Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 14 November 2014

• WT:RD

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

Archives

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

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

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

Do talk page guidelines apply to the Reference Desk?

Do talk page guidelines apply to the Reference Desk? In particular, is the editing of one's own comments after they have been replied to discouraged? (I am not asking about other editors' comments, which should normally be left standing unless they are completely off-topic, in which case they can be hatted, or are insulting or otherwise completely out of line and should be deleted.) My concern is that if an editor edits their own comments after they have been replied to, the replies may appear to be incorrect. What is the proper procedure for warning an editor who edits their own comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, no, comments on the ref desk should not be deleted once they've been answered, nor changed without some indication of change like bracketing or crossing out. The basic principle is that except following specific guidelines like the Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, and other policies such as WP:BLP, etc., one should not be editting other's comments or removing the context in which they have been made. BUT the fact that someone has responded to a comment that should never have been made in the first place doesn't immunize that comment or response to it from appropriate closure or deletion. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reference desk has its own guidelines Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines. However it is quite short and refers most things it doesn't cover properly itself to WP:TALK. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The regular talk page guidelines very much do and don't apply to the reference desks. It's "obvious" to those who've been around for a while where the exceptions are, but not necessarily to everyone else, and the inexplicitness of the exceptions makes them fertile grounds for debate. It would be good if we updated the Guidelines to say explicitly that "Talk page guidelines apply to the ref desks except for X, Y, and Z."

With respect to ex post facto editing, you're exactly right, doing so can leave behind a confusing situation. Various strategies include (a) using strikeout text, (b) updating the date after one's signature (as I have done here), and (c) replying to oneself as a separate comment, rather than editing the original comment. (There's also a sense that if you edit your original comment fast enough, before anyone has replied to or perhaps even read it, you can get away with more, but it's hard to know what a reasonable time limit is.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC), edited 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the case in point, it wasn't before anyone had read it, so much as in response to comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I often make several minor changes in wording in the first few minutes after I post. Probably a bad habit. I do use the preview, but for some reason hitting "post" immediately makes me think of a way to says something better, or decide I need another reference :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with making minor changes after a post, certainly not if the post hasn't been responded to, or to correct spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The big difference, and the one that's most violated, is that answers should be supportable by reliable sources, even if that's not always done explicitly in case where there's little confusion, like a claim that starfish are more closely related to sea cucumbers that pumpkins are. Ideally any such general claim should be supportable with a reference.

We also have requests for specific expert opinion--such as, can someone identify this language, song, species; translate this text; say if this statement is grammatical or can be improved; or how do they pronounce propanol where you live? These aren't technically always supportable by references, but we usually have smart enough people to point out mistakes or call shenanigans when the answers are obviously wrong. A lot of times we have people say things like "that looks like Cyrillic to me" only to be corrected that it's actually Greek, but the effort is in good faith and approaches the truth tangentially.

I think the best practice is to assume that in most cases both talk and article space rules apply, or should be kept in mind. I also second Steve's suggestion that replying to yourself is often the best way to fix a comment you'd otherwise wish you had made differently. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From it was pretty clear that people don't think of the Refdesk as a regular talk page. I think there are times when we do things that wouldn't cut it on general talk pages. For example, I find that when questions are definitely misfiled, it is best to simply swoop in and move the question outright to the right place, leaving a note on either end to explain that. I've seen people do it the other way and it always gums up with a big long awkward conversation, usually decorated with irrelevant comments. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions seeking opinions

I'm really stunned and surprised that Drmies' question about the Iliad or the Odyssey continued to attract responses, particularly after I raised my objection. A clearer case of unreferenced opinions being sought, I could not possibly imagine. The next time someone asked for an opinion, he was quickly given his marching orders, as he should have been.

So, explain it to me, in words of one syllable if necessary: Why was this particular question acceptable in the eyes of so many, when other opinion-seeking questions so clearly breach our guidelines?

