Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 30

Conjugal Visits
The following remarks are not actual attempts to answer the question:, so have been moved here:


 * Incorrect. That is ONE way of approaching the answer, and it is YOUR preferred way.   But focusing on the function of prisons is neither inherent in the question, nor -- as the evidence shows -- necessarily the way regulation of conjugality approaches the question.   One more response, and I'm moving this whole thing to the talk pages, by the way.   Jfarber 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you and Vranak hold the same opinion doesn't make this a question which requires an opinion, StuRat.  (In fact, your answer at WikiU offers several conjectures, which is not the same as "an opinion".)   Though many questions about motive are indeed unanswerable except with conjecture and opinion, this question is not one of those.  Questions about why certain rights are/are not afforded to a certain class of government-protected persons will be answerable via reference to legal documents and case law which establishes or changes those rights.  Jfarber 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Those interested in discussing the ramifications of claiming something is an opinion-based question when it clearly is not are welcome to join me on the talk page...


 * This question is about "why" certain laws exist. Any question like that gets to the motivations of the politicians and the electorate, in general.  Those motivations are never known precisely, but we can come up with reasonable conjecture as to what those motivations are.  Simply asking a politician what their motivation is for something (and believing the response) is not an accurate way to determine their true motivation, either.  Also, don't start a discussion about something here, then tell us to go elsewhere to respond. StuRat 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything submitted to Wikipedia is a mere opinion, unless you wish to suggest that objective metaphysical reality, an obvious oxymoron, exists. Vranak


 * Given the inconsistency of the above with the entirety of our basic policies about legitimacy, citation, and attribution, I can offer little more than the below, with a caveat that I am identifying behavior, not labeling the individual:
 * "The key element under attack by a troll is the forum or group's recognized and agreed upon power structure. To this extent, a troll does not necessarily have to make malicious or incorrect comments. For example, a person with political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people with political point of view B, may be considered a troll, even if no lies or attacks are made." Jfarber 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just the bandwagon fallacy, saying anyone who disagrees with the majority is to be considered a troll. StuRat 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be, if that were what the quote from our article on Troll said. But the quote says nothing about agreement with the majority.  Instead, what makes something trolling by that definition is when someone holds views which are anathema to the very foundation of the group itself, and then chooses to post about those views on that forum or in that space -- such as Wikipedia, where it is impossible to reconcile the concept of a 'pedia with the idea that "everything is opinion".   The issue isn't what the MAJORITY believes -- it's what the "recognized and agreed upon power structure" is, which in this case is the basic assumption that NPOV is fundamentally possible, that Vranak denies.   As such, his post is "trolling" and deserves neither defense nor further response.  Jfarber 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote above about "a person with political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people with political point of view B" most definitely means that the majority of people on the forum hold political POV B, which makes this the bandwagon fallacy. You are just misinterpreting it to match your views. StuRat 20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, anyone bringing out the 'troll' hammer is themselves a troll. Vranak


 * Interesting viewpoint, Vranak. Does that mean, for example, that if A claims that B has made a personal attack, and asks B to withdraw it, A is also making a personal attack?  JackofOz 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. The only way to get away from a cycle of retribution is to accept slights without a word. Vranak


 * Politely pointing out where another has been offensive or attacking, and politely asking them to acknowledge it by way of apology or withdrawal, is not the least bit retributive, imho. You yourself recently withdrew a couple of words that stopped me in my tracks - and they weren't even a personal attack, just a general description of those who did not concur with your view on that topic.  The cycle, in that case, ended there, point blank, end of story.  That mini-process worked beautifully.  JackofOz 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The RD editors connection (refactored) (again)
It seems that I have been jumbled up with the deletionist faction here at WP. I'll make no change of conduct and will continue to edit as I think correct.

I really dislike (OK, hate) the labeling that goes on around here in order to make a faction where none previously existed. It seems that in defending one's self-rightness, there is a complementary requisite to make dissent, even where none may have existed.

I'm pulling (hiding) the "The RD editors connection" section that I started because of the disruption that it may cause as told to me by private email. This action on my part doesn't change my feelings whatsoever but does preserve my editorial privileges.

I guess that there really is a hierarchy that rules our verbal conduct and I'm submitting to that rule so as to continue editing here. I had no prior intent to violate that rule nor do I wish to do so. :-( ~ hydnjo talk  &#xF8FF;  05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rest assured that there are some here, lacking administrative authority no less, who refuse to lump contributors into factions. In fact, I claim a majority does not fall for this faulty generalization. If you count edits, you might get a different impression, if you count contributors, my claim stands. Humor will continue to be recognized as such. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it as a personal attack, although your link on "StudRat" was perhaps pushing the limits. Other than that, I took it as humor and responded in kind. StuRat 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stu, it makes me feel much better hearing (reading) what you just said. I really didn't think that you'd be offended with my joking around but it seems that some proxy (saying they said, on your behalf) thought otherwise. If I thought that my posts might be offensive (rather than pulling your finger) I wouldn't have posted. We've both been around long enough to know that much about each other.


