they see editors joking around and having a good time, they will get the idea that these are real people, not computers spitting out scientific answers.  This eliminates their unrealistic expectations, and makes them look for sources, just as they would with other real people. StuRat 11:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is good. But being clear is better, for very new newbies. -- SCZenz 11:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How many newbies have actually complained to you in, lets say, the last 2 months? Newbies are a red herring in your argument and you damn well know it SCZ! 8-(--Light current 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How would newbies know where to complain? They'd just leave. -- SCZenz 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If they can manage to post a question, they could manage to post a complaint (as a new "question", if nothing else). StuRat 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How about some simple RD guidelines?
I suggest that thr RDS are run under a simple mininmal set of guidelines so that we all know the rules. --Light current 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes

 * Having followed the debate so far with interest, I have moved from an original position of "no, we don't need yet another set of guidelines" to a position of "yes, perhaps we do need some RD guidelines", so I am putting my tick here in the Yes section. I have seen so many different opinions on which parts of existing gudielines do and do not apply to the RDs and which RD rules apply in which circumstances that I now think the only way to resolve these debates and achieve some sort of clarity is to develop a new set of guidelines that is specific to the RDs. These guidelines could include the existing RD rules (or some variation of them) but should also cover:
 * In what circumstances is it legitimate to edit or delete a question or a response.
 * In what circumstances is it legitimate to place a comment or notice on an RD about a question or a response (e.g. use of the DYOHW tag).
 * How to raise any concerns with a contributor's behaviour on the RDs.


 * and probably a lot more stuff besides. Gandalf61 10:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No

 * ---Sluzzelin 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this means

 * SCZenz 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. --hydnjo talk 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Anchoress 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto2--71.247.105.54 20:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont know what what means?--Light current 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't you ever heard, polling is evil (--71.247.105.54 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not a poll its a gauging of feeling. 8-)--Light current 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. There is already a full screen of guidelines at the top of the page that seem to be working very well for most people. Natgoo 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. It appears they are NOT working well enough for some users! 8-(--Light current 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that we already have simple rules for talk pages, including the Ref Desk: Talk page guidelines, as mentioned above by Admin SCZenz. StuRat 12:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the RD pages are talk pages? 8-)--Light current 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are much like talk pages, in that they are used for discussion/replies rather than being articles. StuRat and I discsussed above the implications of the talk page guidelines, and generally agreed that comments that are irrelevant or argumentative may be removed by analogy with those guidelines. I also argued that, because the Ref Desk is a very public page, common sense dictates that civility violations and newbie biting be removed; StuRat emphatically disagreed with this.  -- SCZenz 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall have to go thro the previous correspondence carefully. 8-|--Light current 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm by no means saying we should intentionally violate the WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL policies. What is at issue is whether we should permit any single user (or Admin) to decide, on their own, that a comment "might possibly be offensive to some potential reader somewhere" and decide to remove it.  The talk page guidelines do not allow for this, I believe in order to prevent this type of ultra-PC second guessing on everything that's ever written here; and the predictable edit wars, hostility, and tit-for-tat deletions such a process will inevitably cause.  StuRat 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)