And why did nobody support me? -- Jack of Oz 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

At the outset, it was just a really unclear question - it looked like an accidental "Save page" or something. The problem wasn't so much that it was a request for opinion, as a really weird non-question thing. What's not good is how it spiralled out of control into abuse. As it stood, there are many questions of that form that could be answered without opinion: "Which is an easier read for 15 year old students?" could be solved by finding an authority on those writings who would provide an informed answer. It's also possible that one can offer opinions with some kind of substantive backing:

1. "I think X is better than Y" -- bad answer.
2. "I think X is better than Y because this reliable source tells me that X has fewer calories and trans-fats and Y has a lot of salt" -- good answer.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But it was deliberately unclear, Steve. The OP refused to provide any context apart from connecting it in a vague way to his students, and made it clear he wasn't going to come to the party, because he believed that that would limit the answers. Even if he had, it would still have been a question canvassing opinions. A classic brain-storming session. We don't answer such questions. That is very clear. So why was this OP accommodated? Appearances of unfair application of the rules (where, for example, administrators seem to be given more latitude than others) are the very last thing we need if we want to remain remotely credible. -- Jack of Oz 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a silly question, but if you don't like a question, you don't have to take the questioner up on it. You can just ignore it. I'm more bothered by the fact that this guy is an admin and was writing in an abusive manner. IMO he should be stripped of his adminship for that. As for why I didn't support you, sorry but I couldn't be bothered. --Viennese Waltz 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's honest. -- Jack of Oz 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a case of a question I didn't like, VW. I'd have been more than happy to engage in it in a pub or almost anywhere else (hypothetically, that is; I've never read either of the works). We have guidelines about what types of questions we answer here, and what types we reject, and they have nothing to do with anyone's personal tastes or interests. Just ignoring unacceptable questions is no answer to anything, because silence connotes assent, and it implicitly invites others to respond. -- Jack of Oz 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that silence connotes assent, and I have no problem with ignoring unacceptable questions. I find pretty much everything Medeis posts on these desks unacceptable, but if I called him every time I'd never do anything else. --Viennese Waltz 19:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a subject of or participant in this thread. But, apparently I said something about sex or politics once that offended User:Viennese Waltz, who's been like a harpy on my shoulders ever since. If this is not just another violation of WP:CIVIL, VW can start a new thread on one of my current two dozen or so answers that is offensive. Otherwise, I myself reserve the right not to hold grudges, and to deal civilly with any good faith issue, and offer that as good advice to other users. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I know we have rules against requests for opinion and debate. I mostly follow them. But there are a few categories that might be considered opinion that I think we should give to askers. For example, I recently asked for a good resource for learning IPA. Someone else recently asked for good book on a topic. The answers I got were ultimately opinions, e.g. the respondents were giving resources that they thought were good. I may or may not like the suggestions I got, but a bad suggestion doesn't do me any harm. I personally think it would be silly for me to demand a citation to a reliable, third-party reference that says that original resource is good, when I knew darn well that there was a bit of subjectivity necessary. This is in fact similar to how a brick-and-mortar ref desk operates. If you go ask them for a good book on X, they will probably take you to the book they prefer.

On the question of naming a company, I have no interest in offering OP potential names, but figured it doesn't hurt (and might help) to give a reference on the topic. Did I break the rules by responding to a blatant request for opinion, or did I follow the rules because I gave a reference and no opinion? I see it as the latter.

Anyway, with respect to the Iliad/Odyssey question, I agree that it was terse and confusing, and I have no idea why an experienced admin would not think to give a little more background, which could help us provide answers that were less opinion-based. In my responses, I gave references to many WP articles that I thought were relevant, though I did state one opinion, while being very clear that that part was only my own opinion. I don't see much harm in that, but I thought I'd explain how I see it. In short, sometimes I do think it's ok to give some light opinion (WP:OR, etc), as long as it is clearly flagged as such and there are actual references provided. I must also admit that I enjoy discussing the Iliad and the Odyssey very much, and that probably was part of why I jumped in to give some links even though it was a strange terse request for opinion, and Jack and OP had already had a strange bit of light bickering before I entered. I intended to be helpful to the OP and other readers. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Am I allowed, as a non-regular, to speak here? I am stunned at the abuse leveled at me for one question. As I said, JackofOz could have said something on my talk page--it's what polite people do. And VienneseWaltz wants me to be stripped of my admin bit for asking a question? That's the height of stupidity. Maybe, if you can do better, you should run for adminship yourself--I'll be happy to let you shovel some shit for a couple of weeks.