 * Anyway, pull up some of the (history) links, they may give you a chuckle as they did for me. I didn't realize that I was pushing the limits, you give me too much credit, I'm not that clever. Anyway, we're having a pleasant weekend and wishing the same for you. ~ hydnjo talk &#xF8FF;  06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did, although not everyone would enjoy what I did (checked out a collection of Chinese corpses): . StuRat 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are clearly two types of RD editors: those who divide people into factions, and those who don't. Edison 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there are those who file RFCs against those who identify existing factions. StuRat 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there are those who invent strawman factions to pick a fight and polarize the community, rather than acknowledging that there exists a continuum of views, that most of us hold reasonable and nuanced positions, that we really aren't all that far apart, and that things would be better if a few people didn't keep bringing up old disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone is welcome to join my faction (except StuRat) Rockpock  e  t  17:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd take Edison's post a step further: There are 2 kinds of people in the world - those who divide the world into 2 kinds of people, and those who don't.  (Which, btw, doesn't place me in the first category except in a self-referential sense).  :)  JackofOz 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is it a guideline?
I'm asking for broad input&mdash;it is safe to call Reference desk/guidelines a bona fide Wikipedia guideline?

I would appreciate it if people could indicate whether or not they can support the guideline as written, and share with the community any concerns or tweaks, as well as any sticking points that they consider deal-breakers with the proposal as written. Have your say at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

I think it's silly to have edit warring over the guideline template, and it's time to get a sense of what people think. I request and strongly encourage participants to give the process sufficient time to allow people to present and hash out their concerns, and by no means to close the discussion before at least seven days have passed.

Many thanks for your contributions, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good guidline for the answerers - and seems to fit well within other official wiki guidlines - suggest you put it forward for rubber stamping.
 * On the downside there's no (?) help for dealing with trolls and sillys - eg "can young girl get baby from me suck tittys" etc - that was popular a few months ago. Specifically is apparent childish questioner humour to be removed or should we just let and let live?83.100.251.85 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This removal
What do editors think about this removal. I wasn't involved either way, but altho I agree the content was inappropriate, just wondering if editors feel it was necessary/wise. The discussion didn't seemeed to be getting out of hand and it wasn't unduly offensive IMHO Nil Einne 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kind of mixed feelings, eh? On the one hand, I'd prefer not to see anonymous IPs removing signed comments from the Desk (or anywhere) except when it's clear vandalism.  There are issues with accountability, and I also don't like the prospect of an edit war among floating IPs.  On the other hand, I don't think the Desk is any worse off with the remarks gone.  The comments were descending into really rather weak political humour.
 * On yet another hand, the question was a bit silly to begin with (paraphrasing, "How do we deal with aliens using WMDs?"), so a bit of silliness might be expected in the thread. On the fourth hand, Atlant probably should have known better than to keep up with the joke telling in the thread, but it probably would have been a good idea for someone to have a quiet word with him, rather than just summarily delete the remarks.
 * In any case, I hope nobody chooses to do something silly like make a WP:POINT by edit warring to put the off-topic comments back in. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how we're talking about aliens and you mention how you have four hands. V-Man - T/C 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't really say that logged in editors can make good faith edits where IP editors cannot.&mdash;eric 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We can ask for a certain amount of accountability, however. There's no reliable way to follow up with a floating IP.  I'd be more open to the idea of IPs making such edits if they also open a channel for communication, perhaps through a message on this talk page.  Otherwise, we're giving IP editors more latitude than signed-in editors, in that there's no reliable mechanism for the community to give feedback (comments, criticism, guidance, and – if necessary – blocks) to a floating IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with the way you phrased it here, everyone should be willing to discuss their edits, if an IP deletes something, refuses to discuss, and edit wars w/ floating IP's then that's certainly not "good faith". In this case tho an IP made an edit which clearly improved the desk and no one is arguing that the content should be restored, all-in-all a good outcome. I agree, best would be that someone has a quiet word w/ the editor and convinces them not to make such posts in the future, but really, has this approach ever succeeded?&mdash;eric 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the 88.110/111 abuse getting out of hand?
Anyone else feel the 88.110/111 abuse is getting out of hand? Would it be worth it to try and bring this case up to Abuse reports? I might do it myself but I'm supposed to be reducing the time in spend on wikipedia... Nil Einne 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Diffs? V-Man - T/C 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New Reference Desk Guideline: Everything is acceptable except personal attacks
It is readily apparent that there is a need for a general "chat" forum within Wikipedia; one that has a lot of traffic and is more user-friendly than Internet Relay Chat. The reference desk shall be that forum.

Well-meaning people have attempted to assert alternate formulations: note efforts such as this. However, those efforts (although honorable) simply do not coincide with the needs of the people. The Wikipedia community has demonstrated sufficient maturity and discretion to police itself. The attempt to constrict this discernment through arbitrary proscriptions on Reference Desk content can only lead to confusion, dismay, inconsistency and unnecessary pretense as a subterfuge for non-compliance (at best) or an utter disregard for posted guidelines (at second best) or something even worse than that (at least best). None of this is good.

