Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

Archive 115

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, [1], 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 Wikipedia a bad name and doesn't help the encyclopedia, I think an unnecessarily insulting administrator stirring up drama gives Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [2] 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 [3] [4] 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 [5] [6]. 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 [7] [8]. I'm including [9] which was in the thread they also provided an (earlier) answer to. Also [10] 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. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19][20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. 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 [25] and followup [26].)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia -- 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

The discussion above 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.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia users with reasonable questions an opportunity to get answers from interested Wikipedia 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)

You've been asked now to stop attacking me, stop doing it. This thread has nothing to do with me or my opinions. If you can't answer the OP, (ironic!), then don't, leave it to other people. In the meantime, further ad hom attacks will be dealt with separately. I'm sure you and your club will be glad to see the back of me, after all, who wants their little clique to be upset by a reality check? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you feel I have violated any policy in the least, I encourage you to take this matter to an admin, ANI, or another appropriate forum immediately. But I do not intend to allow you to intimidate me or any other good-faith editor present as a means of constraining this conversation or re-contextualizing the circumstances under which it arose. You have made broad, repetitive, and (most importantly) generally uncivil and disruptive comments about this space and editors active within it; it is procedurally relevant for us to discuss those comments and whether they reflect a reality here, if they are just in your head (given your constant references to a "secret club" operating to "trap" you), or just you trying to do an end-run around an IBAN, by attacking the behaviour of the editor you are forbidden to interact with, but doing it in such a broad manner that you can't be said to be criticizing them -- a possibility raised just days ago in an ANI discussion that resulted in you being blocked for general violations of that ban.

It is not an ad hominen attack, nor any kind of character attack whatsoever to discuss those possibilities -- rather that process is a necessity of this place that you have brought us all to with your disruptive comments and ceaseless accusations of a conspiracy against you, all made from within the context of you apparently hounding another editor. Further, despite your deep involvement in every aspect of this mess, I would nonetheless be quite content to not mention you in the slightest if you were actually disengaging here as you keep implying you are, only to immediately return and stir things up again. So if you want to take this whole discussion back to administration, you must assuredly feel free; I am confident that my behaviour, from the first word to the last, will be found to have been consistently policy-consistent, factual, and a good-faith effort to resolve this issue and examine the questions it has raised.

No, I have not made ad hominen attacks against you, but if you really want my impression of you -- based solely on this, the only discussion in which I have immediately observed you, and upon the multiple ANI filings which serve as prelude to this discussion -- you are a very much a classic case of a problem editor; I do not believe you have the best interests of the project at heart in your current activities here and I share the suspicion voiced by others here and in the most recent ANI that you are here to further a grudge with another editor that you just cannot let go of, which consciously or unconsciously, has now become fused with a general dislike for this space and for the traits you associate with said editor, and an increasing intolerance for any here who question your blanket indictments on the value of this venue as it currently operates. I can't prove that is your fixation with Medeis is your only motivation here, but the fact that your approach is uncivil and disruptive in the extreme has been noted to you by everyone who commented in the thread about your behaviour, but your belief that you are being ambushed by a conspiracy apparently allows you to brush aside any consideration that others here might have a point and that a change in your approach is desirable or necessary.

So, yes, I will absolutely be happy to see the back of you, whenever that occurs. But I long ago in my work here learned that you do not always get to choose which editors with whom you interact, so until that time I shall adhere, as I have thus far, to WP:CIVILITY and any other relevant policy that defines the scope and tone of the observations I am allowed to make about you and your behaviour. But I don't intend to let you bully your way into controlling the direction of this discussion, so if you think I'm scared of your implication that you will "deal with" my comments, I suggest that you make a new comparison of my behaviour and comments here against your own and then examine both in the light of the relevant policies. Because if this discussion goes back to ANI now for examination again, and you continue to make the kind of arguments there that you have here, I very much doubt you are going to get the result you want. Snow talk 01:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, TLDR, walls of text don't help anyone. You don't like me or my approach. That's the summary. Others have agreed that the ad hom should stop. Finally, try to keep on-topic and answer the OP. That's what's supposed to happen here. If nothing else, it seems that this has sparked a useful debate below which hopefully will result in some changes, the sort of changes I want to see. So perhaps I will get my way after all! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

APL has provided a very succinct comparison to a successful and helpful website. Unlike our club-based "Reference" desk. Time for honesty. Time for integrity. Time for folks to start admitting that the club has got it wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That website does not exist within the confines of Wikipedia, and it's own policies governing the structure and content of interactions between contributors. Some of those features would be feasible to apply here, and others would not for both technical and procedural reasons. Are you volunteering to code, implement, and maintain the rating system into Wikipedia's framework, and gain approval for these technical changes? How are we to implement a change to the ordering of comments -- unlike a site like StackExchange, we don't have a dialogue box into which we type our responses, which are then automatically ordered by the software into their appropriate position. Here each poster places their comments manually (as this is viewed to have advantages for most of the type of discussions we have here), and the order arises from the fact that we all observe the same rules of chronology and hierarchy. How are you going to avoid confusion arising from an approach that would have us using less obvious rules that are inconsistent from every other discussion space contributors will be used to on Wikipedia? Snow talk 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should implement the same solution, but the spirit of APL's comment is that there exists a Ref Desk elsewhere that actually works. Sitting on your hands and using up megabytes to berate me and my approach may be your thing, but it's not answering the core problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 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)

100% support. And if we lose a few "contributors" who feel upset that they've been ousted because we're sick and tired of the "humour" and in-jokes and banter and unreferenced opinions, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, insofar as cleverly worded actual legit answers aren't burned as jokes. Mingmingla (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, 'cleverly worded' often means 'difficult to understand if you don't get the joke'. If the joke detracts from understanding the answer - or the post doesn't answer the question at all - it doesn't belong on a reference desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, but how about some realistic options about affecting this change? I'm all for promoting an outlook here that takes WP:V seriously, but none of those solutions are actually feasible. Outside mainspace, we are not allowed to remove the contributions of our fellow editors, no matter how much we disagree with them. Anyone who does so habitually is going to be much more likely to face a ban themselves. This is a basic, bottom-line standard of editor interaction, supported by long-standing community consensus. Violating this principle will most assuredly bring administrative action. And for what gain? Constant edit-warring in a space where it's virtually non-existent now, increased personal grievances between our contributors, and a steep decline in useful responses as everyone grows increasingly concerned about setting off a chain reaction of acrimony? What happens if someone responds to a speculative comments with sourced material, but their comments proceed from elements of the former comment? Do we swiss-cheese the thread or delete everything that proceeded from the "fruit of the posoinous tree"? I'm sure that'll go over well. These are just some if the many reasons we (as Wikipedians broadly) are not allowed to remove eachother's comments in discussion spaces.

