Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 9 December 2014 (→Appropriate Ref Desk Conduct: answers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

disruptive thread

The OP has continued the hatted thread about restaurants with two petulantly worded questions. I have deleted the thread and asked the OP to start a new thread on a single question if he likes. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this weirdness the normal behavior of Pablo the Penguin, or has he taken a wrong turn recently? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thou hath been done. Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the repeated opinionating coming from the OP, I have collapsed the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the user does geolocate to Scotland, see the IP address from this thread with his first registered, but unsigned edit. Anyone guess what the topic was? μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely a Scot, or someone pretending to be. For further info, check out Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pablothepenguin/Campaign. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The user has been indeffed. Amazing how easy it is to predict such detrollings, yet nevertheless food gets wasted on them μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For some reason the thread was not archived, so I have simply deleted it, since the user's indeffed and the subject matter's irrelevant, to be polite. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough?

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough? i asked one question and because i didn't state it clearly enough, the answers weren't helpfulWhereismylunch (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The answer is right there in your question ("... because i didn't state it clearly enough ..."). Restate your question more clearly. If that doesn't work, look around for somewhere that will meet your needs, because believe it or not, we are not the only website on the internet. -- Jack of Oz 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Which question or questions are the most frustrating for you? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked about the risk of hpv from oral sex without being more specificWhereismylunch (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I already edited my questionWhereismylunch (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the question in question. In addition to Jack's two suggestions (clarify , look for a more specific forum) you sometimes also need patience. In some cases, you'll receive a good answer after more than 24 hours. I see you did clarify! You may also ask the rephrased/specified/clarified question in a new thread, if you feel it will attract more responses. (What you probably shouldn't do, is remove the whole thread ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some kinds of questions (especially those on topics surrounding sex or drugs or criminal activities) are seen by some members of our community as being either inappropriate or indicative of someone asking the question for nefarious purposes...or that the person asking the question is a school kid trying to get us to talk dirty...or a troll trying to get us arguing about their post...or something of that nature. Our standard approach when we encounter such things is generally for each person to decide whether or not they, personally, want to attempt to answer those questions that they find unpalateable. Rightly or wrongly, that may be partially what happened here. We can't force people to answer questions, or to come up with wonderfully informative answers - so there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. The best you can do is to express your question clearly - and perhaps to explain why you're looking for an answer to it.

We also have actual rules that forbid us to answer questions that we suspect are "homework questions" or questions asking for legal or medical advice. Your question somewhat strays into the latter category too...and that may have put off more people.

But sometimes, the reason is that none of us know the answer, and nobody is sufficiently motivated to go off and do a bunch of research to find out. We are, after all, a volunteer group. Nobody pays us to do this - so we're at liberty to pick and choose what we decide to spend time on.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a not unreasonable question, but one which might required more research than the average editor is willing to put into it - as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think if you post a follow-up question/clarification more than 24 hours or so after the initial post, it will attract more attention if posed as a new question (linking the previous question would be a nice courtesy). Agree with Steve that we are WP:NOTCENSORED; I've replied to all sorts of questions that aren't usually brought up in public/"polite" company. Finally, the fact of the matter is that there is a bit of bias that we have here due to what interests responders, where their knowledge/experience lies, and who happens to be reading that day. For example there were a series of questions a few weeks ago about details of soil mechanics (e.g. , ) -- when there were few/no responses after a day or so I tried to supply some links, but I'm sure that OP felt they weren't getting great answers overall. I believe that we just didn't have any expert eyes on those questions. Such is the blessing/curse of a volunteer reference desk! So another solution might be to post a similar question in another month or so, you may get a different crowd of responders (but please use your discretion, as frequently posting similar questions could be interpreted as disruptive if it is done too much.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And you do notice that i edited my top question after i received all the answers.Whereismylunch (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the top question was before i edited it:What are the chances of getting hpv from oral sex, not the chances of oral cancer from hpv? I asked a similar question a few days agoWhereismylunch (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Chat re Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Will_there_be_any_consequences_if_a_human_eats_the_glands_of_an_animal.3F (moved from project page)