Consequently, the only guideline for Reference Desk content shall be: "Everything is acceptable except personal attacks." This is the only rational way forward. dr.ef.tymac 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We the people of the Ref Desk, in order to form a more perfect union, establish chat tranquility, provide for the common need, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Guideline for the Reference Desk of Wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But David, I'm a Tory, and a loyal subject of the the king! Seriously, I am happy to be part of your 'more perfect union.'  To be quite honest about the matter, I have never even read the existing guidelines in their entirety, and still have no idea what the casual jargon that people throw around refers to (OP, IMO etc.?).  I joined the Reference Desk last October, and have frequently been both bemused and amused by the endless talks about talks, rules about rules, guides about guides that appears on this page, which, for some, would seem to be their only purpose in being here.  There is only one rule I have ever followed, and ever will follow: speak where I can speak, and speak with sincerity and authority.  The rest is silence.  Clio the Muse 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So labor are more like the roundheads? David D. (Talk) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was really thinking in the context of American history here. Were the Loyalists during the Revolution not referred to as Tories?  Anyway, if you want an English analogy, I am certainly a Cavalier and an Aristocrat!  Clio the Muse 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so great on American history since I moved here late in life. You're an Aristocrat? Well in that case, "Off with your head" :) David D. (Talk) 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just make sure you stay off the soapbox, and can back up what you say with reference to published source. Otherwise, you'll be off counting trees!&mdash;eric 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree, we should be much more lax about what goes on in the reference desk but I disagree we should allow it to be like a general chat forum. Some users are genuinely interested in learning things and while a bit of off topic chatter is fine, excessive off topic chatter is harmful. Have you seen what happens in usenet where someone asks a genuine, good faith question having done research but had no success but instead the discussion degrades into top vs bottom posting, or whether Bush is evil or whatever? For that matter, saying all jews/muslims/whoever are evil is not a personal attack but is clearly inappropriate. While it perhaps isn't necessary to have a guideline for this specific area, my point is your idea that any general chatter except personal attacks should be allowed is IMHO an exceptional bad one Nil Einne 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree, we should be much more lax about ...
 * 1) My declaration was not founded in deliberation and assent, but upon the clear and sonorous cry of the unseen people, whose will unquestionably supersedes that of even the noblest of scribes and their lofty but misguided edicts.


 * Have you seen ... where someone asks ... but instead the discussion degrades
 * 2) Yes, of course. Policing such degredation of the Reference Desk is well within the competent domain of the people. This has been proven repeatedly. This community is clearly not Usenet.


 * ... evil is not a personal attack but is clearly inappropriate ...
 * 3) see 2) above.


 * my point is your idea ... is IMHO an exceptional bad one
 * 4) see 1) above, I propose no ideas nor redrafting of any rules; I come only to declare: Vox populi, vox dei. Digressions and tangents are for the people to decide, no proscription of the scrivener shall ever dissuade any gale from blowing where it will.


 * Have clear guidelines been written to establish what is "allowed" and what is not? To quote Vox Pop: Probably somewhere :) But continuing with the ... discussion ...


 * The people have spoken. dr.ef.tymac 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The people need lots of things. People like phone books and videogame guides.  They're useful.  But, we don't include this kind of content in Wikipedia because Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia, rather than a collection of whatever people think is useful.  I don't think people generally want to be heavy-handed with removal of content- there's all kinds of off-topic chatting that nobody seems to worry about.  I think we mostly agree that reasonable editors should be given pretty wide latitude at the ref desk.  I think it's useful to prune certain things though, because as we've seen, sometimes editors aren't mature enough to police themselves.  Sure, it'd be better if they all were, but how to do proposed to accomplish that?  Friday (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday you carry the banner of this declaration well! Indeed, remove just the fourth sentence from your response above, and everything you have said meshes perfectly with my (but truly, the people's) declaration. Some voices may warrant attenuation, others kind guidance, but let none be attacked or belittled. dr.ef.tymac 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your declaration is flawed in that it only expresses the perceived will of the editing bourgeoisie and ignores the great mass of the reading proletariat. Also you ignore historical precedent, were such a formulation was bloodily suppressed by the ruling class.&mdash;eric 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, Friday is essentially correct. A Reference Desk that answers encyclopedic questions helps the encyclopedic effort, albeit indirectly, by identifying weaknesses in our information net. A RefDesk that is a glorified chatroom is an inappropriate use of our resources, which is why much of this social networking has been pushed to IRC and otherwise off-wiki. Please read the Five Pillars to see where your 'treatise' breaks down. -- nae'blis 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday is certainly correct, as I have indicated. One need only read the relevant links I provided to discern the nuances of my message. I have indeed admired and am quite familiar with the mighty columns of this citadel, as well as your prior depredations of the now-disbanded faction that sought to balkanize it.


 * Not to belabor this, but as I already said (see point 4 above), I offer no new formulations or theories; no advocacy; no treatise; no distinctions between laity and clergy, prole and beauraucrat, leader and subordinate. I am of no faction or clan. I am merely a messenger of the communitarian will, which is surely now upon you.