Topic-bans are similarly problematic. You need administrative action (from an uninvolved administrator) for that, and the person needs needs to be in violation of an actual policy. Let's assume the (massively unlikely) precondition that we had all managed to agree to new guidelines that we felt were policy-consistent, that included prescribed sanctions -- do you want to be the liaison who gets to explain to an admin each time we want these rules enforced about how we've established our own little fiefdom here, with rules meant to override or alter pillar policies, with little or no broader community involvement? I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige each and every time -- by telling us to stop harassing other editors. Look, much as a really, really want it to be respected in this space, as it stands, WP:V isn't the relevant policy here, as this isn't an article/mainspace. WP:NOTAFORUM is relevant, but this is perhaps the most problematic space for it on all of the project, because the topics here are so varied, and opinions are always going to be all over the place as to what has merit and what is really on-topic. I think we all know when we see someone going off the rails with speculation, and we all know the individuals who most regularly cross that line. But knowing that and making the case for it in a way that reflects actual policy -- and further, doing it without causing us all to be constantly caught up in the procedural minutia instead of actually answering questions and serving what is meant to be our actual purpose here -- are two very separate things. This is not a problem that is best, or even realistically, handled by trying to micromanage one-another through rules we're never going to agree on and which may never match up well with actual policy. The solution here, I believe, is to create a shared sentiment with regard to verifiability in this space, and convince on another of its value, same as the broader community was able to recognize its worth for the encyclopedia itself. It's a slower process, less immediately absolute, but far more stable and manageable. Snow talk 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see noting unrealistic in proposals to actually make the reference desks fulfil their stated purpose. It may well be that we need a policy change to do so. Personally, I would suggest that we could start with new policy by making clear that reference desks are not 'talk pages', but instead a specific type of page created for a specific purpose - and that misusing them is no more appropriate than in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying all proposals to that end are unrealistic, just those specific two. There are a lot of other spaces that are not talk pages but still used for editor discussion, communication, and interaction, and policy is clear that the basic rules of the talk page guidelines apply on them as well. Those standards are not arbitrary, they are the result of long-standing and nearly universal community consensus. And I don't mean this is a dig, but rather a genuine question, but have you ever been involved in generating or even altering policy? It's an immense undertaking and policies aren't created on page-by-page basis -- you would need broad community support to make a change like this, since others will rightly see it as having significant implications for other discussion spaces and the mandate that editors not alter or remove eachother's comments is largely regarded as inviolable outside the existing exceptions for removing hate-speech and so-forth. If you want to take on that task, more power to you, but I honestly value your chances at virtually nil.

More importantly, you say that these changes would serve to "actually make the reference desks fulfill their stated purpose", but are you certain this would be the most likely result? I'm not certain you fully appreciate all of the implications that would be inherent for discussion spaces if they were subject to the same rules as mainspace. Do you think everyone is going to just agree with their comments being removed, or that even the uninvolved active editors are going to agree even remotely consistently on what is on-topic or verified or non-jocular content? Not even in a significant minority of cases, I can guarantee you. That means constant edit warring, of a volume to match even our most contentious articles. And if someone wants to remove a comment to which others have replied, that removal changes the context and meaning in which those responses, and then the editors who authored them are involved. Many regular, highly valuable contributors will avoid posting just to avoid the drama, and those who remain will spend most of their time dealing with parsing policy and our new cumbersome mode of operating in this space. Admins will be called into this space more frequently to enforce our new rules (if you really want topic bans) and some of them might agree with applying unique interpretations of community-broad policies here, but most of them imagine will be quite resistant to it, and there will be yet more chaos as counter-arguments of harassment are made. I'm sorry, Andy -- I want a decrease in people forwarding speculative answers in areas they don't genuinely understand as much as you do, but not only do I view those approaches as not particularly likely to help us serve our stated purpose here, I honestly don't think I can think of anything that would accomplish the very opposite more quickly and absolutely. Snow talk 23:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You asked for answers - I gave mine, and I stand by it. The reference desks are neither talk pages in any conventional sense nor articles - and accordingly we need specific policy to determine how they are used. And yes, I have been involved in discussions relating to policy change before - though frankly even if I hadn't, I would be entitled to express my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I think you might have misinterpreted the tone and intent of my response. I don't doubt in the least that your suggestions are good-faith efforts to supply a reasonable approach to this problem, nor do I question your right to forward them, nor the value of considering them. I just happen to disagree with some of your conclusions, that's all. I just don't see those particular responses as workable or allowable under policy, but share with you your frustration with the problem and the belief that something should be done to address it. Snow talk 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at revisions to the Refdesk guidelines and somebody added a statement that talk page guidelines did apply. [27] I don't personally recollect discussions coming to that conclusion but I may well have missed some of them. Can someone confirm what the situation is with that? Wnt (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the wording of the talk page guidelines themselves, since as long as I can remember, they apply to any space where discussion and communication between editors occur -- basically everywhere on the project but article mainspace. Now, policies can change, but that discussion would need to take place on the relevant policy talk pages and then brought to the larger community; they can't just be affected here. I'm opposed to changes of that nature in any discussion space -- I don't think Wikipedia could operate or would have become what it is without those standards -- and I think they would be particularly disastrous here. But even for those who support such a radical approach, I have to point out that I doubt such a bid would be successful and ask what's the harm in trying a more measured approach that emphasizes encouraging a different mindset first? Snow talk 02:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In Wnt's referred-to note that it actually says that talk place guidelines are in effect unless these guidelines clarify that they do not apply (emphasis mine). Which suggests to me that we can change them. Mingmingla (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well of course we (the Wikipedia community) can change policy, any policy -- that principle is one of the Five Pillars. But we (the Ref Deskers) cannot do it unilaterally. The kind of change we are talking about, to a major aspect of a central policy like the talk page guidelines, has to be discussed broadly and exactingly in a very public and inclusive way at the talk pages for the relevant policies and other forums set aside for this exact purpose. But what I've been trying to stress here is that this is a highly involved process, and given the principle we are talking about in this case, and how central it is to the nature of all discussion on Wikipedia, I don't think it can be overstressed just how incredibly unlikely it is that such a change will be allowed by the broader community. I for one would argue against removing the prohibition against deleting another editor's contributions in non-mainspace about as passionately as I would for any Wikipedia issue, and I think you'll find that attitude near-universal across the project. But even for that small minority here who might support it just to meet our narrow needs, and even amongst those who don't see that this would lead to this space devolving into utter chaos, surely they can see the value of attempting less radical reforms before butting their heads against an effort that's almost certainly will not garner anywhere near the massive community support it would require. Snow talk 04:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We have tried, or tried to try, different things in the past. That's the problem, this is not the first time that this issue, and other's related, has come up; this isn't the 100th time, it's come up a bunch. Every one of those discussions led to either nothing or a small change for a few months (because no new rules/policies/etc. resulted, people were just more mindful). I'vebeen active here for a while, and lurked longer, and I honestly believe that while the issues involved are either minor minor instances from a few and larger instances from an even fewer, it appears, sadly, that gentle approaches will not work, not for an extended period. The same eight or nine issues keep recurring, it is a pain that that is so, we ought to hammer out something and reach an actual and empowered conclusion lest we return here over and over - and our audience be served in a subpar fashion all the while.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I personally haven't given up on fixing this problem through affirmative reinforcement of the right attitudes as opposed to more restrictive guidelines and punitive measures, but I do understand why some others here feel otherwise. But I think we still need to keep discussions of possible solutions focused within options that are realistically viable under policy. The prohibition against removing or altering another editor's comments is about as deeply-held and broadly-accepted a principle principle as exists anywhere on the project, the violation of which is always going to be seen as a more grievous behavioural issue than any of the activities here that it is being proposed as a solution to. We're going to have to find another solution, even be it punitive. Snow talk 03:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am in support of this, as pertains to those who answer questions - given that we have more answerers than askers, I would advocate a hardline towards answers and a softline towards questions (so that we can increase the number of quality answers, as well as draw in more people willing to ask). I fully support the removal, not simply hatting, of jokes and socializing (when that is the sole point of a comment), as much as I like a sense of community, there are a million other ways to achieve it - this would not be such an issue if it were a rare occurrence, but jokes and off topic discussion pop up a lot. In the case of editors that cannot help but be inhospitable, frivolous, speculative, etc. I fully believe that topic bans should be the matter used to deal with such cases (at least in so far as providing answers, I would be okay with them asking questions). I, also, believe that this should apply to all policy discussions as well (though, I've run afoul of this myself), if a question seems like it asking for medical advice, the discussion of that should take place here, not consume 85% of the thread. I am not sure how all of this can be implemented, but given that the desk is neither exactly talk page nor article, I believe that we ought lobby for special consideration and capacity, so as to better control quality here - for example, would it be possible to have the RD equiv. of forum moderators? A selection of people that could enforce things on the desk, and only the desk, like a localized admin - those that could act in the spirit of community consensus and the ideals that should govern involvement here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I still see zero need for anything new. When something is long and unproductive, we are already free to move or remove it as appropriate. The proposal above sounds like a notion to start topic banning people for making jocular remarks, which is definitely a bad idea. And it all seems to be based on the event where you suppose Rambling Man was doing something heroic by coming in and yelling at people including someone he had an ongoing past dispute with over a few short comments. If that's the rock on which you build your church, don't be surprised if the Refdesk devolves into people yelling at each other and uncivil "forum moderators" pushing their political or personal agendas to the exclusion of all else. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A non-sequitur I'm afraid. There is clearly an issue with jokes and personal opinion at the RD, and actually someone put it well that it's probably because there aren't enough questions (I wonder why?) so those who just decide to lurk around the desks feel an urge to contribute to every thread regardless. I don't suggest we advocate shouting at our readers. Wnt is entirely missing the point. It's not about me. Or him. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see me thinking he did something heroic? I do agree with his point, true, but, then again, I opened a massive thread bitching about that very yelling. But, more importantly, this has nothing to do with TRM, and I've made almost that exact same suggestion, the one I just made, more than once in the past - your description does not fit, nor do I see how you reached that conclusion on where I'm coming from. I'm also not sure why tighter control of social elements needs entail fighting and incivility. I agree with tightening and restricting, but I also, just as importantly, believe it should be handled civilly, dispassionately, and not be allowed to devolve into arguments and acrimony - and, if you look close, that very arguing you mention, that would be considered just as problematic and lead to consequences too. In other words, just because we clamp down on frivolity doesn't mean we suddenly become ill tempered and swing too far in the opposite direction. I want more questions, to that end, I believe increasing quality will do that - in jokes and policy debates littering the desk do not help bring that about, they hinder it, greatly.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that we're going to get our own class of moderators operating here. What would theoretically be an optiob -- and indeed has all been an option, just one which has never been pursued for pragmatic reasons -- is getting existing admins to consider topic bans on a case-by-case basis. But you need to an actual and non-ambiguous policy violation in order to get that kind of action; the fact that a person's postings lack quality according to some subjective assessment is not sufficient, nor is the fact that they crack the occasional joke, unless such jokes are bad-faith character attacks. And the truth is, even the most meandering contributions don't generally violate any major policy. Since this is not mainspace, the only real policy you can hang your hat on in pushing for a topic-ban is WP:NOTAFORUM, and most administrators are going to be very reluctant to order a ban for the occasional violation of that principle, owing to a number of factors, including, but not limited to A) the obvious fact that "on-topic" discussion is highly subjective, especially in the context we are talking about here, where virtually any subject matter can arise, B) the fact that users regularly flirt with violating this policy on occasion and it is generally viewed as only becoming disruptive in extreme cases, and C) administrators are (reasonably and thankfully) generally prone to issuing bans and blocks as a last resort in cases of substantial disruption; in this specific context, you'll often find yourself going to someone who's just had to spend hours at SPI or ANI engaged in extensive discussion and mediation efforts, sorting through dozens of postings and diffs just to feel comfortable in blocking an obvious troll and you're going to be saying to him "I want this guy topic banned because I'm pretty sure he can't come up with a source that supports his claim (which he isn't in any way trying to push into a mainspace article) that anabolic bacteria have the trait he says they have!" Frankly, after a few messages like this on admin talk pages or the noticeboards, the people making them are going to start being perceived as excessively harassing other users for philosophical reasons.