Thanks to Wnt for actually answering the question rather than just joking around. This is Reference Desk, not a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the jokes are that offal, are they? --Jayron32 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I often wonder why some are keen to compare this place to a realistic help desk. While I'm certain you make massive contributions to the mainspace of Misplaced Pages, several others don't. What are the purposes of the various responses to this question? Self-aggrandising and a definite of "love me because I'm funny/clever/satirical, although I have nothing encyclopaedic to add, I'll add something jocular yet hopeless" feeling. Terribly sad, not part of the encyclopedia. Time to improve this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this "contribution" that you just wrote? It does not help answer the question, nor does it add to Misplaced Pages in general. Despite what you profess there is no requirement for responders here to also contribute to our encyclopedia, though of course many of us do. Bugs' response above is not a complete answer but it is indeed a relevant piece of information - there is at least one animal gland that is commonly eaten by humans with no well-documented hormonal effects. Part of what makes WP so great is that no one person has to do all the work, we can each make incremental improvements. Surely you are familiar with this concept? Your criticisms of the ref desk are well known to us regulars. I implore you again: either help us be better and lead by example, or kindly stay out of the way of those of us who do volunteer our time and effort to provide references and resources to users who come seeking our help. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's more useful as more than half the preceding responses. If you are so blind that you can't see those who are just here to increase edit counts without actually contributing referenced answers, that's your problem. But worse, it's making Misplaced Pages look stupid. We have "users" here pretending to answer questions. If people aren't going to actually answer questions, but instead offer anecdotes, this isn't a Reference Desk, it's a chat room. Rather pathetic I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Far too many people on here just posting random bovine excrement without ever being useful in any way. Not naming any names (cough)Baseball Bugs(cough) Fgf10 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Fgf10, SemanticMantis, and Jayron32: I've taken the liberty of moving this meta argument off the main page. My opinion is that per SemanticMantis above, neither jokes nor arguments over what is appropriate contribute to answering the question. But jokes are meant to make people feel good whereas the meta arguing is intended to make somebody feel bad, so I prefer the former, especially when they're short and inobtrusive. You can move the original joke bit here too if you insist, but I don't think the Rocky Mountain Oysters part is a joke; it does demonstrate that the steroid hormones don't have a dramatic negative effect (though I don't know what the limits of that are) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountain Oysters thing was certainly NOT a joke. It was the first thing that came to mind for the OP's question. I don't know what Fgf10's problem is. Maybe he should read the article and eddycate himself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I, as well, provided an answer to the question, and it has now been removed to here. I would like my answer with its linked referenced returned. --Jayron32 01:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it might have been easy to miss as an answer because it was also wrapped in a joke. I don't really mind, just sayin'. I'm adding a link to organ meat to the thread presently. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved, I have added back Jayron32's answer. I do agree it contained a helpful link, although also easy to miss since it was wrapped in a joke. I have also added back TRM's comment which Jayron32's was in reply to, to ensure proper context. I have not added back anything else and have asked anyone who wishes to continue the discussion to do so here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think your link and answer was helpful in this case, just not very complete. Incomplete answers are fine by me, as I said above, that kind of incremental progress is what makes WP tick. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Wnt, this kind of off-topic discussion can be very distracting from a thread. I probably should have posted my reply to TRM here and left a link at the original thread saying I replied here. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This recent edit, , and the above section make me question why this user is welcome to continue participating at the reference desk. Despite being an administrator, the constant negative attitude - in public space too - coupled with, as of now, rather insulting - to audience and volunteers - hats, it seems more like the user is here to cause problems and be disruptive than actually contribute anything. Ultimately, for all of their argument that the ref desk gives Misplaced Pages a bad name and doesn't help the encyclopedia, I think an unnecessarily insulting administrator stirring up drama gives Misplaced Pages a far far worse name; I know which I think looks worse, at least. @The Rambling Man: if you insist on coming here - so frequently, too - why not lead by example or, at least, not be a disruptive element and continue making the desk, and by extension Misplaced Pages, look worse by your commentary on it?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, The Rambling Man is currently blocked for 48 hours due to unrelated violations of an IBAN. Dragons flight (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually not totally unrelated. Most of the violations were unrelated but TRM's comment now above or originally was cited as one of the violations. BTW, I've written a reply to the original comment, but won't post it until TRM is back our of interest of fairness. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironically Medeis and TRM seem to have similar problems (at least to me). They'd probably get along great if not for the fact that it seems they can't stand each other. Hope they both learn that positive action is more useful here than negative. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring this, I agree with the original archiving, but The Rambling Man returned and it is still timely to discuss the matter (being that it is quite independent of their block and pertains only to their involvement with the RD). I have nothing else to add to what I said above, but I do think that if TRM intends to continue editing the desk, they should, at least, explain themselves and their conduct here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I am entitled to suggest (and will continue to suggest) that the Reference Desk starts to live up to its billing, i.e. a Reference Desk where encyclopaedic answers are provided. Of course, if you wish to close the doors to retain your little club in its status quo, that's entirely up to you. I am prevented from saying anything more. Cheers! (P.S. it's usually polite to let someone know you've opened a thread entirely about them, perhaps you could offer others that courtesy in the future when you try to exclude others in the same way). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that linking to your name did notify you, I apologize if that is incorrect, it was not intentional. Also, I have no issue with you suggesting anything - I do have a massive problem with you making those suggestions in a highly antagonistic manner directly on the desk, rather than discussing them on the talk page. If this were an actual article that was lacking in quality, would it be okay to moan about it, rudely, in the actual article? You are doing far more than "suggesting that the Reference Desk starts to live up to its billing".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't link my name. I'm sorry you have a massive problem. I have a massive problem too. You know what they say, if you're not part of the solution.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I applogize, again, it was an accident, accept it or not. What is your solution? Rude commentary in the public portion of things, I fail to see what problem you are solving. What problem am I a part of? Whether there is legitimacy to what you claim, and I'm not even asserting there isnt, your approach is certainly the wrong way and I can't see how you expect it to actually do anything. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to break up the little club mentality and be objective, answer questions which you have answers for, stop the "humorous" in-jokes. But that's not going to happen, and with people like you seeking to eject those not in the club, it's a problem which isn't going away. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is interesting since I'm not part of any little club, don't make jokes (here or on the page), usually provide multiple nonwiki sources to almost every one of my answers, and don't answer outside of what I do know well, or can strongly backup. I'm sure you can find times I've fallen short, that's true of anyone, but I don't fit your nest little description - moreover, I've complained about all of that, several times before, more or less. However, none of that makes acting pointlessly rude on the desk acceptable, just because you have something of a point isn't justification to be just as big a problem - I'm not sure why you think it would be. Now that we're done discussing what I'm not actually doing wrong and the club I'm not a part of, can we discuss what you are actually doing wrong and why anyone should put up with that?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a plural "you", not specifically you personally. Anyway, I'm constrained by events, so cannot say more. Please, at least have the courtesy to let me know once you've ejected me from the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a plural "you" that I'm not a part of, nor is it relevant to the issue I'm raising - in fact, it has nothing to do with me. In short, you are acting poorly and complaining, in response, that some other people, not me, behave badly too - how exactly does that justify your poor behaviour? That's nothing but trying to dodge the issue and moan about others uninvolved, from an experienced editor and admin complaining about people not being professional, it's staggeringly absurd. You did behave poorly, that is the matter at hand, quit with the tenth grade misdirection and address it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you can't seem to see there's a problem indicates you're not the person to discuss this with. Anyway, as I said, let me know when the club tears up my membership card. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact you seem to think there's this mysterious club is part of the problem. In reality, a number of regular RD participants has never been that happy about the person who you seem to have the most problems with (based on the person being primary cause of your recent block even if not related to the RD). They were never banned from the RD despite a number of historic problems for any number of reasons but I suspect including because of distractions from the stuff you do on the RD which as I said below are often even more unhelpful. (It's not like they have many supporters on the RD.) In fact, a number aren't always that happy about the other person of the IBAN either. (Or I'm guessing other people who have problems with, perhaps including me I don't know.) The thing is even for all their flaws, I can sort of see where both of them are coming from, despite often disagreeing or thinking they're doing stuff majorly wrong. As with Phoenixia1177 and expressed below, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve. As an experience admin, you surely know that randomly ranting at people on the RD proper isn't doing anything productive or likely to lead to any useful change and as I mentioned earlier instead is generally counterproductive since people are distracted from other problems that perhaps should be dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) It seems unlikely Phoenixia1177 was intentionally trying to exclude you since they specificially address a comment at you. It's unfortunate they did not notify you, but I think it'll be best to accept it was a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I had written a response. I've reconsidered my response based on a look through TRM's edit history. I had mentioned that my concern (for a long time), more so than even most of those TRM seems to criticise, is that most of TRM's post on the RD proper seem to be sniping at participants or criticising the RD without providing anything useful.

Having look through their contrib history, I feel this is accurate for their recent contribs (over the two month or so) although I would clarify to include criticising questions or saying they should be closed or closing them. (I have and remain supportive of closing threads on the odd occassion but regardless of whether it's justified here, I don't think many of us want any who's activity here is primarily closing threads and criticising.) The other contribs I found were 2 questions and followups, thanks etc all of which are good but not really what I was getting at (I was thinking of replies to questions). Over this period, there was also two clearly helpful responses . As I somewhat also expected, in addition to the helpful part of the response, the first example also included criticism of earlier responses.

Finally there were five (if I count the discussion above as one response) which I would classify as doing nothing but criticise on the RD proper . I'm including which was in the thread they also provided an (earlier) answer to. Also which was an attempt to close a thread. Ultimately this support my view that in recent times TRM is guilty of what they've said above i.e. not being part of the solution on the RD.

However, if I go back further, I do find more useful posts in comparison to their other stuff e.g. . Actually during this period, I would say this is good behaviour, there were one or two responses mostly criticising but the majority had little criticism even in the response (sometimes in the edit summary). (There was also another question and followup .)

If TRM were to get back to that situation, where most of their response at least offered some useful information (beyond just telling people they won't get a good response her and should go somewhere else), I personally wouldn't mind even if they were also using it as an opportunity to criticise the RD & its participants. If not, I'll resurrect something from my old post. As an admin 'TRM knows what they can do if they want to close the RD, or change policy or guidelines whatever, and it isn't sniping at people on the RD'.