  If you don't like a question, fine. You can say something politely. With all the talk of civility, I found this little spat to be highly amusing, though hardly laughable. "Abuse" is a ridiculous term to use here and Jack (who admits he hasn't read the books, so no wonder he couldn't recognize a valid question in my brief sentence), maybe you should take that lack of support as an indication that this wasn't as abusive as you think. If it is, take it to ANI, take it to AN, ask the Arbs to strip me of my bit, and see how fast you get laughed out of court. Even Jayron, who also didn't like my question, thought you were rude. SemanticMantis, I appreciate your help very much: you are a credit to the Ref Desk, giving relevant answer and being willing to stick your neck out. The others, not so much. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're allowed to speak here. That's why I went to your talk page and alerted you to this thread.

You're still making this about you and that lucky set of people who've read the Iliad and the Odyssey. My objection has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the substance of those books or whether any particular person has ever read them or not. My objection has always been that you are seeking personal opinions, on a reference desk. More on that below. But you compounded that (not exactly unprecedented) error by refusing to even put your question in some sort of context. I've already asked you how you would respond to the question "Henry VIII or Elizabeth II?", but you've remained silent. Stupid question for a reference desk, eh? Sure it is. Yours was no less so. But you're an administrator of this website. You're supposed to be helping to ensure users play by the rules, not acting as a shining example of how to break them.

I am sorry if any of my words have offended you. That was not my intention. I make no apology for their substance.

I wrote the following before I saw your post above:

• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines say:
• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.
• It seems to me that that presupposes questions don't seek personal opinions in the first place. References showing what such-and-such notable person's expressed opinion on some matter was are fine, as these are factual from our frame of reference. But our own personal opinions are not that. If we're going to allow such questions after all, we should make that decision very clear in the Guidelines, so that we can be even-handed to all comers. But if we still want to confine the desks to answers that can be referenced, let us please apply that policy consistently. -- Jack of Oz 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jack. The original question was so vague as to be impossible to answer on the RefDesk in accordance with the guidelines. Clarification was sought and was refused. It isn't necessary to have read the books or not to fail to "recognize a valid question." Any question that reads "A or B?", with zero additional clarification, should be ignored or removed for any and all values of A and B.

"Valid question" of course means only valid for the Reference Desk, which is all we should be considering here. - Eron 19:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are times when you wish you still had Saddam Hussein instead of ISIS. It's more pleasant to randomly banter under the banner of a poorly-formed question than to have a big talkpage dramafest about whether it should be allowed - a pointed forceful intervention is just more trouble than it's worth. I think the best practice with something like this is, if desired, to restate the question as something you can answer, answer that, and move on; otherwise to ignore it. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to tinker with the original question, but to write "If you mean... then..." Right? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's more pleasant to randomly banter under the banner of a poorly-formed question than to have a big talkpage dramafest about whether it should be allowed." (Emphasis added). Two questions:

"The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Misplaced Pages volunteers will try to answer it." - Does this still apply?

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." - Does this still apply?

If those two statements still apply, then the Desk is not a place for random banter, however pleasant. There are many fora on the Internet that welcome pleasant random banter. Post these sorts of questions there. Not here. - Eron 20:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, there are a number of aspects to this. One is the inappropriateness both of Drmies' question and the fact that many people answered it anyway. More troubling to me is the perception that an administrator is given special licence to flout the rules, which licence is denied to mere editors. The next question seeking opinions was immediately shut down (see link in my opening post). Could the difference in application of the rules possibly be any starker? Why wasn't Drmies' question likewise immediately shut down? Or, given the precedent set in Drmies' case, why wasn't the IP's question welcomed?

We have to get on top of this sort of messy, inconsistent, haphazard, random, discriminatory and unjust way that policies are applied. Otherwise, why do we bother having policies and guidelines at all? That's the real nub of this. -- Jack of Oz 21:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind not shutting down the request for domain names. We could work that up into quite a serious question - I mean, there must be an actual industry of sorts behind getting a good name for business. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My 2c: Drmies original question was a technical error given the refdesk guidelines, while Jack's over-the-top and abusive response was a more fundamental transgression of standard of communications one would expect in real world, and especially if we take the refdesk~ library analogy to heart. Given that the question was finally clarified enough for several refdesk regulars to give useful responses, and that Jack acknowledged his own mistake, I wish the matter had been laid to rest right there. Am disappointed at the continued badgering at User_Talk:Drmies and silly imputation that somehow (subliminally?) Drmies is waving his admin status around, but I'll stop and not myself contribute to that thread.