 * This declaration is but a harbinger. Heed or disregard as you see fit. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that things are a bit more complex than just "Don't be a dick" - sometimes people outstep the bounds of propriety without meaning to, or without fulfilling the description of "dick." It's not that they're rebellious, just that they are probably new and aren't quite yet used to Wikipedia policies. The fact remains that this is an encyclopedia, and everything in it should contribute to making it more encyclopedic. There are very good forums outside of Wikipedia that can answer people's questions in a more chatty and wandering way. It's just that the excessive chattiness and the pointless wandering kind of detracts from the encyclopedic spirit, making the forum a forum and not a Wikipedia. V-Man - T/C 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent ideals, may it ever be so, but see also above. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be no written rules, though I lack the mental energy to further elaborate my view right now. But, hey, about the "policing itself" thing that dr.ef.tymac wrote about: I happen to have just written something that some of you may think has to do with this section, some of you may not: anyway, I think my idea would truly help solving many problems like the ones we're dealing with right now on the reference desks.

Other pages that some may find useful are Wikiversity and its Help Desk, since they seem to be and really are much more "lax", and people actually fighting Friday's and Eric's point of view here may get really tired some times and even consider to leave Wikipedia! When this happens, you can just go there to Wikiversity and learn a lot and chat and have fun and not have your posts deleted! A.Z. 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, indeed, I for one know exactly how "lax" 'Wikiversity' is, a place truly laughable in its irrational, hate-filled absurdity. When shall we three meet again?/ In thunder, lightning or in rain... Clio the Muse 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself. If your primary aim is to "chat and have fun" then this is not the place to be. Rockpock  e  t  05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes me cringe, and that meeting place has nasty corners. For wikiversity's sake, I wish something could be done about it. It's not representative for Wikiversity, however, and this isn't the place to discuss Wikiversity. I see no problem with advertising for its help desk once in a while, the way it has been done recently. I don't think we need to discuss it on this talk page, however. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being one of the perpetrators having contributed to the cluster of comments dr.ef.tymac is referring to, I am amused by this thread. The cluster could be indicative of the title New Reference Desk Guideline: Everything is acceptable except personal attacks. It could also be seen as a vent event, something that needs to happen occasionally. Considering the topic's weird mirrored synchronicity at the desk and its talk page, It could be seen as a cosmic event, something that happens even less often. The original post and the comments could be seen as gentle reminders that meatpuppets are operating the keys. It might indicate all this, none of this, other things or nothing. On its own, this cluster doesn't give us much guidance for establishing guidelines, nor should it. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me my favorite essay could have been written with this very thread in mind: Don't hand out panda sandwiches at a PETA convention. Rockpock  e  t  06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The web is chockfull of blogs where people engage in endless idle vapid chitchat about everything. The Ref Desk should not become yet another. I hope it remains a place where people can ask questions in search of information about just about anything with a good chance that one or more of the sage volunteers will track down the info for them. Edison 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's rare in my experience for ref desk chat of any substantial length to be about topics that are entirely unrelated to the question, the desk does sometimes engage in tangential discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing, if not taken to extremes.  Far better for people to talk peacefully and genially with each other than engage in other forms of aggressive and dehumanising conduct.  If we were physically together in some institution in the outside world, doing what we do for "real-life" clients, we would naturally talk among ourselves - and not always strictly about the topic at hand.  That's human nature.  May it ever be thus.  Only computers strictly confine themselves to answering the questions they are asked.   @ Edison - I love the word "vapid". It should become compulsory in every personal attack. :)  JackofOz 03:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Desk - "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?"
I am going to remove the vast majority of the question/s and all of the answers, bar an amended version of Geogre's. I think that the tone of the question is offensive to Catholics, particularly in light of the questioner's other posts on Wikipedia. My responses in particular may be "feeding", and on reflection should go. I've also warned the questioner on his talk page about a variety of disruptive edits. --Dweller 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said ad nauseum, it is part of a consistent anti-Catholic campaign by this user. I certainly find it both malicious and offensive.  The questions, such as they are, are incidental to the manifesto.  In the past I took this seriously, to the point of giving a measured response.  Now I do my best to ignore it; but it is, neverthless, soapboxing at its most pernicious, and deserves no place on the Reference Desk.  I thank you, Dweller, for your intervention, and have now purchased an Indulgence, ensuring that you will have remission for at least a thousand years in purgatory!.  Clio the Muse 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the questioner will come to find that anyone in a position of power is likely to abuse it, at least just a little, and that the expectation that the Pope would be beyond reproach is unrealistic and childish. Vranak