So the truth is, we already have the policy tools necessary to try to enforce more focused responses here, they are no more or less substantial than they are for keeping discussion on-topic in any other discussion space on Wikipedia, which is exactly as it should be. Just as within those cases, if you want someone you view as a problem editor removed from that space, the burden of proof is upon you to show that their contributions are disruptive and exactly where they run afoul of policy. If anyone here feels that another editor's posts cross that line, they can, and arguably should, avail themselves of those tools-- but they should also be prepared for the consequences in terms of their own perceived behaviour if they use said administrative mechanisms arbitrarily, excessively or without good policy basis. And honestly, I think they would be excessive in addressing the two issues that have been hilighted immediately above -- joking and administrative discussions. I'm sorry, but I do kind of view your position that jokes and policy discussions "greatly hinder" quality answers here as a bit of an exaggeration, no offense intended. Neither of those class of comments ever rise to more than miniscule portion of any desk's overall content. Jokes are transitory and harmless, and having the policy discussion for why a question has to be hatted (or the responses to it limited) take place partly on the desk itself is unfortunately often a necessity, since the most common type of user asking a question is an IP who may have limited understanding of Wikipedia, who might then repeat the question if they don't understand what happened to it in the first place. Unless the debate on the acceptability of the question or it's responses grows to a point where it is clearly distracting, it's often easier to leave brief explanations of this sort on the front-end of the desk. Suggesting a topic-ban over differences of opinion on a minor procedural point or the occasional bad pun seems to arbitrary to as border on capricious, so I would go with caution in arguing for a topic ban in either of those contexts, but the option is, and always has been, open to you if you feel it's necessary. No re-writing of policies or our guidelines here necessary.

On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with Wnt that re-inventing the wheel is not necessary here. And I also agree that it is mostly through TRM's high-volume approach that the boundaries of this debate have become so wide as to suggest that these problems are much more significant than they have ever (generally) been found to be regular contributors here. I believe that was what Wnt was getting at; not implying that your arguments hinged on support for TRM, but rather that his sheer volume and tenacity had managed to to re-define the spread of opinions the seriousness of the problems and reasonable, workable solutions to them, such that positions that would have been considered to be at one extreme end of the perspective are now being forwarded as reasonable "middle-ground" compromises. TRM himself is clearly aware of this fact and I fear it does not bode well for efforts in trying to discourage him from the kinds of tactics he has brought to bear on the ref desks, and here on the talk page, in recent days, as evidenced by his comment above, reading:

"If nothing else, it seems that this has sparked a useful debate below which hopefully will result in some changes, the sort of changes I want to see. So perhaps I will get my way after all!"

Now the truth is, I'm not too concerned about this, because whatever short-term gains he might make from this approach, I'm confident that no editor can utilize such tactics before the community eventually restrains him and there's already discussion underway on ANI considering these matters, but I am concerned that if his perspective pushes the boundaries of what is perceived as reasonable responses these issues, it will result in more overzealous reactions to small issues, with yet more drama the result, resulting in admins getting involved in dispute resolution here much more frequently than they ever had in the past, and resulting in a depreciation in the how this little corner of the project is perceived by the community at large. I think we all need to just take a step back and breathe and remember that, despite some slight (if annoyingly persistent faults) the quality and usefulness of responses on the Ref Desk is actually pretty decent, and something we can all take pride in. That is something I think everyone who has commented here probably agrees with, with the one obvious exception of TRM himself, who has made it clear that he views this place as a joke so long as defies his exact expectations of how it should be operated. Let's not take our queues on the assessment of the current state of affairs from someone who is clearly just not going to be on the same page with anything that's ever going to be remotely the consensus view here. I think that was the gist of what Wnt was getting at, and I wholeheartedly support that perspective. Snow talk 05:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about a "high volume approach"...! Anyway, it's clear from here and ANI that the Ref Desk needs a shake up. Of course, I'm not expecting it to conform with any "exact expectations" of mine, that would be absurd, and claiming that that's what I'm seeking is equally so. But we're getting there, and that's the important thing. Walls of text aside, we are making progress! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI and The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis

I am not sure if this is appropriate to mention here, or not; but I've opened a thread, [28],there regarding these users and it does involve their involvement on the RD. Thus, it seems that comments and input from regulars here would be germane. This, ANI, is a side of Wikipedia I have zero experience with, so if it is improper to notify the users here, in this fashion, please remove this thread and notify me (so I am aware should something similar ever be the case again).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure its going to get anywhere; this has been going on for years; the three have a long history here at the Ref Desks, and the three show up in ANI threads every few months or so. We've just closed down 2-3 of them in the past week or so. Another one isn't going anywhere. --Jayron32 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To be accurate, this has been going on from November 2013 (1 year) when a dispute at the ITN desk spilled over here and somehow got BBB involved, (with whom, BTW, I disagree on most every controversial issue), but somehow became associated. (One can easily spend a few weeks reading its history.)