If there is a wish to tighten the enforcement of refdesk guidelines for for questioners and responders, lets discuss that but lets not personalize the discussion anymore. Abecedare (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree. But the problem with the rules, Abecedare, is that there is a large faction of users here who want to ignore all rules and, was just said above, "work that up into quite a serious question" whenever they come across blatant rule violations. Our job here is to assume good faith, but not to fix bad questions. The proper response even for people who want to make invalid questions is to hat or delete the invalid question and explain to the OP on his talk page your suggestions. Instead we get bad answers to worse questions and then fights on this page about it. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I raised the matter again at Drmies' talk page was that it was left hanging. It was not resolved. Resolution is best, so I took the initiative. But no matter how many times I apologised and took responsibility for my rudeness, it always got stuck on that issue. I could not get Drmies to enter into any discussion AT ALL on the issues I raised to begin with:

• the inappropriateness of his question itself
• his refusal to supply any context to help make it marginally appropriate
• the perception that he was playing a silly game
• the fact that an administrator should have known better than to engage in any one of the foregoing behaviours, let alone all of them; and
• the perception that the question was only accommodated at all because it was asked by an administrator, and the injustice inherent there.

The only time Drmies had ever even commented on any of these issues was to deny the question was inappropriate. That's it. I told him that denial is no way to address an issue, but that got me nowhere. Finally, last night (my time) he admitted his initial question was "wrong". This, after his previous denial that there was anything amiss with it. If he had made that acknowledgment right away when the matter was first raised, and hadn't engaged in stonewalling and massive deflection, all this palaver would have been avoided. Isn't Drmies required to accept ANY responsibility for that? Even after my apologies I'm STILL being told how rude I was and how I've been badgering and haranguing Drmies, and given a lecture on civility; while his behaviour, which is pretty reprehensible, is being just let through without further ado. After all, it was Drmies who started this. All I did was to take a stand and say "Not good enough, Drmies", but he's given a free pass while I end up the bad guy for my troubles. A fair and just outcome we can all be proud of? Hmmm ........ -- Jack of Oz 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Observation

What started this was that User:Drmies, a respected Misplaced Pages administrator, asked a meaningless empty question: "The Iliad or the Odyssey?". User:JackofOz criticized him and the question. It appears that he may have been trying to ask which one to teach to his students, but that wasn't the question (unless the question has been changed maliciously, which I doubt). The question was inappropriate, and the editor who said that the question was inappropriate was correct. I don't expect Drmies to take my advice, but I think that he should acknowledge that the question, as asked, was inappropriate, and that JackofOz is entitled to an apology. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies' question wasn't well expressed, but it isn't a massive deal. We are bound to get a lot of really badly expressed questions. Drmies did clarify when asked to. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The subsequent discussion has been overblown. However, criticism of JackofOz was inappropriate, in my view. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) No he did not, Itsmejudith. His "clarification" of "Iliad or Odyssey?" was "I'm not asking for knowledge--I have that. I just want to know, Illiad or Odyssey? Can't do both". You call that a clarification? I certainly do not. His only teensy concession was to mention "students", but that was way short of sufficient. So far from any clarification, this was willful refusal to clarify. That's what got up my nose. So much so that, in my raising of the matter, I uncharacteristically over-reacted, and ever since then the debate has been about my over-reaction rather than what got this started in the first place. I'm glad to see it's finally moving on to that matter. -- Jack of Oz 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He actually kind-of explained it to me, on my talk page. I apologize for not copying that answer to the ref desk. (Though he should have done that.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To throw my own two cents in. While we have a rule against opinion questions, the desks are not so clogged up and busy that the occasional one is a big deal; especially if reasonable, or educational, opinions can be given. However, the lack of context, and the empty clarification, are, in my opinion, a major issue - it's one thing to request informed opinions on if eating chicken or steak is more useful for building muscle, it's another to just say "chicken or steak?". The lack of context, and clarification, makes it seem like the op could care less, and cares not at all for our time - that they are an admin makes this all the more ridiculous as they should know better, personally. I think Jack's response was a little testy, but nothing that out of line, there is no reason the op could not have made better efforts, and their responses (across talk pages) seems lacking, far more than anything Jack said. --And, for the record, I'm usually all in favour of leaving questions for those who want to answer, even when they are asking for opinion, or nonsense, or etc. In this case, though, it should definitely have been hatted/removed until the op was willing to clarify.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss rules can we please respect WP:INDENT? Jack, the simple reason that the "rules" (I prefer "guidelines") are enforced inconsistently is that we're all volunteers, whose reasonable interpretations of the guidelines may differ. Adding to the issue is our lack of collocation in space and time, the lack of communication cues carried by text, &c.