Plenty of people do the occasional snipe & criticism (or other stuff like jokes which don't provide an answer), I don't think it's something we should worry too much about if they also often do provide useful stuff. While there is sometimes some concern over the balance or useful contribs on the RD of other editors, in most cases they seem to have a resonable amount of useful stuff, it's more that there's a concern of being too many problematic ones.

BTW to avoid confusion in cases when I linked to a modification of existing response, I'm referring to the whole response not just the modification. As to why I incorrectly believed TRM was mostly just criticising on the RD proper, I guess it was confirmation bias, the fact that I'm much more likely to notice & remember (including who posted) a response which is just criticism, the fact that TRM isn't particularly active on the RD, as well as that a number of these are in the entertainment desk.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To properly answer this we should go back to the issue of why a good God lets bad things happen. If you could ride up to the top of a hill, grab the gun hanging on a cord like a bank pen and shoot a couple of shots at random, and have a year's supply of deer meat appear magically in your refrigerator, then there would be no groups of hunters, no stories, no hunting magazines and tips and fancy equipment. Nobody would know each other; they'd just shuffle out from their apartments now and then like people using a public toilet. What the Rambling Man should understand is the thrill of the chase here, in particular, the disappointment of failing to find the answer you are looking for, which is central to the appreciation of the Refdesk. In this particular case, I looked around for thyroid eaters with no awareness that this had been used as a treatment in the past, and I wasn't sure if it was a legitimate treatment or not; I briefly searched with a few terms on NCBI but missed the prize. (I could have dived into the hundreds of results from looser searches, but lacked the determination) But then Count Iblis came in and gave some references and TammyMoet clinched it. The "club"ness of the refdesk is based on that sort of cooperation, and an appreciation that the success - linking a general question to a specific instance for our archives, which are indeed a source of inspiration for various expert systems like Watson - is vastly more important than our reaction to any humor or sniping. A phrase I used before in this situation was "Do not muzzle the ox that treadeth the grain" :) Anyway, you have to genuinely enjoy seeing questions answered to appreciate the environment.

The other situation with Rambling Man is that I don't remember seeing him on the Science desk, then he shows up with a complaint. The people at ANI suggested this was because he was following somebody he has ongoing disputes with. If so, then that's just plain Wikistalking, which never ends well. If not, then I don't understand why he picked out that particular spot to start making his criticisms, rather than some other question or the talk page. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have all Ref Desks on my watchlist, along with about 6,000 other pages. Would you like me to send you list? Oh, and claiming that "the thrill of the chase here, in particular, the disappointment of failing to find the answer you are looking for, which is central to the appreciation of the Refdesk." is original research. People actually believe that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. To that end, something called the "Reference Desk" should be used to provide actual answers, not just in-jokes and humorous back slaps to the regulars who lurk there. It's really rather unseemly, the best thing would be to constrain the "hilarity" and in-universe frat club nonsense to the talk page or somewhere else, and remember that the main Ref Desk talk pages are frequented just as articles are frequented, by people expecting to see a professional resource. What Nil Einne has covered above in the various diffs demonstrates an editor who has grown more and more tired of seeing the Ref Desk being misused by a proportion of its editors. That's just an observation of a natural cause-and-effect: disillusionment and disappointment is the effect, the lack of encyclopaedic content of many Ref Desk threads, the jokes, the on-Wiki stupidity is the cause. Perhaps those contributing should consider and work under the suggestion that each Ref Desk thread should conducted as if it were an article update. That way there'd be no issues whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The ref desks are not perfect. But I don't think there's any consensus that they're the cesspit you describe, either. Yes, sometimes there's too much banter and wisecracking. The question is, what are we going to do? Let it be? Try to improve it? That'd be fine, but: just barging in and yelling ain't gonna do it. You're going to have to work with people, not against them. (Same as anyplace else on the wiki.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, it's not "barging in and yelling", it's a general acknowledgement that the jocular and non-ecncylopedic discussion that goes on there has become too much. Improve it. Stop pissing about, stop pretending to know the answer, stop giving opinion, be a "reference desk", not an "opinion desk", remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other online venues (e.g. Answers.com) where you can all do the same thing for the same gratification without dragging the place down to a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My point was just that regardless of your intent, "barging in and yelling" is how your posts come off to me, and I think others. If you want to effect change effectively, I suggest you moderate your approach. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask, do you honestly believe that the biggest issue with maintaining the integrity of the reference desks is that people make the occasional joke when supplying answers? I've been a contributor in this space for a couple of years now and if you look back into the archive for this talk page and both the Science and Humanities Ref Desks, you'll find that on occasion I've been a very vocal critic of speculative and un-sourceable answers and have advocated that contributors here should view WP:V as binding to our activities in this space at least in-so-far as they could provide a source to support the information they provide, if called upon to do so. But there is a huge difference between keeping an eye on verifiability and WP:NOTAFORUM and expecting everyone to act in an utterly humorless and asocial manner. Having come here on many hundreds of separate days over recent years, I cannot recall one occasion where I've noted more than a handful of jokes. Certainly there's never been one day when I've observed that the text involved in jokes was more than 1/100th of the total text found on the page. I'd be surprised if, availing yourself of the archives, you could find a day when the (almost always harmless) jokes grew over this threshold. Nor am I aware of a single policy for this project which precludes or restricts a little good-natured humour. Of course we are advised, as with all editors contributing in any context, to be mindful that our purpose here is meant to be informative, not social, but every space on Misplaced Pages aside from the articles themselves sees it's fair share of jokes, and I've never known anyone to be so militantly opposed to them, unless they clearly were being made at another editor's expense. Yes, certainly there is a contributor or two who could scale back on the quips a little, but on the balance I'd rather have volunteers here who make a few unnecesary jokes but do it in good spirits and as a part of a good attitude with regard to collaboration than volunteers who are deadpan but seriously lacking in their respect for WP:Civility. Frankly, I have a hard time believing this is truly about the jokes (edit: Having now done an ANI search and seen the extent of your problems with Medeis and the fact that neither one of you seems particularly committed to community standards when you have the other in your sites, I'm even more dubious) -- but if it is, and that's the worst of your complaints with regard to this part of the project and those who contribute here, I daresay that's nitpicky in the extreme.