After three ANI requests for a mutual IBAN, the third one finally passed in January, but there have been occasional disputes over its enforcement, (which are well documented in the final--until today--ANI complaint), which finally lead to a block; a block which BBB and I asked be reversed as soon as it was put in place.

If you look above you will see a novella's worth of inquisitional criticism of a certain party by bystanders, but no dispute between any of the three named IBANned parties! I am reminded of Plato's Stepchildren, where Spock is forced to attempt to kill Kirk and Kirk to kiss Uhura all for the audience's pleasure, or perhaps reminded of elementary school when uninvolved parties gathered round and screamed, "Fight, fight, fight!"

I, for one, have nothing to fight about, so excuse me if I pick up my bookbag and walk home. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fully honest, I don't imagine anything will come of it; but the IBAN seemed to interfere with some discussion above and, already being in the middle of things, I figured I might as well open the thread with what seems, to me, a reasonable solution. I didn't expect many to agree with my take, but felt it should be said. I wasn't sure how many here look at ani, or how all that works, so I posted here because it concerns here. Tl;dr: I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but can't seem to shut up once I get started - I certainly have no ill regard for any involved, I would love to see this end cooperatively if possible. (I realize that's all quite rambling, but hopefully clarifies my intent a little away from "being an ass"). :-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I for one am glad you took the matter back to ANI, Phoenexia. The IBAN, which is still formally supported by both parties when it comes to the TRM-Medeis divide, may be helping to limit (if not outright prevent) direct personal commentary between those parties, but it hasn't stopped that drama from spilling over into the spaces where they cohabitate and consuming vast amounts of time and effort from other editors in terms of containment. We need a longer-term solution to that problem, and ANI is the appropriate forum to seek it in. Snow talk 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If you reduced your walls of text, it'd save you a lot of time. You could then reinvest that in improving Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Date Headings

Are the date headings in each of the Reference Desks supposed to be generated by a bot? Are they supposed to be removed by a bot when the contents are archived? Looking at the Mathematics Desk, I see that there are empty date headers for 24 November, 3 December, and 4 December, and that a post made on 10 December is under the 9 December heading, and that posts made on 2 December have not been archived. If the date headings are managed by a bot, should the bot operator be asked about the math desk headings? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That may well be my fault; the headers were missing, longer than they should have been, so I added, at least, one of those on the math desk while there. I don't know if that could've caused an issue - if so, I apologize, I'm not sure what the initial delay was, and didnt really think it through. (I didn't touch it in November, though).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The headings are added by one phase of the archiving bot, but it's a merely semiautomatic bot that runs only when I manually invoke it. I usually manage to do that between 00:00 and 03:00 UTC, but not always. My assumption is that the date headings aren't super-important, but that anyone who wants to can manually add them if they notice the bot hasn't.

The headings eventually get removed by the archiving phase of the same bot.

The bot is designed to not try to add the headings if they don't need adding (i.e. if someone else already has), and to not worry upon archiving if the headings are missing or in the wrong place. (This process isn't perfect, and one of the reasons the bot is merely semiautomated is so that I can watch for the occasional error messages and clean things up manually when there are discrepancies it can't handle.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to again thank you for your continued work maintaining the bots that supply these services to us, Steve. Much appreciated! Snow talk 15:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(You're welcome, and thanks for saying so!)

There was definitely some ongoing little weirdness with the Mathematics Desk. I just deleted four empty day headers, which should leave things in a better state going forward. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical advice deleted

I've deleted a question on RD/S asking for advice on cosmetic surgery, which had attracted some reasonable answers, but also a diagnosis(!), which we are not supposed to do. Feel free to restore it if I made the wrong call. Tevildo (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't argue with the overall call. The OP says he or she wanted a procedure and asked how much it would cost, and that's a diagnosis of one of the most dreaded medical syndromes of all, the bill. Without knowing which procedure would be used - an individualized surgical diagnosis - we couldn't even start on that. I would prefer our standard response to such questions would be to rephase/sanitize them into questions we can answer (i.e. strike it and post "Can you point me to resources on the costs of common cosmetic procedures"), but I know that isn't the present policy recommendation. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's my mistake. I was going to hat the discussion but figured a polite application of our standard "Seek professional advice" would suffice, as the OP's question seemed more financial than medical anyway. After the fact, I took a look at the user's talk page, because something about the tone of the question had seemed off-putting, because they didn't seem to have a grasp of certain implications of the procedure. Once on the talk page, I saw a notice about medical issues and several threads implying that the user is struggling with mental health issues (though I don't know their exact nature and severity). On the whole, I think it's very good thing that Tevildo deleted the thread and this is a reminder as to why we have an injunction against medical responses to begin with. Snow talk 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The OP is a long time poster who has been asked repeatedly to watch the nature and quantity of her posts, and who has promised under her many admitted aliases not to misbehave. She recently asked about advice for hair dye. Asking us here about plastic surgery is obviously problematic. I'd've probably hatted it, but ignored it. According to Kainaw's criteria, which should never have been deleted, it was a request for individual professional advice. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted, it's at User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion. As a personal essay, it wouldn't be in the main article space anyways. --Jayron32 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am glad to see that. I hought it had been totally erased. If only WMF would install a trully useful search function! μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on the usefulness of the wikipedia search function (either the old one or the new one), a search for 'Kainaw's criteria' (as you said above so would be the most logical search term) finds the above link within the top 10 or so search results, and most other of the results likely include links to the above page, including the first search result Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24#Kainaw's criteria. You do have to remember to search for everything (or search only on the wikipedia name space), as the default search only searches in articles probably because it's targeted at readers not editors. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, per current policy, but I do like Wnt's suggestion of being able to sensibly refactor a question that is "close" to something more able to be asked.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with refactoring: it's not our assigned role, it's not fair to the OP, and the OP does bear some responsibility here. If refactoring other's questions were a proper function of the desk, we might as well all have three sockpuppets and make up a question-a-piece each to make sure the boards are fully stocked. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, when it comes to applying the notion of refactoring in general, and as a matter of course. However, I think that in edge cases, where there is a close approximate question that can be answered, and an editor wishes to refactor, they should be welcome to do so, provided it is clearly indicated they have done so. But, yes, it should not be the default response to a bad question, and the ultimate responsibility for questions must, and ought, lie with the asker.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case the responding editor should either; ask the OP to refactor his own question via a note on the OP's user page, or ask the question again a week later. (If the OP doesn't respond, and you really want the question properly asked and answered, hat the original question, put a courtesy notice on the talk page, and repost it properly worded under your own name.) We have a well-honored precedent here that the same question should not be asked again, on the same or another board, until the original question has been archived or closed. In every case I can imagine regarding another person's question, the best option is to advise them to delete and re-ask, or, offer to hat an a question for them, and then let them ask again, properly, and put a courtesy link to the prior question. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, nothing stops from asking the refactoring under your own name - and if the refactor.isnimportant enough they will care about the answer, then they should care enough to ask it when it is suggested they clarify. Thank you for clarifying :-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Medeis that we should not be tampering with an OP's question. Tampering with others' edits is just not kosher, in general. But there's no reason an editor shouldn't add his own comment, along the lines of "I think the OP means..." Then the OP can clarify if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, what we've always done. :) Snow talk 10:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it would be really useful to have an aide-memoire somewhere (perhaps in a little box near the top of this page?) for the relevant standard "No medical advice" and "No legal advice" templates that used to be commonly used to respond to such problematic questions. I struggle to remember the template names and I suspect that many newer helpers are not even aware of their existence. Using such a template effectively standardizes the way we deal with the offending posts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe at the top of the talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this page and also at Talk:Help desk. Now who can find the relevant templates and put the {{template}} codes into a suitable little box tucked into the corner (top left or right)? Iirc the "No medical" banner has an icon of a crossed out doctor with a stethoscope and the "No legal" one has a crossed out wigged judge icon - both obviously with brief explanatory text and relevant links. I believe if we deal with these problematic posts in a consistent way - instead of each editor kludging together a different response - it would better help newbies understand the issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Future Sporting Events