When pondering the differences between your two linked examples, also note that your first entry to that thread started "Do we really have to put up with this sort of abuse of the ref desk" while Llama's was "Sorry but we don't answer questions for opinion" (with an appropriate link). I don't think anyone is saying that Jack was way out of line on questioning the question, but I think a few of us were surprised to see him lose his temper, which seems otherwise rather rare here. Likewise, I don't think anyone is saying Drmies was perfectly appropriate with his question and responses. Similar to what's described by Bugs and Wnt above, I responded as though a well-formed question had been asked, even if I had to guess some parts and make up others. I think that's a good way to help OPs without going against our guidelines. As Phoenixia says, we're not exactly suffering a surfeit of requests for references these days, though I might indeed advocate a more dismissive approach to requests for opinion if we were inundated with questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not of the view that the response to any question should be conditioned by the volume of traffic we happen to be currently receiving. That is completely out of any OP's hands, and the answers they get to their individual questions should not vary in quality or otherwise suffer as a result.

However, I would support a culture that goes "Where an OP asks an inappropriate question, endeavour to reframe it into an appropriate question, and respond to that". That has often happened. But what has happened just as often is OPs being given short shrift, whether by way of deletion, hatting, being told they've stepped out of line and to come back when they have a better question for us, or some combination thereof. Sometimes they're told how they've transgressed, but we answer their question or a revised version thereof anyway. It's a mish-mash. Can we work toward a consistent way of dealing with these questions?

In amongst all that is the frequent need to seek clarification of badly worded questions. Often, we just don't know whether we should be answering a question or not, until we have more information. So, that is often the first step. If they come back with a clarified question, and it is clearly beyond the scope of this desk, then we can consider going the reframing way as I suggested above. Or, if it's an OK question, we answer in the normal way. But if their clarification doesn't help us understand the question at all, as was the case with Drmies' "clarification", then that would usually be prima facie evidence they're toying with us, and we can feel justified in just deleting the whole thing outright.

Another factor is the language issue. Many of our OPs are not native speakers of English, which can add an additional layer of complexity when we're assessing the merits of a question.

I'm sure it's not beyond our collective wit to come up with a simple procedure (or flowchart?) that considers all these factors and guides us towards operating in a consistent manner, speaking with a single voice, and giving our clients equal and fair treatment. -- Jack of Oz 23:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. I'll add that I think much of the point of the Refdesk is not simply to help an individual poster, but to create a big open database of questions and answers. If we take the OP's question, rephrase it into an interesting question, and answer it, we've still our part for the database even if we were wrong about what he was really trying to ask. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions seeking opinions, II

(I've started a new thread to help organizational clarity) To continue some of the discussion above, mainly the part where myself, Wnt, Bugs and Jack were discussing the notion of responding to questions that may run afoul of our guidelines: How about this: if a question is problematic to you

1. )If the question contains a very serious violation (hate speech, threats, etc.) remove or hat as normal
2. ) Answer a better question
3. ) Ignore and move on

Example1: "Which car brand is better, Honda or Ford?"

Response1: You might be interested in reading our articles on Ford and Honda. Here is a recent review of a recent Ford model (link), here is one for Honda (link)