Now, if you want to speak to the more substantive issue of those editors who just seem to want to weigh in on any and every topic whether they have the requisite knowledge or can supply relevant source material, I'd certainly support that discussion, but having looked at the diffs supplied above, I can't but agree that your approach to raising this topic has been disruptive and non-productive in a manner that anyone who has acquired a mop at to be able to recognize as completely unacceptable; where else on this project would you expect to show up caustically denigrating the contributions of others and somehow have it result in a change of approach for the better? You say repeatedly above that you are certain that there will be no change or improvement along the lines that you dictate, and yet you continue to rail on those points; this paints the picture of a person who is more interested in passive-aggresively whinging on a subject and attacking the approach of his fellow contributors than availing himself of the collaborative principles that define our approach on Misplaced Pages to develop a new standard of behaviour by winning people over by force of the value of your argument and it's consistency with our existing policies and values -- rather than trying to knock other people down. For an admin, you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of how counter-productive astringent, accusatory comments are on Misplaced Pages, relative to a carefully considered policy argument which avoids judgement of others in-so-far as possible and which makes clear your respect for the fact that your fellow contributors also care about the quality and integrity of the project. Civility is a pillar policy and a guiding principle which Misplaced Pages, as it exists today, simply could not do without and if I'm to be frank, much as I've railed against those prone to speculative answers in the past, if every regular contributor here moved closer to your interpretation of WP:V but at the same time moved closer to behaviour more consistent with your appreciation of WP:C, the Ref Desks would be much worse off for the change. But the truth is, the approach you are using at present has no chance of effecting any kind of change, save to make the atmosphere on the desks proper (and the dialogue here) more toxic. You're damaging our consistency with regard to one pillar policy in the name of trying to get us to closer adherence with another, but without any result to that end -- frankly because you don't seem to know what good and effective policy argumentation on Misplaced Pages looks like. At least that's the opinion from this one editor who agrees quite strongly that at least part of the problem you see exists but strongly disagrees with your approach to improving it. Snow talk 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's all a little TLDR for me, a lot of unnecessary text to simply express that you disagree with my approach. As I have said before, I am limited in what I can express, but am constantly dismayed by the "quality" of responses. And I am not alone in this. The bottom line is that editing the Ref Desk should be the same as editing articles. Care and attention and professionalism should be an expectation, not a hope. Otherwise we should seek to rename the Reference Desk to something more appropriate, like "Opinion Lounge" or "Tea Room" or similar where the LOL's can carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Having just spent some time wading through ANI archives, I can appreciate that the reason that you are limited in what you can express is that you are operating under the restrictions of an IBAN. But the very fact that you feel this restricts your ability to comment on this topic suggests that you are at least partly conscious of the fact that your comments seem to be more motivated by your qualms with particular editors than with a general issue. I'll be blunt - having looked through your year-long running feud with Medeis, I am not well impressed with your ability to keep an objective eye on policy, nor keep perspective in general, where they are involved. Nor am I the least bit convinced that your sentiments about them (and at least two other regular editors here) are not colouring (or possibly existing as the primary motivating factor for) your criticisms of the Ref Desk in general. Since your IBAN prevents you from interacting with regular contributors here and you don't seem to have much respect for this area of the project, may I sincerely and dispassionately suggest to you that this is not the ideal place for you to be contributing?

On a side-note, this is a Misplaced Pages talk space, not a youtube comments section, and while you are technically quite free to TLDR to your heart's content, I personally don't find two paragraphs anywhere near excessive discussion for somewhat significant violations of two separate pillar policies. Myself, I almost always find TLDR to be offensive, both because of its casually dismissive nature and probably also because it is used most liberally by trolls and others who are obviously not interested in honest and productive engagement. As regards Misplaced Pages in particular, I feel it has almost no proper relevance to good-faith discussions, except as regards the rarest and most excessive cases where where a contributor is clearly abusing the reasonable attention span of involved parties. When I see a Misplaced Pages administrator use the phrase, I feel like I'm a jurist whose just read it in lawyer's formal response to a brief from opposing counsel; their very purpose in that context is to carefully consider the arguments made by the other party and formulate a response that has procedural relevance to a set of carefully codified rules -- if they can't do as much, they should certainly be engaged in other work altogether. That is, if you want your own words to carry weight, perhaps you should not act as if you think it's appropriate to flippantly disregard the opinions of others as not worth your time. Even simply not commenting on a given subject is typically more respectful than going out of your way to point out you have no interest in reading them. Just some food for thought. Snow talk 08:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