I just answered the questions which weren't soapboxing (where I had an answer, that is) and left the rest alone. StuRat 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RFAs-How can I be alerted to these?
I've only just discovered that an individual applied to be an admin., whom I consider had neither the skills, the temperament nor, above all, the intellect for the position. The matter is now closed (a failure, thankfully), but it disturbs me that I was not able to express a view. Is there some way that I can be alerted to future nominations of this kind? There is so much about this whole project with which I am still unfamiliar. Clio the Muse 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can follow ongoing RfAs at these pages: User:Dragons flight/RFA summary or User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Or you can transclude it to a page of your own using the following text:  Rockpock  e  t  19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if there is a potential RfA you are interested in specifically, you can create a link to the page it would be created on and keep and eye on it. When it turns blue, go and make your opinion known. For example, if you were keen to support a future nomination of Jack, you would create: Requests for adminship/JackofOz. Rockpock  e  t  19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, just put it on your watchlist. Any page, even those that don't exist, can be on a watchlist. When people start editing that page you will be alerted. Why has no one nominated Jack to be an admin? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The shortest shortcut I've found is to keep an eye on WP:BN. Five keystrokes in the search box. Jack's suggestion is also very clever, if you keep an eye on your watchlist. --Dweller 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that was David D's cunning idea. I think I may have asked Jack if he would like to be nominated, but he declined (like everyone else I ask!) Rockpock  e  t  19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view, Jack of Oz would be superb in the position, measured, responsible and wise; though I doubt he has any interest in being elevated into Olympus! Clio the Muse 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be successful, i think he'd need to do some work to distance himself from the question in this edit. Boy, what a nasty process RFA can be, here Jack hasn't even hinted at wanting to be an admin and i throw a diff at him. Could that maybe be one of the reasons he declined? I try and keep track of ref desk contributors at RFA, but us "regulars" should probably keep in mind that the desk is really a small part of Wikipedia, and try and make positive contributions to what can be a very contentious process.&mdash;eric 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... that's odd. I would have thought that an obvious option for Clio would be to simply place user pages on her watchlist. A little browsing around seems to indicate that is not sufficient, as an RfA can go through without it ever appearing on the user page!? How many other important developments relative to a specific user account cannot be tracked by watclisting the user page? Am I missing something here? dr.ef.tymac 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * RfAs often don't get mentioned on userpages to avoid the appearance of canvassing. There are a number of infomative pages relating to editors actions that are not obvious from userpages alone - e.g. see . Rockpock  e  t  22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am humbled by this discussion of me as a potential future admin. I've never declined to nominate, because nobody's ever suggested I do so (that I can remember; which doesn't necessarily mean much, what with my rapidly diminishing mental faculties). Anyway, it doesn't matter an iota, since there's no way I'd be interested in getting involved in such a capacity any time soon. I'm far too busy with my own terribly important work here to take on any new duties. But I do very much appreciate the compliment. Thank you. :) JackofOz 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the nomination. Like it or not, you're running, Jack. :-) StuRat 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The hypothetically very first thing I would do if I were a hypothetical admin would be to issue a decree banning bad English, even in jokes. This would be binding on everyone, and punishable by death.  It's just so unfair that we who hold such exalted and lofty offices should be subjected to the speech of the common masses.  Now do you see why it would be an extremely bad idea for me to ever become an admin?  :)   JackofOz 05:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I need a spellchecker that catches mistakes like that (now fixed). StuRat 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Stu. I thought that "your" of yours was an intentional ploy to unnerve me.  It worked brilliantly, regardless.  :)  JackofOz 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yore kidding, really ? StuRat 06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now there would be an unlikely triumvirate of co-nominators: myself, Clio and StuRat. I urge Jack to reconsider, if only for the potential for global harmony that such an unholy alliance could unleash. Do it for the children. ;) Rockpock  e  t  06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be very supportive. Maybe we could have a ref desk nomination rather than multiple co-noms? Put him forward as the unifying voice of reason. David D. (Talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I too think JackofOz would make a good admin, which is probably most demonstrably reflected in the fact that he doesn't particularly seem to want to be one. Oh, and for the record, Jack, as far as I am concerned you can discuss any ole thing you like on the Reference Desk ... I'm sure that must be a weight off your shoulders. :) dr.ef.tymac 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support that, too. He's one of the most stubbornly patient and reasonable editors I've ever seen.  The only potential problem I see is in the likely demand for shrubberies from certain denizens of the RfA process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those denizens would also suddenly read some reasons and names they only rarely see in the support section. (Mine, for one) ---Sluzzelin talk  15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Ack, that was poorly phrased. They normally don't see my reasons and signature in the neutral or oppose sections, or at RFA at all, either.  ---Sluzzelin  talk  15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is where I should make a Shermanesque statement. When I can think of some uniquely Jackesque way of phrasing it, I'll get back to you.  :)  JackofOz 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on what we (might) see as trolling
If we perceive a question or thread of questions to be trolling, inappropriate or phony, shouldn't we keep our remarks observing this to a minimum at the desks themselves? And maybe discuss our concerns here, or on the talk page belonging to the user in question? (Thinking of the still and peaceful library atmosphere). ---Sluzzelin talk  08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Or, after having tried all that, we can take it to the notice board.) ---Sluzzelin talk  08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Clio the Muse 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Total agreement. I hold little hope of seeing that happen though.  --LarryMac 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the intention behind this idea. But switching to Devil's Advocate role for a moment, how would it work in practice?  Twenty editors might say nothing on the Ref Desk page because they perceive a troll to be in our midst.  But another 10 might think that's because the first 20 have nothing to contribute to an answer, and/or they themselves don't see the troll for what they are - so they answer the question instead, thus defeating the intention of the first 20.  There are potentially thousands (well, at least hundreds) of editors who might come along here and answer questions, so how are they all going to be educated about how to respond to trolls (ie. not respond)?  Should this become part of our guidelines?  JackofOz 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I expressed myself unclearly. I have no problem with adding referenced and dry information to the question's answerable skeleton (ignoring the trollish flesh), much in the spirit of Deborahjay's comment here. At the desk, however, I do not think that we should spend a lot of space and time on commenting on the question's trollishnes or phoniness, but rather raise these concerns here or on some other talk page, notice board, pump, or whatever else there is out there. My only concern here, is topicality, peace and etiquette at the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I believe I misunderheard you, Sluzzelin. I support this completely.  Anything that stops us talking openly about the questioner, rather than about the question, is good.  JackofOz 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even an insulting trolling question can have an informative and encyclopedic answer. In the reply, first discount any doubtful fact embedded in the question, such as "Do you still beat your wife?" In a made up extreme case, if the troll asks "Why are Americans so fat and stupid?"an answer might refer to international statistics for obesity and educational attainment in various countries, then look at the underlying causes. The answer could inform other readers even if the troll was not really looking for information so much as trying to provoke or make a point. Certainly there are some questions which violate policies such as WP:BLP which should be removed to the talk page and should could even justify a warning on the questioners user page, even though such warnings are pretty much a waste of bandwidth for IP addresses. Edison 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, yep, yep, and yep. The hotter the question, the cooler the answers should be. I particularly like the readers first approach in Edison's comment. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like sensible thinking above. The problem as I see it are those among us who just can't resist feeding those trolls.  Moving the question to the user talk page and giving the dryest response possible may help prevent this, but this really only works if other editors refrain from putting the question back.  I'm leery of the suggestions that such moves/removals always get noted on the talk page, since this may only bring it to the attention of those who will insist on putting it back.  In the past we've had some folks bending over backward to come up with very unlikely ways that such questions could be interpreted at serious, so that they feel justified in insisting they be answered.  We need to find a sane balance between assuming good faith and  recognizing trolls for what they are. Friday (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, Friday wants the removals to be done in secret, so nobody has the opportunity to debate and/or undo the removals. I find this to be totally unacceptable.  I agree with the original suggestion, that we take all troll discussions here.  We should only include a short statement and link here from the Ref Desk itself, such as "There is a discussion of the legitimacy of this question at link goes here". StuRat 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not to do it "in secret", but rather, to do it with precisely zero fanfare. A lengthy debate, or a series of restorations and redeletions, is just as bad (in terms of wasting our time and feeding the troll's ego) as going ahead and answering the damn question would have been.  WP:DENY has more to say about this.