--The idea is that the response is answering the unwritten question "Can you give me information and references that compare Ford to Honda?" Obviously my example case is cleaner cut than many that will occur in the wild, but I personally believe this is a better response to the OP than the boilerplate "we do not give opinions" type answer. This also helps improve the archives-as-database aspect that Wnt mentions above. Notice that I didn't explicitly write out the question that I was answering, but merely avoided offering opinion. Perhaps it would be better to be more explicit, and type everything out, to help OPs and other respondents understand what we're doing. Would anybody support adding language to this effect in our guidelines, or at least tolerate myself and others continuing to respond in this way? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be guessing what the questioner might have meant or trying to divine meaning from gibberish - we are not clairvoyants. And why should lazy driveby OPs who cant even be bothered to read the guidelines before posting nonsense be afforded such patience and curtsey in the first place? If the question falls foul of the guidelines it should be removed, no ifs no buts. They are free to format it correctly and repost it. 177.99.164.167 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Every person should be afforded a baseline level of courtesy and dignity, and if you are not in the mood to afford them that dignity, you're quite allowed to do nothing at all. No one is forcing you to respond to questions you find distasteful, and if you can't be bothered to be courteous, I'm not sure why you feel the need to do anything. Doing nothing at all is ALWAYS an option for you. What other people do or don't do causes you no harm at all, and thus, is none of your business or concern. --Jayron32 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SemanicMantis and Jayron, and couldn't disagree more with the IP.

Just as library reference desks, we don't only serve those who stand erect and ask perfectly formed and phrased questions. If the question is ill-formed, ask for clarification politely; honestly try to think what the OP might have intended; offer leads to related resources even if the question cannot be directly answered; or, just ignore the post. Even for medical, legal and homework question, we should explain politely why we cannot or do not answer such questions (either in our own words or using the template) and not berate the questioner for having the temerity to ask them. Barring narrow exception (such as Light Current style trolling; vandalism; threats, harassment or BLP concerns) unexplained deletion of the question, or worse, haranguing the OP should not be an option here, just as it is not an option for librarians.

Btw, I am not sure expansion of instructions to questioners is really useful. As we know from the extensive EULA-related literature, such pre-conditions are rarely read (and, the lengthier they get the less likely they are to be read at all). But I do agree with the content of SM's proposal, so if others believe adding it to the instructions would be useful, I won't stand in the way. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Very often our questioners have poor command of the English language - or are simply un-used to asking questions in places like this. Very often they assume we know much more about the context of their question than we really do. It's not our job to either police or punish OP's. We're here to answer question, as we can, and within the scope of WIkipedia's rules. In the face of a request for opinion, we can often provide data that is useful to allow the OP to form their own opinion.

"Which car brand is better, Honda or Ford?" can be answered by pointing to crash-worthness statistics, to recall numbers, to owner satisfaction surveys, to cost-to-repair data from insurance companies...all sorts of ways to provide information upon which the OP can form their own opinion. We could also ask another question in return: "Is there any specific aspect of these cars that you want to compare?"...which might lead us to discover that the OP's request is actually about fuel consumption figures or off-road capability in four wheel drive mode.

What we shouldn't do is say "I've always thought that Hondas were way better than Fords".

The point is that we should try to avoid GIVING our opinions, that's not the same thing as helping our OP's to form an opinion based on hard factual data.

What went off the rails in the case above, is that we actually asked the OP for clarification of the question and got bizarrely unwarranted abuse in return...that's just weird from an experienced Wikipedian admin.

As always, if you don't like a question, you can simply avoid answering it. Hatting a question is like saying "I know better than everyone else - and I don't trust other editors to decide whether-to/how-to answer this question"...and that's just abusive "I'm better than you are" crap.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I know many questioners won't read the pre-conditions, I meant to consider adding a short few sentences to our guide for answers here . Of course many of them won't read it either, but at least we potentially have something to point to as a reference when having similar discussions here in the future. I see that as the real value to any of these documents. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above, I have nothing more cogent to add than what I did in the section above this one. Though, I will again say: there is no reason we cannot give some attempt at answering, or provide something useful, especially while the desks are not overrun with traffic - questions that do not stick to the letter of the law are not hurting anything, nor detracting from other questions being answered. I'd rather us be as open armed as possible given that we don't get a lot of comers; the time to be a hard ass is certainly not when you are lacking friends.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare and others. I also think it's important to point out that one reason that questioners have confused and misguided questions is because they likely have a confused and misguided understanding of the topic they're asking the question about. That's why they're asking a question in the first place! It's counter productive to require that questioners formulate a precise, unambiguous and non-misguided question in order to post on the RefDesk. We should realize that people asking questions will likely be confused or mistaken about the topic they are asking questions about, and shouldn't reject the question if it's fuzzy, or jump down the questioner's throat if they have a mistaken assumption underlying their question. Instead, it's better to provide whatever information which can be provided to help the questioner clarify the question, and to (gently) correct any mistaken assumptions which might be underlying the question. As has been mentioned, if you don't understand the source of the questioner's confusion well enough to suggest ways to help the questioner, you don't need to answer - just like you don't need to answer clear, unambiguous questions on topics you don't understand. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wise words indeed. -- Jack of Oz 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

None of us are clairvoyant, and sometimes I may end up providing an answer to a related question that is not precisely what the OP meant. Understand that I'm not suggesting everyone do this all the time, I'm suggesting that it is a viable and useful option that respondents can choose to exercise if they like. I can't see how that does any harm, and I can see how it can do some good.