TRM: You can argue all you want about jokes, treating this place like a forum, people acting unprofessional, etc. ad nauseam, and, honestly, I'll probably agree with 99% of it. I think we should have a thread and discussion about that too, and that there are a few people, in particular, who, while otherwise fantastic contributors, should be warned and, in one case, removed. However, that is not the purpose of this thread, so I would ask you to follow your own advice on being professional and discuss the matter at hand: you acting highly critical and abrasive in the non-talk portion of the desk. If you want to be critical of this place, feel free, that is your right, but it is a problem when those criticisms spill directly onto the desk - and they are just as off topic and irrelevant to the question as any jokes, musings, or other. I'm not asking you to drop your issues, I'm asking you to please raise them where they belong as an adult instead of acting like two wrongs make a right and you are justified by some vendetta against the foolery you perceive here. tl;dr: you have a point, I agree, but the issue here is you, and you still can't be nasty right on the desk; whine all you want, on the talk page, that's what it is here for, fixing problems. Is that, truly, asking a lot of you - an admin with a long history here? Do you really equate that, rather modest, plea for you to behave well to some conspiracy kicking you out of a club? It seems more like applying your own logic to you, and you not liking it. (I have bolded the most relevant parts as you complain about things being too long, above, and seem to prattle on about "clubs" and "you"'s that don't include the person you are actually addressing; I realize that is insulting, but, sadly, it seems required).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The sooner people start treating the Reference Desk like a Reference Desk and not an opinion board, the better. That's a really simple concept. You both may not like me saying what I say or the way I say it, but really that's immaterial to the issue in hand. If either of you spent as many bytes berating me in trying to get others to behave more in keeping with an eneyclopedic help desk, we probably wouldn't have such an issue. (Sorry if I'm not giving this the full twin-barrel response it deserves, you might have seen I'm busy expanding the enyclopedia...)The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't really cut it, the issue at hand is you, this is a thread about you. In short, you and the problems you cause are what are being discussed. What you say, how you say it, and where you say it are not immaterial, they are the issue at hand - you did not start this thread, I did, about you, you do not get to dictate the topic because you do not like it. You don't like how things are done here? Solve it the right way and drop the self-righteous schtick, you're just as bad as the people you are complaining about, except you're less pleasant, I'm not seeing how that puts you in the right.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't really cut it either. Was this thread designed to see me back at ANI again? Is it a trap? It certainly worked. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are full of conspiracy theories, I've said, multiple times, what I want, it's really really simple: Do not put rude remarks directed at other users, or the reference desk in general, on the actual desks. All I want is for you to conduct yourself civilly on the desk, proper, leave the theatrics for the talk page and raise your issues here, is that really asking that much? Perhaps you should stop assuming I'm part of some triple secret club out to get you and listen to what I'm actually saying.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a trap. Firstly you start a thread entirely about me. Secondly you don't even have the courtesy to notify me. Thirdly you ask me why I've said what I've said in an attempt to once again see the back of me. Well you'll be pleased to see that this "problem" editor will leave you to your problems now. Feel free to close down the thread again unless you decide to reopen yet again without informing me, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever offbeat theories you want, if you are leaving the desk, the problem is solved, tinfoil hat, or no. On the other hand, if you ever do decide to be slightly less paranoid and come back, can you please just be civil on the desk? I have, honestly, no idea what you are going on about, and the notifying you thing was already discussed (you'll remember me openly admitting it was my mistake, which it was; I don't have a lot of free time to spend here and make mistakes like that on occasion, I don't know what else to say - if you look at my account and history, it's not hard to see that I have little wiki experience, especially not enough to be setting up "traps", or whatever you believe).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You can feel free to check the archives for this very page if you care to know what my real feelings are about unsourceable contributions and the degree to which I've explicitly advocated a change in approach in regard to that issue for a number of editors, if you want to know where I stand, rather than just trying to utilize me in a straw man argument. I doubt very much you will, because I am becoming increasingly convinced, despite the very short span of my interaction with you, that you are more interested in arguing than affecting real change -- or at least are not capable of the self-restraint necessary to get there. Regardless, it's not that I don't agree with some of the change you advocate -- the very first point I made in responding to you here (which you may or may not have read) underscored just how much I do support the notion that the principle of verification applies as much here as anywhere else on Misplaced Pages -- it's just that I don't view your activity here as being in any way helpful to affecting that change. Point in fact, I can only view you as an utter liability to this effort (and, honestly, if I was forced to guess, most causes you support on this project), because you are apparently, despite your admin status, completely obtuse as regards the process of consensus building on Misplaced Pages. All you are doing with this behaviour is giving people the excuse to dismiss your perspective as that of someone with an axe to grind. And honestly, at this point, I'm not at all certain myself that this didn't start as you using the Ref Desks as an attempt to lob indirect criticisms at other editors without overtly violating the conditions of your IBAN, but that once engaged here you were more than happy to argue with anyone. Regardless, your efforts here, whatever their ultimate end, are caustic and disruptive in the extreme and as you show not the slightest sign that you are looking to collaborate with others here to affect a positive change, nor indeed engage in any discussion that is not purely about trashing the efforts of the good-faith contributors here, I can only suggest again that you concentrate your efforts in those areas you keep referencing where you feel you are improving upon the encyclopedia. It seems to me that would be best for you, for the parties you are mandated to avoid, and for this space. Snow talk 09:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as TRM is honestly leaving the RD, there is no reason to have this discussion; will someone please close/archive this thread? The issue can be revisited if they are insincere/problems continue.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to let me know if/when you restart yet another thread dedicated entirely to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I will do so next time, thank you for the helpful tips on policy, it is always pleasant to see an admin helping someone out with how to do things the right way. The more you know:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who mentioned policy? It's courtesy. And who mentioned admin? My concerns are editorial only. Perhaps you really don't get it. And please, no need for the snide "thanks for the edit". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't. I come here to answer/ask math and science questions on the reference desk, that's 99% of my edits. So, yep, I'm not lying, I can't imagine why the hell I would be. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't apply and alluding to a lot of drama that I am, essentially, unaware of. I thought that was just a little obvious. I will "thank" anyone I desire - it, actually, wasn't meant to be overly snide, I really am happy that you made the point clear - it was melodramatic and conspiracy theorist like, but that aside, it was helpful. (As for "mentioning admin" it is because you are an admin, not that you are doing something administrative; as for "policy", I was under the impression that it was one, or implied by one, apparently not - still, good to stick to, apologies again.)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Humor does not belong on the reference desk. Regardless of whether it's 1/100 or 1/100,000 of total content, to the user who asked that particular question, it's 100%, and cracking jokes at an unwilling participant's expense is antisocial and rude. (Jokes on user talk pages among willing correspodent's are fine, of course). So TRM is entirely correct on that account. Their approach to the problem is, of course, extremely counterproductive: "consensus" is Misplaced Pages's way of saying politics. To effectively address the problem would require building a coalition of editors willing to address the behavior. That's a time consuming process; because I don't have wikitime to address both reference desk and concerns elsewhere, it's not something I'm personally able to do. TRMs overaggressive engagement has led to an IBAN which has greatly reduced their effectiveness, and continuing to harangue other editors (e.g. Phoenixia) could lead to a topic ban, making them totally incapable of doing anything to fix the problem. NE Ent 10:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Point of information. As for haranguing other editors, I think you'll find I didn't open a thread entirely dedicated to Phoenixia1177. I haven't accused Phoenixia1177 of anything besides not clearly recognising the problem. Simple as that. The rest of what you've written is just about spot on. (P.S. feel free to refer to me as a he, the clue's in the name) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason why Misplaced Pages is so legendarily nasty is that people will tell you that any given page is "not a forum" ... unless you're saying why some other editor sucks, in which case you can go on for ... however long this section is, or most of the ones above it. For myself, I don't see what would be so bad about having some off-topic comments that aren't aimed at putting somebody down. As long as the main topic of discussion isn't drowned out, I see little problem with it; and if I feel it is getting drowned out, I can always take the off-topic part and move it to a talk page. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

TRM, I agree with you that we should all strive for professionalism and providing references at the ref desk. I and many others do so. I think what you're seeing here is that complaining at us repeatedly isn't helping, and it's making you look thorny and obstinate. Additionally, sniping in front of the questioners is not very professional, and you wouldn't see that at a physical reference desk.

Like you, I have a few users that annoy me. I have decided to mostly ignore them and just keep providing answers and references. I have criticized your recent behavior here (i.e. complaining without helping) but your edit history linked above shows that you used to do good work here -- I hope you can either go back to that or at least save yourself the time of complaining, because it won't change the habits of the users that are doing it wrong anyway. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While this thread is fascinating and all, and has allowed a few people to give me a spanking, the one thing that seems to be missing is a unified dedication to making the Ref Desk a better place. Remove the jokes. Remove the "opinions". Remove the users who don't actually provide anything beyond that. I couldn't care less really what you all think of my approach. Sometimes it needs a big wakeup call to remind folks that this is a place for responding to questions from our readership. It's not a general venue for chatting and jokes and (worst of all) unsourced opinion. Many of us have been guilty of this in the past, but as of now, let's try to stick to referenced answers in a neutral tone and no in-universe jocularity. As I said before, the Ref Desk should really be the equivalent to an article. We are presenting information to a reader of the encyclopedia, not to someone we expect to understand all the pissing about and utterly bogus opinionating that goes on from certain quarters far too often. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with the point above, despite our butting heads. While I have neither the history, nor authority, I would like to discuss a restructuring of the tone and atmosphere that exists here. I enjoy the feeling of community, but there are many times when it exceeds what should be acceptable. Moreover, there are a number of frequent posters, not a majority though,, that answer without sources, out of their knowledge, or merely to snipe - in some cases with great frequency. That these problems are persistent is extremely damaging to the integrity of the desk, it is hard to respect or trust the hard work that the majority put into answers when they are surrounded by less exemplary work. We, as a community, here, need a stronger method to control and sanction problem answerers. In the past, the discussion has been on controlling problem threads, problem askers, and specific users, rather than a general policy and means of structure, and moderation. I am away till tomorrow night, and only have my phone to work from (forgive mistyping here, it's a pain), but would like to visit this issue in depth and try to reach a consensus on how to improve the desk and the quality of responses here, as well as a way to make that lasting and binding - rather than an issue that must be visited everytime someone stirs up trouble.(again, this is done via a horrid phone interface, I apologize if I am unclear or full of bad grammar).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