I hatted a post at the Entertainment Desk that asked for help with regard to Super Bowl LIII. The IP has previously demanded help in creating an article on this Super Bowl. (For the benefit of information for non-American editors, the Super Bowl is the championship of American football, and is one of the most watched television sports events in the world.) This Super Bowl has not yet had a location awarded, and an article on it falls within Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The IP has once previously been blocked for disruptive editing. The IP has also recently made edits to the Summer Olympic Games and the Winter Olympic Games for Olympiads that are not even in the bidding stage, and they were reverted. (If the IP would create an account, then they could create Super Bowl LIII, and it could go to AFD and be kept or deleted.) That is why I hatted the post. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Good call. General consensus on upcoming events is that we create articles about them when we have enough source text to create an article about them (really, this is the cornerstone principle for creating ANY Wikipedia article). As soon as we have enough source text to work from, the article can be created. Just remind the user that if they want an article to be created, they should do some research and provide us with the source text we're going to use to create it. --Jayron32 04:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP has again been blocked, this time for a longer stretch. One problem was the IP's unwillingness to explain why he thought this was so urgent. The only time he responded to that question he gave some vague, nonsensical reference to current events. For Super Bowl LIII, or for Super Bowl CLIII for that matter, about all we can say is that if the NFL continues to operate as it does, we could expect to see those events. But as Jayron says, without important information such as the venue, the article would be of no value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems excessively judgmental. Wikipedia has an article with details about Super Bowl LII, so it is not unreasonable to think that information regarding the next one might have come out. I haven't looked at a single thing the editor wrote, but as a totally blind wild guess I'd think he might be in the market to pick out some good fansite domain names. I dunno, Denverin18.com or something. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Super Bowl LII because there exists, in the universe, source material from reliable sources that give us information from which we can write a reasonable amount of text for that article. As yet, there does not appear to be enough reliable source material (Joe Broncofan's homemade website campaigning for Denver to get the bid notwithstanding) to start the article as yet. Articles at Wikipedia exist because valid source material exists. No valid source material = no article. --Jayron32 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In principle, an article on Super Bowl LIII could identify the cities that have bid for it, if the bids are reported in reliable sources. Super Bowl LII has been awarded. The contribution history of the IP shows that he or she focuses entirely on events that are in the future, which in itself is harmless, but he or she then makes shrill demands that articles be created. (If he or she would create an account, then the appropriateness of Super Bowl LIII could be decided by AFD.) User:Baseball Bugs: You refer to the IP as "he". Do you happen to know that the human behind the IP is male, or are you using the generic "he" for a person of unknown gender? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm old school, and I use "he" unless demonstrated otherwise. It is claimed that a large majority of Wikipedia editors are male, so it's also a pretty safe bet. Instead of "he" I could say "it", but they don't always take kindly to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally object to referring to IP addresses as "it". There is an assumption that there is a human behind the IP address, but some unregistered editors seem sort of bot-like, and the IP address itself is not a human being. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even know if there was a football team in Denver. :) Wnt (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Denver Broncos. But there is no requirement that there be a professional team in a given city in order to stage a Super Bowl there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No. There is no NFL requirement for there to be an NFL team for a Super Bowl. However, there is a practical requirement for there to be a stadium of NFL capacity, and only a few college stadiums that meet that criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I failed to add that what's needed is a stadium that meets NFL standards, and presumably adequate accommodations in the community as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hypothetically, any stadium could put in a bid. Both the Rose Bowl Stadium and Stanford Stadium have hosted Supers Bowl without having been NFL home stadia. It is essentially impossible for this to happen anymore going forward, however, given how these things run. Also, McClenon is mistaken about the capacity of College vs. NFL stadia. Most of the largest stadiums in the U.S. are College football stadiums. See List of stadiums by capacity; the largest NFL stadium by seating capacity is MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, there are 15 larger college stadiums. --Jayron32 18:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting about the largest American football stadiums being college stadiums. It illustrates that Division I-A is a big business. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the biggest stadia (lol at the Latin plural Jayron :) are also among the oldest, e.g. Ohio_Stadium, Michigan_Stadium and Darrell_K_Royal–Texas_Memorial_Stadium all date from the 1920s (though they were not as large then as they are now, they were still likely among the largest in the country at the time). I'm not much of a football fan but I've been to many of these largest venues because they also happen to be located near world-class research facilities :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Both plurals are correct, but the English plural is far more common, except when referring to ancient sports facilities or to ancient distance. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• The NFL has not solicited official bids as yet. There was some idle speculation among the sports talk shows and blogs and the like about who would get LIII when the previous one was awarded, but it's just the sort of bluster that fills sports talk shows and blogs and chatrooms and the like. When the bidding process begins formally, and we have actual reliable source coverage of it, we can do something. Someone shouting at us "CREATE TEH ARTICLE BECAUSE I WANT IT" is not going to get anything done; and I've looked for sources anyways. There's just not enough out there. --Jayron32 18:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair comment for some other venue like AfD, but on the Refdesk our only criterion is whether we can recommend sources on it. Links to "sports talk shows" would certainly be a satisfactory answer, and so this should be a satisfactory question. (Though it does hurt that the OP didn't phrase it in a useful way; I'd say the paucity of that sentence is the only valid ground for considering his actions here) Wnt (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll, real-life ref desks

Sometimes the idea comes up that we should emulate real-life reference desks. I happen to agree with that stance, and I believe it has served me well as a guideline in my activity here. So, some questions for the group:

1)Have you worked at a real reference desk?

2)Have you used the services of such a desk? If so, how often?

a)Have you ever been turned away from a reference desk because of the nature of your question?

b)Have you ever received medical or legal advice from a ref desk?