Oh, and any of us can spend as much time as we like with "lazy driveby OPs." Why should I care if someone else thinks I'm wasting time or effort? Some might even say I'm doing it right now ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, this seems to have a decent amount of support. I will not edit our guidelines at present, but may consider doing so after we see how this goes for a bit. Thanks everyone for your input. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. How exactly would this have applied, except to keep JoO who started this at the ref desk, then at the user's page, and now here, to his making his argument? Is the agreement that he should have kept silent from the beginning, rather that writing over 21,000 bytes on this matter? As for any changes, SM, neutrally word a conservative RfC and get a good consensus before you decide to unilaterally edit any guidelines, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The agreement is not that everyone must keep silent. The agreement is that "If the question offends you, bothers you, or if you can't understand it or answer it in some constructive way, and if you aren't in the mood to ask for a clarification then it is better to keep silent than to do anything else. Or more succinctly, you have the option to either be helpful or keep silent, and if you either can't or won't be helpful, the best course of action is to do nothing... --Jayron32 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But does the "you" here mean just Jack, or does it mean those who would uphold the current rules? And frankly, I think it does not just mean Jack, I think it does just mean all of the 50% of us who think the rules apply to everyone, including ourselves.

In the meantime, the rest of us (i.e., you) seem to be claiming the right both to do and ignore as we (you) like. I suspect the underlying case here was one where two people (an Aussie and a Niederlander) who do believe in the rules just came into conflict unnecessarily, and to no one's benefit. A huge part of the problem was that I, Medeis, undeleted the discussion when the OP deleted it. I thought further rational discussion was still possible. I'd probably have served all better had I not undeleted the OP.

Given the normal hysteria here when I hat someone according to the rules, I find that hugely ironic. But I apologize. Regardless of my apology I think this whole thing should be dropped like a stone in The Crucible, on some accused witch's chest. Unless we're going to have an RfC, which I oppose having. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have rules that need enforcing so much as we have questions that need answering. If you can't answer the question, there's no need to busy yourself enforcing a rule. You don't actually have to do anything... --Jayron32 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c times 2) That would work most of the time, Jayron.

In this case, clarification was sought; but not only was none forthcoming, the OP just reiterated their unanswerable question using exactly the same words. That sort of game playing would hardly be acceptable from a non-native speaking newbie, let alone an experienced admin. That's what started this episode. Do we just ignore that sort of shit? Who polices the police? I was prepared to take a stand, and I've had a lot of support for having done so. There is universal agreement that I was a little testy in my manner, and I've apologised more than once for that. But does anyone say I was wrong in principle in objecting to Drmies' crap? (But lesson learned: Next time any such thing happens, I'll just delete the entire thread outright. He wouldn't have dared to come back again, unless supplying a properly formed question.) Drmies did finally, finally acknowledge that he was wrong, after previously blustering and deflecting and outright denying he was wrong. That refusal on his part to take any sort of responsibility for his own behaviour, more than anything else, contributed to the longwindery. So please, Medeis, get your facts straight before launching yet another of your snide smears. You don't hold grudges? Please excuse me while I vomit. -- Jack of Oz 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow.

Medeis, that was a truly splendid job you did "dropping the stone". The argument had really been raging, with almost one post in less than 4 days, but thanks to your sage and calming words, that rate is down to only 6 posts in over 4 hours.

Jack, I hope you can calm down and ignore Medeis's nonsensical baiting; this rage is not like you. Drmies was wrong, and Medeis is too, but that's understood, so I don't think we abandon our principles if we relegate some of these tempests back to the teapots they belong in.