At some point, can we start a new thread, that isn't entitled, somewhat hostile-wise "THE RAMBLING MAN IS BEING A (POOP)" (replace where appropriate), perhaps one like "How can we rid the RD of the pestilence of unreferenced and pseudo-joking opinion and replace it with encyclopedic content?" I'm quite flattered that we still have one of the longest threads in the history of this page in my honour, but really, we should focus on the reader experience. In other words, get rid of the crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that what you view as your "wake-up call" is in reality just disruptive editing which is pushing people away from the changes you wish to see made (some of which the more factually minded contributors here have long been receptive to and have advocated for). You've conceptualized yourself as an uncompromising agent for change who is simply getting flack because he's arguing for something that is unpopular. In reality you are something much closer to...well, a rambling man, honestly -- arguing for something that is extremely popular, but doing it in such a scattershot, uncivil and unproductive way that you are undermining that very effort. And the fact that you "couldn't care less really what we all think of your approach" is at the very root of that problem. We are your fellow editors; this is a collaborative process. You can't get these changes instituted without others, so if you really are here to affect a positive change in the quality of the desks, and not just to flex your ego, you need to start caring what others think about your approach. How is it that you can be an admin with more than eight years of experience on this project and still lack rudimentary skills in (and basic respect for) consensus building? I'm not looking to prolong the strife here, but I honestly am beguiled at how you got a mop in the first place if your behaviour here in the last couple of days is representative of your standard operating procedure.

But even so, if you really want to have a productive conversation about how to improve the quality of this space, it's evident that others here view it as overdue as well. But you have to meet the community halfway, my friend. That means things like avoiding overly caustic, accusatory, and generally uncivil tone in your comments. And it means abandoning this victim complex you've got going for you here; no one here is enjoying this process, I think I can assure you of that with a great degree of certainty and none of loaded this page, saw this nightmare of argument and then said "Oh, awesome! Look at this guy! Now we have an excuse to 'spank' this guy!" You've been criticized not because we revel in the process but because your approach up until now has been deeply flawed and in absolute conflict with one of Misplaced Pages's pillar policies, which, admin or no, I think you'd benefit from re-reading before we proceed further.

This space is markedly different from many others in the project in two ways that have significant implications for making practical long-term changes. First, the ref desks are neither content pages nor talk pages, but rather a process page which has aspects of both, and figuring out the appropriate application of our policies in that context is going to require a lot of careful discussion. And second, there are a lot more active editors here than on your average article. They are going to have opinions. Some of them might differ quite substantially from yours. We need to be able to discuss them in a manner that doesn't set everyone's teeth grinding from incivility at word go. And you, should you end up being a part of that discourse, need to understand that it is not a case of you imposing your will from the top, berating those who feel differently (or who you feel contribute less) or generally just criticizing the current state of things without at all engaging in the process of improving them through collaborative means. You will need to convince people of the value of the changes you want to see instituted, and you just can't do that on this project with a modicum of respect and politeness. That's just the reality. And there's nothing really wrong with that, either Snow talk 22:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate Ref Desk Conduct

I'll start: Reference desk questions should be answered in a friendly manner with appropriately sources information. NE Ent 23:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so here's where we get to parsing the real difficulty in how we apply WP:V to this page. I think we need to begin be recognizing that this not article space and that it is not a foregone conclusion that it desirable or even feasible to apply content policies in exactly the same manner, since this is not a content page. That little caveat aside, though, I think we can still take a page from the way the general concept of verifiability is applied to content page. Not every single claim in an article needs to be explicitly sourced, but if it is something that is at all controversial or otherwise likely to be questioned as verifiable, it should be sourced from the outset. However, clearly this space is going to be distinct from articles in that in many cases our "sourcing" will not actually be to justify new content that will go into article space, but rather to answer the OP's question, so answers which only point the OP to existing articles and content via wikilinking should continue to be considered as perfectly valid and useful responses. Further, many sources outside of Misplaced Pages which would not be considered quality reliable sources under WP:V for supporting content inside our articles may still be immensely helpful to the OP (assuming their purposes are not to immediately augment or alter an article, in which case they should be advised which sources are suitable to that end and which are good only really for further insight into the topic matter).

On the whole, my feeling is this: owing to the unique nature of this space and the role it serves in Misplaced Pages, and the fact that it is not a content space but rather a discussion space with the purpose expanding the knowledge-base and reference resources of our editors -- ideally, but not invariably, with the goal of improving actual articles -- I don't think we can make sourcing an absolute prerequisite of each and every response. I just don't think that's going to be feasible in every single case, and trying to force it as an absolute measure that will fit each and every question could have a very chilling effect on the number and quality of the responses we get, in direct conflict with our goal in instituting these changes. Nevertheless, my feeling is that we should strongly discourage purely speculative answers -- at the very least by adding a new condition, or conditions, to the header of the page saying that contributors are requested to refrain from answering questions on which they do not have direct knowledge and which they could not source if asked to. That's the gist of my stance and something I've been trying to push for, for a while now. I don't think it makes sense to require that every single statement be sourced -- with very technical and complicated subjects that would make the effort of contributing to some threads like a writing an article with each and every posting -- but they should all mostly be sourceable. That is to say, if you think a given statement you are making is self-evident and non-controversial, and you have to make a few dozen of these in the course of answering a question, go ahead and proceed (hopefully with some wikilinking at a minimum). But for even the smallest aspects of those claims, you should be prepared to provide the sourcing if someone calls for it, same as you would be in article. If an editor is uncertain that they will be able to provide such sourcing, they should check beforehand or consider erring on the side of caution and not supplying said information.

One issue that occurs to me is that we can try to micromanage this matter with rules, but I'm doubtful that, given the nature of our purposes here, we could create a sufficient framework that would create strict verifiability before the point at which we decimate useful, good-faith contributions. Now I'm not saying new rules should be avoided entirely -- clearly we need to tighten the bolts a little -- but what is most desperately needed and would serve us best is creating a culture of respect for WP:V that is at least closer to what exists in work on articles. When a contributor gives a speculative and unsourced answer, other editors should call it out. That already occurs, of course, but is sometimes met with defensiveness and further speculation to try to support the notion (and then sometimes still more speculation describing why the original speculation is unlikely). What we need is an atmosphere where it is understood that sourcing (or sourceability) are the status quo, and where it's understood that no one should feel butt-hurt or prone to argumentation if their answer is found to be speculative for lack of sourcing. That is, if you're called on to provide a source for a given claim, you can either supply it or let the matter drop. I think in this way we might be able to foster healthy habits with regard to sourcing, such that nobody is eager to go out on a limb but rather will only supply answers where they know they are on firm footing or, even better, which come pee-packaged with sources, be they wikilinks or third-party content.