My answers are 1)No (but some of my best friends have) 2)Yes, often, starting ~25 years ago 2a)No, never, even when asking crazy things, 2b) No, never, even when asking about legal and medical information. I guess I'd just like to point out that real librarians deal with these issues every day, and manage to not send people away*, and not give legal advice. So perhaps studying our namesake can help us with these struggles. *Librarians will of course send away abusive, threatening, or violent patrons, and of course we can model that behavior as well. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between Wikipedia and a 'real-life' ref desk though: questions here are being asked and answered in a very public place. If questioners are going to be permitted to divulge all sorts of personal details here (which I've seen done with medical as well as legal questions) we may not be acting in their best interests. Furthermore, ref desks are at least run by librarians - anyone can offer advice here, even if it is totally inappropriate, or just plain wrong. Again, we need to exercise restraint, and not give the impression that our ref desks are the place to go if the question being asked is of significant personal, legal or financial importance. We need to make clear that answers here don't come with any guarantee, and that if the answer really matters, you will probably do better to ask elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the public aspect changes things, I agree that we should usually redact personal info, and I agree that we can offer no guarantees of correctness. In my opinion, the public nature and archiving of our pages make it even more useful to allow responders to link to resources, even though we can not give legal/medical advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• (1) No, (2) No/never, (2a) No and (2b) No. This service is called a reference desk - but it doesn't have to operate like one...just as email doesn't have to work like postal mail, and Wikipedia doesn't have to select contributors by skill level and reputation as Britannica does. So don't let the similarity of the name and the superficial similarity of what the service is for trick you into limiting (or unlimiting) what we do here. It's a very rough analogy. As Andy points out - we're not skilled librarians. But we do have the ability to find information in places other than the few hundred thousand books your find in a typical library - and we can search all of our "books" for a word or phrase in a few seconds. Our more experienced people have insanely uncanny google-fu skills and a huge breadth of shallow-depth knowledge that allows them to see answers that are not ordinarily obvious. So, I honestly don't think there is a whole lot of value in asking how we compare to a physical library reference desk - we are not that, we do not aspire to be that - and we simply cannot be that.

If I had to find an analogy, it would be with the 'fact checking' department of a large news organization...but even that is very a rough approximation.

So I don't find the answer to question (1) to be very helpful here. Question (2a) is tougher...I don't believe in turning people away, no matter how dumb their questiions...but I don't believe we should attempt to answer questions that we can't answer intelligently or usefully, or which we - individually - feel uncomfortable with answering. For (2b) I'm convinced that Kainaw's criterion is still pretty darned good - and it protects unwittingly over-enthusiastic WP:RD denizens from getting themselves in trouble for practicing medicine without a license. SteveBaker (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As a point of fact, library reference desks don't work the way you seem to think they do. But I guess I can't blame you, since you've never been to one :) Reference librarians can do full text searches, and they often have access to paid databases that most of us don't (lexis/nexis, legal records, government records, etc). They can also use interlibrary loan, rare books, archives, and many other resources that we don't generally have access to. In some cases they can even put you in contact with an actual expert in the field. Many of them have incredibly broad knowledge, and some of them also have highly specialized knowledge, especially at a research library. The main difference, apart from our public nature that Andy brought up, is that we have far more eyes on the problem, and no special training. A reference librarian today certainly has access to all our tools and more. Anyway, I'm well aware of the differences. But one thing I think we can successfully emulate is not telling people to go away at the drop of a hat, and striving to be calm and professional to all comers. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• The analogy is flawed. I have manned phone lines where I served as a specialized reference desk. Callers were required to provide verifiable information and we were not expected to put up with trolling or abuse, or to comment on what might happen if three squirrels got in their microwave, or if their doorbell made their speaker phone dial China.

And although I use a few different library desks regularly, I have never shown up in a cloak of invisibility saying my name was Amanda Hugginkiss, and asking how to find out the Dutch word for a dark streak down the inside of my panties.

And in each of these real situations, the inquirer identified himself and paid in some way for my services, or I was entitled to the paid services the other person if I showed ID. The payment we ask here is a minimum of good faith and following the long-established and easy to understand rules. Note the thread on leg shackles. Discussing ahead of time what sort of questions should and should not be answered has three outcomes: all, none, or some. And we can't decide the "some" criterion until we know how many squirrels are involved. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no analogy, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying is flawed. You did not answer my questions, while answering several I did not ask. Thanks for your input ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That because we are called a ref desk we should emulate real-life reference desks is the flawed analogy, or analogical argument, if you prefer. If that's the argument, the objection is, although we don't get paid we get a hell of a lot more prank callers. Or we could simply turn away the men in trenchcoats who refuse to provide ID.... μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see now, thanks.

My reasoning wasn't based on names, it was based on experience with ref desks and what I understand our goals to be. I don't think we should copy everything a library ref desk does, we are clearly different.

I do think we should be more polite and turn less people away. I don't think that because this is called a ref desk, I think that because I see us as having similar goals to a library ref desk - helping educate people and showing them how to use available resources to learn more.

You're right that we are not paid, and that makes a pretty big difference too. The way I see it, as a volunteer, I don't like somebody here (e.g. user A) saying I'm not allowed to give references to an OP because A doesn't think the question is worded in the right way, or because A is offended by the question's content, etc. I think I should be able to spend my time how I choose - even on 'trolls' or non-native speakers or IP users - as long as I am civil, give references, and don't give medical or legal advice.

I think we should remove responses that give medical/legal advice - but save removal of questions for the rare occasions of truly abusive and disruptive behavior. I also think we should remove personal info (addresses, phone numbers, etc), in line with Andy's comment above. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I empathize with the OP and have steadily opposed redaction policies. That said, depending on the library, you can run into reference librarians who are friendly, knowledgeable and talkative... or who just run a quick search of the library catalog to get rid of you ASAP. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no experience with real world refdesks, so nothing to add as far as that goes, but I would like to say that I absolutely agree with "I think I should be able to spend my time how I choose - even on 'trolls' or non-native speakers or IP users - as long as I am civil, give references, and don't give medical or legal advice." and that this, essentially, sums up my stance on "problem questions" - namely, if they aren't explicitly violating anything, then a question should be allowed to stand for those who want to answer it, even if it is nigh incomprehensible.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is in fact what I do for a living. I work at a small branch library that is mostly used for socializing and basic kids' hoemwork needs. No high level college reference, and lots of neighbourly chatting. We have pretty mush the same restrictions on medical and legal advice, still rely on references for factual questions, and give opinions on things like book recommendations and questions of a matter of taste; I find a lot of the paid resources that we have available to us to be less effective than a simple Google search in most cases; We are not private: any questions people ask can generally be overheard. I don't see any fundamental difference except means. Mingmingla (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's probably worth remembering that the core purpose for the existence of this website is to produce a volume of encylcopedic articles of substantial quality. The fact that a ref desk has been allowed to develop alongside is a little bonus for some. It would most definitely still be an encyclopedic website without a ref desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I too see it as an ancillary service at best, but it really can be that, and then it does benefit the encyclopedia. Often we can lead people to relevant articles they hadn't found (sometimes hadn't thought of looking for). To some, it might be more fun digging up stuff outside, information that couldn't be found on Wikipedia. Here we (certainly I) could do more transferring the newly-found information into mainspace, when relevant, along what I once suggested at a recent RFC on these desks (it only got five endorsements, including mine, but hey ... :-)