 * I know you're still worried about out-of-process or hidden deletions, Stu, but really, for certain kinds of narcissistic trolls, the utterly quiet deletion approach works very well. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I much prefer Edison's approach. Then what's a troller to say, "Geesh, those RD nerds take everything so seriously - this ain't no fun". ~ hydnjo talk &#xF8FF;  18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, in practice, answering boringly on the ref desk does nothing to discourage other editors from coming by and feeding the troll. Heck, we've even tried putting warnings in comments saying "this looks like trolling, please don't feed" and those don't work much either.  Short of removing the questions or magically educating all ref desk contributors on how not to feed, what can be done?  Friday (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuggetaboudit? ~ hydnjo talk  &#xF8FF;  18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed a comment on the Misc desk asking how many homosexuals it takes to fill a grave. I still stand by the "remove first, ask questions later" policy, and I think that discussion is best served on the talk page of the RD to make sure everyone frequenting the RD knows about the removal and can discuss it one way or the other. However, I don't think in some instances discussion is really needed. -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your action was fully justified, Wooty. Clio the Muse 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That'll work just fine, as long as everyone is reasonable. Friday (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now the disturbed querent will wander around killing homosexuals and we did nothing to prevent it. So what if this is an encyclopedia? A.Z. 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that if such was the querent's intention - heaven forbid - he/she would hardly have announced it beforehand. I also think that it's a bit of a leap to interpret a stupid question from a trolling bigot as any kind of threat that we have a responsibility to do anything about.  JackofOz 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I know that a lot of hate groups announce on the Internet their intentions of beating up and hurting and killing people, and then publish movies and pictures of it afterwards. Indeed, it may be that the person's intention was not to actually kill someone themselves, but the question is the one of someone disturbed who could do a lot of harm even if they didn't wish to go and kill someone. I feel that we should at least try to do something. Maybe start a little thread just to talk about the subject for a while. The bigot would read it and there would be a chance for them to learn something, maybe. A.Z. 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud your compassion, A.Z. However, in a case like this, we have no information other than they made an incredibly tasteless joke.  Although it had the form of a question, it wasn't a question but an expression of bigotry, so it doesn't belong here.  To respond to it at all would paint us as naive, which might be ok if something positive also came from it.  However, we know nothing of the OP's circumstances, so it's more than likely imo that anything we say would have no effect at all.  Sometimes the best response is silence.  JackofOz 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "'Listen, bud,' said Ford, 'If I had one Altarian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say "That's terrible" I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am.'"
 * —Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, ch. 36


 * It's probably terribly callous of me to say so, but there are some problems that we in our individual or locally collective wherewithal simply cannot fix. The chances that the bigot making the hateful joke is doing it as a prelude to some actual act of real-world violence are very small, but even so, the chances that we, with a few words on a web page, might magically talk him out of it are vanishing.  The chances are much, much larger that the bigot simply enjoys seeing (what he perceives as) a flock of bleeding-heart liberals work themselves up into a lather of indignation, and we'd do well not to gratify him on that score. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes 5 to 8, depending on their girth. Edison 07:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the number of bleeding heart liberals required to generate a lather of indignation? (if so, do you have a source for that) Rockpock  e  t  07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Answers
I've hidden some answers to thve question on the Virginia Tech shootings, since it seemed the easiest way of showing what bits I meant, and that the previous answers were sufficient, and that it was easily reversible and does not remove them without concensus, while making removal easy if they are determined to be removable. *phew*