What I definitely don't want to see -- what I don't think the Ref Desks could even survive -- is editors removing the contributions of others for lack of sourcing. This is not a content page, but a process page, and standing Misplaced Pages policy makes it clear that it absolutely not acceptable to remove the good-faith comments of other contributors in talk and process spaces (except in a handful of highly specific cases detailed by those policies). Whatever rules of conduct we develop for our uses here clearly cannot override general Misplaced Pages policy or community consensus and must operate within their framework, and blanking another users comments clearly crosses that line. This standard is inviolable and even if we did try to institute this change, anyone who had their contributions removed could go straight to ANI and the community would come down hard on us and the state of contributions here would decay in the chaos that would ensue. I repeat, the Ref Desks are not articles and are not content space, though they have a great deal of usefulness and relevance to articles. If a contributor makes claims in the course of responding to a thread which her or his fellow Ref Deskers find to be speculative, they should be strongly encouraged to support the claim with sourcing or to retract it as speculative. In many of these instances, I think voluntary striking would be a great standard practice, since other responses (sourced or otherwise) may have already issued from the original statement by the point it's veracity/verifiability is brought into question. Hatting discussions that have spawned nothing but wild speculation is another option, but one I'd like to see used relatively rarely.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Personally I see this as an issue that will be best solved by promoting a more rigorous standard of conduct -- issuing highly specific rules that might conflict with Misplaced Pages's broader policies and stifle useful responses without actually leading to any substantial improvement in the verifiability and reliability of the information supplied here. I think perhaps we should start with discussion of alterations to the header section of all of the Ref Desks and see how far that gets us. Snow talk 00:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is undesirable to overcomplicate and overintellectualize something that is very simple. The purpose of the reference desk is to give Misplaced Pages users with reasonable questions an opportunity to get answers from interested Misplaced Pages contributors, who among us have quite a range of relevant experience and expertise. A response to a question is appropriate if it is likely to be useful or of interest to the person who asked the question or to others interested in the topic. And editors whose postings to the reference desk pages consistently detract from the purpose of the page should be asked to direct their attentions elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well put, Brad. While I feel we should be encouraging more respect for verifiability in general and discouraging responses that are outright speculation, I feel just as strongly that this is a unique space with a unique role in the project and we need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse. Reference Desk questions sometimes lead to direct improvements to our articles. Other times (well, let's be frank, probably in the majority of cases) they do not, at least not immediately. But they still improve the project by improving our editors, and the collaboration between them. All of which is to say nothing of the inherent value of the desks in-and-of themselves. There is certainly a middle ground to be found here where we keep our contributions on-point (and ideally, fairly verifiable) without excessively undermining the flexibility and ardor of our contributors. I personally think the key is to not attempt to micromanage one-another while still trying to emphasize by our conduct that verifiability makes our responses more useful to those who seek elucidation on various matters through this space. Snow talk 01:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite too: Initial responses must be a) direct answers to the question, b) a request for clarification, or c) an explanation why neither of the above is possible (policy breaches, etc.). Jokes and guesses come after this has been attempted by any editor. Any comment that is none of the above (for the first reply only) will be removed. Mingmingla (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, last part is not remotely a viable solution. As per longstanding, overarching and nearly absolute policy, no editor is allowed to edit or remove the contributions of another in any namespace that is used for discussion or communication between users. We simply cannot override broad community consensus on when it is appropriate to alter or eject another contributor's words just to suite our narrow purposes here. Nor in my opinion would it be desirable to do so even if we could. Even attempting this strategy is certain to bring down the ire of the community and admins upon us and lead to such chaos here as to be massively and consistently more disruptive on an order many times larger than the issue it would be meant to address. From a policy standpoint I think we need to recognize this line of thought as completely incompatible with policy and only capable of causing increased drama and acrimony. Trying to encourage those who have added speculative answers to voluntarily blank or strike them might be viable, but one editor taking that decision into his own hands for another is simply not. Although I agree in principal that it would be nice if we could get editors to wait with more speculative answers rather than just launching in unreservedly. Snow talk 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This place is sufficiently different from the rest of wikipedia that different solutions must be at the very least discussed. We need to create some sort of consequences. Mainspace gets reverted and deleted all the time. Reference desk talk pages shouldn't be edited, but why not the desks themselves? We already delete stuff here pretty regularly when it's in contravention of the posted rules. Why should replies be exempt if the questions aren't? Mingmingla (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To the extent those deletions occur, they probably shouldn't and I expect the only reason there isn't significant blow back is that it only occurs to the postings of IP editors, who aren't aware or overly concerned with the rules and rarely engage after their initial question anyway. Further, when content is deleted, that I've observed anyway, it tends to be some nonsensical string of a half-formed comment, obvious trolling, or a comment that belonged elsewhere but was placed here by someone inexperienced with the sometimes byzantine nature of our discussions spaces. All of those cases are markedly different from removing another autoconfirmed editor's comments -- I've never seen that done without an absolute furor immediately erupting, and it's rare in the extreme that it happens in the first place. Note that I'm talking about the full removal of a comment or a significant edit, not the tiny little format, indexing and spelling corrections we all "volunteer" to each other on occasion.

Mainspace is mainspace and of course we couldn't do the work we do there without removing each other's work on occasion, but the policies are very explicit that, barring a handful of highly refined and specific exceptions, we're not meant to ever be removing each other's comments in discussion spaces. One could make the argument you have suggested that this place is a unique case, but taking that argument to community and trying to sell it would be such a task that I don't think even herculean could describe it, nor the odds you would face in garnering support for it. Even if we didn't face those obstacles, I don't think the end result would be desirable. I don't think imbuing ourselves with the authority to judge one-another's contributions in terms of speculative vs. verifiable would result in a more stable situation. Edit warring would become a major issue where it is virtually non-existent in this space now, aside from the occasional hatting disagreement. Grievances between editors would skyrocket, this talk page would be filled with bickering amongst the many involved editors, admins would have occasion to visit the space much more frequently and in the midst of it all, questions would go unanswered or become lightning rods for procedural disagreements. That's my prediction anyway. I don't necessarily disagree with you that, at least on occasion, a firmer line might need to be drawn, but in my opinion that end can be achieved by reminding a purely speculative contributor that they are in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and that the different ends that we are trying to meet here don't mean that they can just walk all over policy with impunity. But note that even when administrative action has to be taken against a user in other spaces for inability to conform to important policies, their comments are always left intact. Snow talk 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I have silently deleted jokes a few times on the ref desks. The people who posted them have not commented upon or reverted my actions. They probably didn't even notice the jokes were gone. --Viennese Waltz 09:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the biggest problem for the Refdesk is that there aren't enough questions. As the adage goes, idle hands do the devil's work, or to put it here, people who don't get interested in some question within their own specialty are prone to stray into areas they know less about. But humor??? I scarcely see that as a speck on the horizon of trouble. This process of debating over rules (let alone enforcing them) detracts from the Refdesk in a way that no one-liner ever will. I won't say that you should never remove content from the desks, because after all I did it in the thread where it began in the section above; but it should only be when it really breaks up the flow of text. It's like the difference in reaction you'd have if an editor leaves a few extra lines between his paragraphs versus if he has thirty or forty lines between his paragraphs. That's all I see the little jokes as - a blank space between paragraphs. And let's remember: ANI already weighed in on this and blocked Rambling Man partly in regard to this response, so I don't see that as a good starting point for saying he should see his policy suggestions go through. Definitely favoring status quo ante here. Wnt (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm mostly in complete disagreement with you on each of these points, Wnt. The humor issue is nowhere on the radar of problems we need to be addressing here. As far as I am concerned it seems to be an utter red-herring raised by TRM as part of his complex of grievances with specific editors, a way to criticize their traits without actually engaging with them and violating his IBAN again immediately. I can't fathom that it is mere coincidence that he is raising this issue so close to his most recent round of procedural run-ins/ANI-censorship with regard to Medeis who (along with Bugs, who he also has long-standing issues with) is one of our leading jokesters. Regardless of his motivation, this is just not an issue. Yeah, ok, as per NE Ent's comments in the thread above, maybe jokes are not technically the most called for element to be found on the desks on occasion, but let's face facts -- anytime enough people have to come together to discuss any kind of matter, there are going to be some jokes. That's just human nature. And I have never, not once seen an editor called out for making a joke in any other discussion space, unless -- and this is a crucial distinction -- it was clearly bad-faith and at the expense of another contributor. The jokes here are miniscule, lost in the magnitude of the serious good-faith efforts, and almost always in good taste (though frankly, not often very funny, no offense to some of our punsters). This is a non-issue, part of TRM's general ranting maligning the current state of the Ref Desks in general, since his IBAN prevents him from directing them at the particular editors I suspect he would like to criticize in this regard. For my part, I'd take a dozen editors who can't stop making atrocious puns over one uncivil editor who comes here and generates only strife and drama.