Anyway, it's clear that the encyclopedia wouldn't survive without content while it would barely notice the disappearance of the reference desk. I really love Wikipedia with all its flaws, it helps me find so many things, and I enjoy directly helping others find things, to a large extent thanks to the immense scope of content created by our writers. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration (WP:RDAC) has been discussed on this talk page.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but what does that have to do with anything? There is a ref desk, nonetheless, and this is a discussion on the talk page for that desk about that desk. So unless your point is that desk should contribute to the encyclopedia (and if it is, suggestions would be more helpful), I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything being discussed. Please elaborate.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ref desk responders often cite Wikipedia articles as references, and ref desk questioners not infrequently raise the question (directly or indirectly) as to why such-and-such article does not contain such-and-such information, or even why such-and-such article does not exist. So the ref desk does, in fact, provide a facility for expanding and improving Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And for using Wikipedia: the last time I utilized ref desk it was because I was looking for Campbell's Law; I had a vague recollection of reading it but I wasn't able to come up with the right search terms for either Wikipedia's internal search nor google. Fortunately a human was able to connect my request to the article. NE Ent 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The ref desk can be very helpful that way. Sometimes the route to a given article subject can be obscure. Or if you can't recall what something is called (a frequent type of ref desk question), someone else may know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, but that wasn't the point that was actually made. My question is, what does "The fact that a ref desk has been allowed to develop alongside is a little bonus for some. It would most definitely still be an encyclopedic website without a ref desk.", specifically, have to do with the thread we are in? Maybe it is relevant, but that there would still be an encyclopedia if the RD closed doesn't really seem to have any bearing on anything anyone else is saying. I'm all for the desk helping articles and articles helping the desk, but that's not what that says to me - unless it's just a really awkward way of saying "Use stuff from here to add to articles", but that's not what I take from it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been discussion here before about shutting down the ref desk in favor of something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That idea might have merit at a high level, but in theory one purpose of the ref desk is to encourage use of Wikipedia. Some obscure techie refdesk is not likely to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Refdesk material can be found in a site search, so it effectively is part of the encyclopedia; and it isn't at all uncommon to update articles when making an answer, since often the questions reveal insufficiencies in what is written. (After all, in theory, the person asking the question has first tried reading the article!) But I too find this kind of existential discussion misplaced here. The only implication I can take from it is that "the refdesk is worthless, but as long as you let me have control over what people can say on it, I'll allow it to exist." I'm not ready to submit to that kind of feudalism. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Curious conclusion. No-one's suggesting it's worthless, just that there are many other "ref desks" out there doing it so much better and getting so much more traffic, it would be absurd to ignore what's as plain as your hand in front of your face, i.e. Wikipedia isn't doing it properly (or well enough). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you cite examples? I've tried a few other sites on rare occasion but if something stumped them here it doesn't get better results elsewhere. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, as for traffic, you can do you own research to discover that our TFA usually gets more page views than the entire ref desk put together. You clearly are aware that we seldom are overwhelmed by questions, what four or five per desk a day? For one of the biggest websites in the world? A poor return. And it's not necessarily the quality of the answer which is the problem, although often as not the guidelines of the RD are ignored, and links to our own articles, or reliable sources may not be provided in answers. In other words many responses are opinions. There are many ways of getting things wrong, we seem to be covering several of them right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you give examples of your statement that many other "ref desks" out there doing it so much better and getting so much more traffic? Wnt (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you'd be prepared to read the preceding threads, you'd find that information easily accessible. I'm not here to repeat well referenced data. Beyond that, I'd say that my local library offers a more professional service than the current in-jokes, banter-strewn, regulars-only ref desk. And they show me (or at least direct me to) the books, rather than just offer their opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your local librarian answers questions about quantum mechanics??? You must have one sweet library in your town! But we don't have to compete with offline resources, only online ones, so feel free to cite one. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, what they don't do is pretend to know the answer, they don't crack jokes, they don't have their own in-universe banter to which they subject me, there's no "opinionising". Very much unlike this place. As for your claim, then just read above, you'll find what you're looking for. You seem to have trouble reading this, I've mentioned it twice already. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about answers.com, that is not even comparable. Looking at the top featured commentator, one of his answers is [29] in which he attributes borborygmus to the esophagus. Now... how do you discuss that claim? You don't. It's just up there. We can do better than that. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For quantum mechanics you could try physicsforums.com. The more canonical suggestion these days would be physics.stackexchange.com but I don't like that place. The stackexchange empire gets more traffic than RD does, in part through relentless spamming and (IMHO) black hat SEO tactics. Wikipedia loses a lot of contributors to them because they have less bureaucracy than we do. I used to hang out on Math Overflow before it joined the Stackexchange network. At least two really excellent Wikipedia contributors have left us and gone there, for reasons that I think I understand. Nothing to do with traffic levels and everything to do with escaping Wikipedia's endless bullshit. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these two places... but they don't answer everything either. I don't see them as superior to Wikipedia in performance (though stackexchange gives us a run sometimes), and they aren't producing a free resource that is available for any purpose. Wnt (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And that helps us improve things how? It's seeming, more and more, like your problem is not with the current state of the desks, but with the existence of them at all, especially on the terms of others than yourself.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We already had an RFC about this which concluded that refdesk is basically ok the way it is. I don't think anything has changed since then. So this discussion seems lame. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not lame, discussions for improvement are why talk pages exist - and there is always room for improvement (if anything, we have little traffic, and getting more of that is something that could be addressed as part of improvement). At any rate, after examining the ideas here, we should have another RFC and actually make some of these things binding, and make some actual modifications, as opposed to letting this drift off into the Aether of the archives to be forgotten about in a month.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the "improvements" in discussed this thread are pretty much the same ones proposed and rejected in the RFC. If we're losing traffic it's because we're losing contributors, who are driven away by Wikipedia bureaucracy (plus Wikipedia itself is losing traffic). The last thing we need to "improve" that situation is more bureaucracy. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have hatted a request for legal advice.

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Company formation information assistance/help. It should have been obvious from the start that the question was a request for legal advice (setting up a company is a legal act, and something that could only be done with understanding of relevant law) and even if it wasn't the fact that replies explicitly suggested seeing a lawyer should have rung warning bells. Can I suggest that in future contributors actually stick to the stated rules for reference desks, and avoid getting dragged into the details of what seems to be an entirely unrealistic proposition by someone who apparently considers random Wikipedia contributors advice sufficient to start up a charity in a country he doesn't live in? If the first response to a question is 'see a lawyer', any further answers are ill-advised, and (as is obvious from this example) an incentive for the original questioner to try to drag us into giving advice we aren't qualified to give. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The state of Minnesota has a web page describing how to start a company.[30] I would expect many states do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly has that got to do with Wikipedia policy on not giving legal advice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bugs but I interpreted his statement to mean "this is the type of response that could help the OP without violating our guidelines that bar us from giving legal advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes in my opinion answers like that are fine. We should be event more stringent about WP:OR for this type of question, but I believe that linking to reliable sources containing information (like the your example) is not giving legal advice. I think in these situations we can still help people by showing them references, even in cases where giving a full answer specific to their case would constitute legal advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

However, directing the OP to the site would only be appropriate if the OP had said that they were in Minnesota. As it is, the OP needs to see a lawyer in their own country (and maybe in their state of their country). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)This is the point I'm trying to make (maybe I should have been clearer) - once you start giving advice beyond 'see a lawyer', it all starts getting complicated, and you can easily end up making assumptions that make advice invalid. Or indeed, offering advice that is clearly inappropriate, like "spend $10 or $20 at a domain registrar like GoDaddy" before it is even established that the company/charity scheme is even a plausible proposition. Such replies only encourage the OP to go into further details, with the intention of getting more inappropriate advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, not that specific link, but something like it. Actually the OP said "charity", so perhaps a site that discusses how to open a non-profit in MI would be more appropriate, e.g. something like this link from their senator [31], or this one to the Michigan Nonprofit Association [32]. In this case, even pointing User:Russell.mo to our article on 501(c)_organization might have been helpful, and doing so is definitely not providing legal advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case in point, information on 501(c)(3) would not be relevant, because that provision is in the tax code of the United States, which is all the more reason why "we do not give legal advice" is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What? Detroit is in the USA last I heard, and my understanding is that any organization that wants to operate as a charity in Detroit would have to file as a 501(c)(3). I mean sure, I guess could be wrong about that -- but that doesn't really matter -- there's nothing against our guidelines about pointing out information about how to register as a nonprofit in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Detroit has a webpage with kind of semi-generic advice on starting a business.[33] I think the issue is not so much about simply starting a business, but about the very specific criteria that the OP wants. That's where professional advice could come int. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It turns out he's not in Detroit but rather in a "third world country". It's lawyer time! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? While I agree that a lawyer would be helpful to the OP, I won't let anyone's citizenship status prevent me from sharing references that I think might be helpful. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am agreed with the hatting, beyond our standards lies the fact that this guy says he wants to start a business and is asking advice from strangers on the internet. This will necessarily be a large figure investment with all sorts or regulations and liabilities of which we are ignorant or cannot be omniscient. The disclaimer says we don't give legal or financial advice. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another reason for hatting?