Anyway, these answers struck me as being exactly what we try not to do when asked this sort of question, besides being rendered obsolete by the previous answers. Skittle 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Several points:


 * 1) I find hiding answers unilaterally to be just as unacceptable as deleting them unilaterally. The person(s) who gave the answers thinks they are valuable and you don't, so how do we know your judgment is better than theirs ?  The OP won't know those answers are there, so can't judge for themself.
 * If you looked at the box, the OP will know they're there. They can choose whether or not to view them by clicking, or not, the 'show' button. Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel you should still notify the author(s), as they may not know you've done so, otherwise, or what your reasons were.


 * 3) Redundant answers can be useful, as they lend weight to that answer, showing that more than one person thinks that it's correct. Also, due to edit conflicts, a certain amount of redundancy is to be expected.


 * 4) When discussing a Ref Desk Q, please provide a link here to the Q, or at least tell us which desk to search.
 * My bad Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) When discussing a Ref Desk response, please list your specific objections to that response, don't just say it's "what we try not to do".
 * Sorry, ran out of time.... Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRat 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How the hell can you leave in comments in favor of one opinion while removing another, in the name of getting rid of a debate? See WP:5. We try not to be POV, but when people are giving their opinion, it's very rude to just remove it. Especially when the removal makes it MORE POV. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The responses of Splintercellguy and Dismas pointed out that the Ref Desk is not a discussion forum, and linked to Wikipedia's relevant coverage. The remainder of the responses were merely the opinions and speculations of editors, not sourced and inappropriate content for the desk. The five pillars to which you linked also mentions verifiability and the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The NPOV policy states that we should represent "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If you would like to respond to the question, please present your information "fairly and without bias" and support it with references to reliable sources. I've removed the inappropriate content.&mdash;eric 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the fact that leaving in anything that accuses one group one way or another is POV. Saying "some people think Gun Control would've stopped this" isn't much better than saying "Gun control would've stopped this". It's weasel words. You either leave in non-troll opinions or you remove them. The nature of the reference desk can make it hard to avoid POV. In the future, how 'bout we just automatically stop any opinion questions by saying "The reference desk cannot provide you with answers to questions of opinion.", and deleting anything that's POV in the slightest, instead of leaving in some shady POV or letting total POV go unchecked? -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the text you removed? It look like Dismas tried to point out Wikipedia's coverage fairly and without bias. This deletion of yours seems awful WP:Pointy.&mdash;eric 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Eric. I pointed the questioner to articles that discussed both sides of the topic of gun control which is exactly what many in the U.S. are shouting about right now in light of the shootings. I wasn't not fostering my viewpoint but leading the questioner to make their own decisions. I've put my response to the question back. Dismas |(talk) 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Though your comment reaks of POV, if you truly didn't mean to place blame, I will refrain from removing it again, as I can understand that it would be annoying and upsetting -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a link to the original removal ? StuRat 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two clicks away (via original poster and original poster's contributions). ---Sluzzelin talk  09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it looks like at least the first commented out response (from User:SteveBaker) was quite on topic and relevant. Since the six people whose material was removed were presumably opposed, and I am as well, that makes 7 of us for retaining the text in question.  I have therefore restored the text.  StuRat 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Sorry, I didn't have long last night. Basically, I hid the answers because I thought it was the best way of showing what I meant, made things easier for people, discouraged others from continuing with the really unsuitable comments that could be found there, but didn't actually remove the comments. Anyone could click 'show' on the box to see what was hidden. I removed the comments because the first few (which I left) basically said 'some people think this, others disagree. Here are some pages that discuss this in detail. This page isn't for people to post their personal opinions'. The next messages all seemed to be along the lines of 'I think this', and didn't really stay civil. I wasn't sure about the first, Stevebaker, one, but felt that the response it generated, combined with it being unnecessary and undermining the whole 'we're not discussing, we're refering' message, justified it. But then, my unsureness, and desire for concensus, was why I only ringfenced it, not deleting. It was not a removal. Skittle 11:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you're saying "some people think this", some people will think anything. Unless there's a huge movement saying something, it's not worth noting. This would be similar to if someone asked "What happens to you when you die", the poster was linked to what many, or even the majority think (Heaven, Reincarnation, etc.), but deleting anything that says "You go in a hole and you rot.". Just because we might not have articles on decomposition as the afterlife doesn't mean there aren't people that think exactly that. When someone asks an opinion question, we need to have a guideline on if we should say nothing but "At Wikipedia, we must maintain a neutral point of view, and cannot answer your question", or if we should allow everyone to have input, as all opinions are equally incorrect. Would anyone care to put that to a vote? -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of correctness or incorrectness. I'd prefer to say that all opinions on a question of the form what should happen about XYZ issue? are equally valid.  JackofOz 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