As to the broader issues, yeah, frankly if Ent had not decided to open this thread (which I suspect he did only as a matter of fair play, as he was closing the acrimonious thread on TRM's behaviour above to bring some closure to that noise and didn't want to seem as if he was dismissing this issue arbitrarily at the same time) I probably would have been happy myself to fight the battle against speculative answers on a case-by-case basis, just reminding editors, as politely as possible, that we should try to keep an eye on WP:V and WP:NOTAFORUM whenever they veered too far away from it. Now that it has become an open discussion though, I've two goals in mind. One, use the opportunity to remind those editors that if they don't restrain themselves, this is what is going to happen. I created a thread a few months back saying essentially "If we don't handle this ourselves, others in the broader community might, and we probably won't like the corrections they suggest as much as the ones we apply ourselves to reach a middle-ground solution." I was imagining someone whose motivations were a little more good-faith than I suspect TRM's to be, but I knew this kind of drama was a possibility and wanted to head it off at the pass. Luckily I don't see that its likely that there will be support for a major shift in procedure here, not without a lot of debate anyway, but TRM was right about one thing -- this can serve as a wake-up call to the ultra-speculative fringe amongst our contributors and hopefully will make them more cognizant of the fact that not showing some restraint can result in us having to waste our time on this kind of nonsense. On the other end of the spectrum, now that this conversation has started, I want to make sure it doesn't result in us even contemplating severely draconian measures that are utterly inconsistent with general policy and/or our specific role here. For me, the ideal conclusion to this whole little row would be that we collectively all take the notion of verifiability a little more seriously in this space, but that we do as much without having to institute any major procedural changes that would significantly stifle contributions. We can do that, easily - it's just a matter of attitude and communication, really. Snow talk 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, if you could avoid getting back to slating me (we closed the previous thread) that'd be great. Focus on the issues, not on my opinions, many of which some of you clearly ardently disagree with. Or shall I rename the thread "Opportunities to slag off TRM part II"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it was inevitable that your name might come up again in this thread, since it proceeded from your criticisms -- but even so, to the extent that you happen to not be directly involved, I for one will avoid referencing you. Snow talk 08:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well not really. You should be answering the question at the top of the thread, not simply bandwagoning and taking yet another opportunity to have a pop at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your name come up again in the context of discussing something you complained about repeatedly and vocally -- both in the discussion that immediately proceeded (and directly caused) this thread, and on the reference desks themselves -- as something that was supposedly utterly destroying the integrity of those spaces. Wnt and and I both referenced you because we dismissed that claim as hyperbolic and influenced by your issues with specific editors who contribute here. You can't just create a furor like this and then cry foul because you are associated with it. But I did just promise that, to the extent you become uninvolved, I will avoid bringing you back into the discussion. But you can't have it both ways. Stay or go, but if you keep commenting here, don't be surprised if your presence continues to cause discussion about whether these things exist as real, substantial problems or are just products of your issues with those editors who you cannot directly criticize because of your IBAN (but with whom you've shown a previous and recurrent inability to disengage with, IBAN or no) because most all of us who have commented on your recent behaviour here seem to share the impression that behaviour has had a negative impact and probably involved bad-faith motivations. Sorry, that's just impression you've left, with me at least. But if you do decide to leave this mess behind, I think I can say with some certainty that we will all be happy to leave you out of it (from here on in). Your call, either way. Snow talk 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I don't really see "complete disagreement" in what you say. I'd agree that some of the most unsourced/speculative answers don't help, but I don't see them as requiring any overall change in how we do things. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Woops, now there's a problematic typo! That was meant to be "I'm in almost complete agreement"!! Snow talk 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Erm, are we trying to create new rules for the Ref Desks? --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We have Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines; second para says "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Misplaced Pages articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources. As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack or ad hominem. Many questioners will be newcomers, and the reference desk should be a friendly and welcoming place". The rest of the guidelines page is an expansion on those basic principles. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone start a thread that includes no ad-hominem attacks that explains why the existing Guidelines need to be redone from scratch or significantly overhauled, or if they just need a tweak, explains what tweak is needed? --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the StackExchange network uses a combination of technical and cultural solutions to dramatically increase the quality of their own question/answer services.

• Ratings. By upvoting and downvoting answers, the good, on-topic, and helpful topics float to the top automatically. Giving the question-asker the ability to mark an answer as "accepted" is complimentary mechanism. Without mechanisms like this, people resort to arguing with each other, lest a terrible answer be left to seem authoritative.
• Non-ordered comments. On StackExchange the order comments are displayed is not chronological, and this severely limits chatting.
• Strictly enforced rules about off-topic questions. This one is tricky, because here on the ref desks, we have a problem with people having different ideas about how the rules are to be enforced, and even inventing new rules that they think are "common sense", but which other editors don't agree on. Going forward this one needs to be answered.

I believe they also delete or hide joke answers. The ref desk is structured like a big party where everyone can hang out and have a good time. Rules that it isn't supposed to be like that are irregularly enforced, and usually only against people who have irritated a group of regulars. It's no wonder that sites like the StackExchange network have exploded in popularity. They're useful to people asking questions. The ref-desk is occasionally useful, but it's main purpose is to have a good time discussing the topics brought up by the question-askers. APL (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A perfect summary. Thanks APL. The sooner the regulars in the club start waking up to this, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's stop talking about clubs and just talk about solutions, okay? We've been through the accusations. Time for answers. Mingmingla (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Section Break

Answers? Delete off-topic posts. Delete jokes. Delete comments about other contributors. Topic-ban anyone who can't restrict their posts to material of direct relevance to the question. And while it isn't either realistic or particularly sensible to require that all replies cite a source, make it clear that contributors who habitually use the reference desk as a sounding-board for their own personal opinions will also be topic-banned. If people can't restrain the urge to misuse the reference desks as a forum, we may need to compel them to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)