Looking at this again, I'd have to suggest that even if the replies were valid (which I can see might be arguable, apart from the GoDaddy one), the response from the questioner certainly needed hatting - it goes into a great deal of detail, and is clearly a request for specific advice regarding his particular proposal. Reference desks simply aren't appropriate in such circumstances, and we shouldn't encourage the divulging of details - particularly when one reading of the OP's comments might be that the object of this proposal is to avoid paying taxes. Maybe rather than hatting the original responses, I should have hatted (or removed) the OP's response to them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A common thread among the responses was "look elsewhere". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case I think removing the response with further details (and adding a note on the user's talk page explaining your choice) would be preferable to closing the thread to further comment. I believe there are plenty of references that we could post that might be helpful to the OP without violating our guidelines. I will repeat my stance for clarity - I don't think we should close/remove questions that might be considered as asking for legal advice - I think we should remove responses that give legal/medical advice, and leave plenty of room for simple posts that link to WP articles or WP:RS. In other words, let's AGF for askers and apply a higher standard for responders. People responding here should be expected to understand how to not give legal advice, while many askers stumble on to our pages without any knowledge of what our policies are. If OP had asked this question at a real-life physical ref desk, he would not be sent away and ignored. Nor would legal advice be given. Instead, the reference librarian would point the asker to resources that contain information relevant to the question. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above, I think we should be more focused on inappropriate responses than inappropriate questions - except in egregious cases.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have a lot to say, but all will come across as an argument; I don't wish to represent myself like that.

I sought for advises for a clear thought and guidance, to find out the possibilities, ultimately the decision is mine with what I do with the advises I receive, as I recall that Wikipedia won’t be responsible for my actions, what I do with it in my life after receiving advises…

Everyone helps each other here. If a person like me tries to help (because I received so much help), Wikipedia will possess good people… I don't have no where to ask or go. Therefore (as usual) I thought to myself, If I have the knowledge (upper hand) in advance, then I can go and speak to a lawyer (in the near future). The person I'm guiding, I need to have a rough idea before I guide him further.

I understand now that it came across as a legal advice sought. Beside, it is very clear (or anyone who’ll view the post) how the discussion started and ended. All I can say is, thank you all for your advice and guidance.

Thanks Baseball Bugs (as always!)

@SemanticMantis: Thank you. Keep up the good work. P.S. Its not a rocket science to acknowledge who's good at what they do. Good to know that you put your heart into what you do (like some people in this world).

(Russell.mo (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC))

I find it strange that this has come up. We had a discussion about this before, and I thought there was a tolerable consensus that responsibility lay with the answerers, not the questioner, not to give advice. The reason is that many questions can also be construed as requests for websites/ links for preliminary reading, eg. before contacting your lawyer. I amended Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice based on this, and believe it reflects a kind of consensus. This seems no different, even though we are talking about lawyers, rather than doctors. It is a bit weird to worry about people choosing to follow advice like "consult this webiste" as if it were dangerous legal advice. We only need really obvious disclaimers with answers, and commonsense will do the rest, and it is sufficient to remove any directly amateurish advice. IBE (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Answering archived questions

I had always imagined it was expected people would not continue to answer questions after they had been archived simply because an archive is in principle something that you do not tamper with. But I was wrong. In fact the headers of the archive pages explicitly assume that people may do just that. And indeed why not? So I wonder if it would not be useful to state that explicitly in the headers of the reference desks also. Contact Basemetal here 03:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I fear that would be far too much temptation to trolls to blank pages or rewrite history that is not protected by the eyes of people monitoring their watchlists. In principle there's no problem to adding material at the end of a thread so long as it is not, say, "refuting" some prior statement. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that RD archives are not protected and that their header (for example here) specifically states: "The page you are currently viewing is a monthly archive index. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages."? Vandals can already do what you say. Contact Basemetal here 08:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming your condescending remark was addressed at me, Basemetal, you aren't paying close enough attention. The OP asked "if it would not be useful to state that explicitly in the headers of the reference desks also" [my emphasis] and I responded that doing so "would be far too much temptation to trolls to blank pages or rewrite history" and showed that I know these are not pageprotected, as I alluded to their only protection now; "the eyes of people monitoring their watchlists". μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It used to be that a few days were active, and a few days before that were transcluded from the archive. They stopped doing that, for whatever reason. Either way, if someone posts additional information on an archive, there's no guarantee the OP will see it. And if a new poster comes along and poses a question within the archive, it is very unlikely it won't be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Posting new questions to the archives is explicitly discouraged in the header and of course makes no sense at all. Continuing to post answers to archived questions does make some sense assuming that OPs continue to monitor the archives. If they are not aware that new answers can be added to the archives they of course are not likely to do that. The practice of continuing to add answers may make sense also for people other than OPs who may use the archives as a resource in the future. Contact Basemetal here 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added answers to archived queries on one or two occasions, when I happened to come across the answer to a question that hadn't received a definitive answer while the thread was active (figuring that the answer might someday prove useful to a person using the search function, even though the OP probably wouldn't see it). I tend to agree with Medeis's WP:BEANS argument against advertising the practice, though. Deor (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't advertise the practice there's even a smaller chance that OPs will think of monitoring the archives to see if their question may have had more answers as most will think once the question is archived there are no further answers. I tend to dislike fuzzy "compromises" like the one you and Medeis seem to favor ("we don't disallow it but we don't advertise it"). I would much prefer a clearer stance where either you protect the archives from any addition or you explicitly advertise the practice and, to deal with vandals and trolls, have people put archive pages on their watchlist, as everywhere else on WP. Btw, the header on archive pages sort of "advertises the practice" so you may want to change that or ask that it be changed, if you want to stay consistent with your position. Contact Basemetal here 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, nowhere did I say that I favor what I merely described as fact. I think the archives would be better off protected. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of answering archived questions - especially after a week, or more. Without many eyes on them, bad answers are going to stick around without being corrected - and people watching for vandals and trolls really shouldn't be evaluating content (that's a whole different thing). While I doubt many will go archive diving to answer questions, a few good intentioned souls with bad answers can leave things looking shoddy (especially if they are answering unanswered questions). I would say, instead, that we encourage reasking, or picking up a thread again on the main page (if the situation warrants it).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there can be a software program for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Recent changes (red link now), so that anyone clicking on that link can see recent changes to the archived pages. The vast majority of changes would be the archiving of recent discussions, but new answers to old questions could also be shown.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

With the new "ping" features it seems more useful than ever before to answer archived questions, but some editors might not have it enabled. Maybe we should suggest to (re)enable notifications if you have them turned off, just for this instance? Otherwise, editors could still note on the OP's talk page the changes. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)