lame! lame! lame!
Sorry to be blunt, and to not have the time (or stamina) to follow this debate and all the deletions and reversions last night, but I have to say, this kind of edit war is really foolish. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of when my cousin and I were asked to set the table for ten people, and he put the knives the wrong way around, so I corrected them. Then he changed it back, then I changed it back, then he changed the knife at his place back, then ... (We were eight or nine at the time, I think.) ---Sluzzelin talk  13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Offensive comment crossed out by Sluzzelin  talk  14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Foolish, lame, and eight or nine year olds? If you two have some criticism of of any of the above edits, then please, i for one would welcome it, we're often lacking in comments from reasonable editors around here. But honestly. are your edits above valid criticism and can they accomplish anything besides pissing off a few editors?&mdash;eric 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for pissing off editors. I've asked to take it easy with the removals and especially with the reverts before, as have other editors. Like it or not (and I don't like it), this talk page and those actions that can be seen as disruptive at the desks themselves seem to revolve around a handful of users. Meanwhile, anyone else interested in improving the desks, but not necessarily in a wiki-lawerying fashion, loses interest in this page, where almost every single item turns into the same repetitive debate. I wish the hard work that has been done at the guidelines page saw some results in conduct here. I really am sorry though, and struck out my comment above. Nothing else to add. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize too much, there, Sluz: it's always a two-way street. We need to take care not to piss each other off, it's true, but at the same time, we need to work at not getting pissed off so much, and especially, not to go around actively looking for reasons to get pissed off!
 * I'm not talking about any one person here, so please, don't anyone reading this get your back up. I'm sure, if I did have the time and stamina to figure out who said (and stands for) what in this tempest, I'd decide that it's only some of you who are being foolish, and that others are being perfectly reasonable.  But really: any time you get into one of these edit wars, with back-and-forth bickering in the edit comments (and especially if it's over a relatively trivial issue), nobody looks good. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, after some reconsideration, Steve Summit is right, no need for an apology on your part. He's been against deletions since way back when, and after looking through the archives i see where you have also counseled moderation. While i disagree and would still hold the opinion that the "wiki process" is the way to improve Wikipedia, getting pissed off over something so trivial is inexcusable. As for disruptive and wiki-lawyering, all i can say is that my edits were certainly never my intended as either.&mdash;eric 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there seems to be no way around the wiki-process. I've always tried to apply WP:AGF with everyone's actions and intentions, and disruption is no one's goal here (so I assume, and so I hope). More often than not, the disturbances seem to be a result of one single unresolved issue: Inappropriate answers and their speedy removal (i.e. without prior discussion). We've tried and will keep trying to dissuade from giving offensive, misleading, or dangerous replies. Things have improved since last November, but they're not perfect, nor will they ever be. No one here believes the guidelines will make them perfect either, but guidelines may provide a helpful basis for mutual understanding and agreement. Meanwhile, disagreement on how to handle inappropriate responses remains (please don't ask for an objective definition of inappropriate) and the disruption will continue to a certain extent, until the issue is resolved (and maybe even after). Phoeba Wright is right, my own sensitivities are meaningless here. Process overrules tranquility, and dogging it out, whether discursively or by pushing the revert button, is part of the wiki-process. There's a lot to learn. I'm trying. ---Sluzzelin  talk  09:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might seem foolish, but it's just editors trying to make wikipedia a better place. Trust me, I've seen MUCH worse, from people with worse intentions, if you want to call people foolish, I'd check that last link of yours. I'd really like to know what you're trying to allege with a tongue-in-cheek response to another comment entirely -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And this is just me trying to make Wikipedia a better place. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still like you to explain what you meant by that last link. Completely unrelated -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry; editing error. Fixed. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, subnote to the above, a lot of times what seems like bickering or childishness is caused by people debating out of sync with each other. People don't clearly state their intentions up front, and other people are left confused, so even with WP:AGF, your actions might be out of place. Like I said above, I don't think anyone here was being foolish or childish, at least not in the handling of this.
 * Wikipedia would work a lot smoother if we could all sit down at a table with each other and discuss our changes, but that just won't happen. Although it does get me giddy at the thought of being able to bitch-slap vandals -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 14:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, this isn't ever going to stop, right? ~ hydnjo talk &#xF8FF;  13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I've started to avoid these debates on the ref desk talk page. I could spend all this time doing something productive like answering questions that won't send the whole refrence desk into an uproar. - AMP&#39;d 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I reached precisely the same conclusion, AMP'd, a long time ago. Much of what goes on here, and on the talk page for the Reference Desk guidelines, reminds me of Franz Kafka's short story The Great Wall of China-"...I imagine that all human thoughts and wishes revolve in a circle, and all human aims and fulfilments in a circle going in the opposite direction."  Best to concentrate on constructing what can be constructed.  Clio the Muse 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put Clio (I think!). ~ hydnjo talk  &#xF8FF;  23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you, hydnjo. I think I think so too! Think always of the great dragon herself, then you have a motif most apt.  Clio the Muse 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yummm!


 * Archive anyone? This page is gettin' two I mean to Oops, I meen mean too damn darn hot damn long. ~ hydnjo talk &#xF8FF;  23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)