Everybody: Jayron is right. A great deal of the time, we only need one "rule": if you don't care for something, just ignore it. But I'm a little wrong: that's not a "rule", it's just a guideline. But for that matter, most of our guidelines are just that: guidelines. Much of this internecine squabbling over their rigid interpretation is quite seriously misguided, because the guidelines weren't all intended to be ironclad rules in the first place. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If a question and/or response to the question violates ref desk standards (presuming there are any, such as the prohibition against professional advice), or Misplaced Pages rules (BLP, etc.) then it is irresponsible to "ignore it". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, independent of any earlier incidents, I mainly wanted to discuss my point 2) way up above - answering a better question if a question is mal-formed. That is the concept that seems to have some support as allowable. I understand that if I continue this practice that I risk edifying readers in a manner that they did not specifically ask for, but that's a risk I'm often willing to take :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Day Light Savings and More On Opinions

The question on DLS on the Science desk was hatted as requesting opinions, I'm tempted to remove it, but figured I'd just bring it up here as I've been unhatting a lot of things lately. My issue: the question can, easily, be read as asking if DLS serves a purpose in the modern time. That is something that can be answered with sources; perhaps, though, others disagree. Our current policy does not draw a strong difference between "what's better coke or pepsi?" and "Is IPv6 a good replacement for IPv4?" - the former can only be responded to with opinions, the latter can be intelligently answered by discussing why address exhaustion won't apply to it, etc. More than anything, though, I don't understand why "we have a rule" translates into "we must enforce this rule"? I can fire an employee for being late 3 times, that's in our policy at my workplace, it's not something that I, or anyone else with authority, is going to do on a routine basis. The existence of a rule is, usually, to give authority for handling problems, not as a blanket excuse to exercise authority, nor as some absolute that must be followed without question, in every case. (I realize that this seems like a lot of whining for a single question, but it is part of a general annoyance I have with how things are handled here: we have a microscopic audience, yet some of us are about censuring them whenever the option exists; that is simply absurd to me, if something isn't a problem, why does anyone need to intervene?)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"The existence of a rule is, usually, to give authority for handling problems, not as a blanket excuse to exercise authority, nor as some absolute that must be followed without question". Some people should probably have this sentence tattooed on their arm as a reminder. I cannot disagree with that sentiment in any way. In the case of the specific question on daylight savings time, we could provide links to reliable sources which discuss the debate over DST. That would answer the OP's question without delving into providing our own personal opinions. Or, we could do nothing if we don't want to do that... --Jayron32 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the first response, or one of them (possibly even yours) was to link to the explanation of what DST is and where it came from. It could have been marked "resolved" at that point. But that wasn't really the OP's question. The question was an invitation to a debate. A recent episode of How We Got to Now explained the evolution of timekeeping, and how it was driven by various needs and wants. It can be taken all the way back to when everyone kept "local time", which could be called "sundial time". Time zones and Standard Time were invented for practical reasons, and the same is true for Daylight Saving Time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty with this rule is that we can't know the intent of the OP. Are they requesting an opinion, or are they asking for references containing facts? Even in the "Coke vs Pepsi" kind of question, there might be some kind of solid reference as to which is better...but even if there isn't, the OP might be hoping there is, and asking us to dig it up. It's always possible that the question might be badly phrased - and should have been "Which is better for my health - Coke or Pepsi?"...OP's often assume we can read their minds!

In this case, the question actually was: "Now that we are going off of daylight saving time why should we ever go back on it." - I can't imagine why that would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are documented reasons why DST is useful and governments around the world continue to apply it.

Hatting the question ensures that nobody will go off and find a documented reason why we'll go back on DST next year. For example, a 2007 study from RAND Corporation found that the increase in daylight in spring produced a 10 percent drop in car crashes...there are 30,000 fatal car crashes per year in the USA. Reducing that by 10% for even a part of the year will save around 1,000 to 3,000 lives. There is a great, non-opinion, reason for go back to DST.

Just because your imagination is too limited to come up with a way to answer a question without giving an opinion, doesn't mean that other people can't. So, again - if you can't think of a way to answer a question without giving an opinion, then just don't answer it. If it really is a question that absolutely requires an opinion - then nobody will be able to answer it. If it turns out that you're wrong and somebody *can* answer it with an opinion-free answer - then surely that's a good thing.

Really the only time we should be telling the OP that we can't answer their question is when they explicitly say something like "I'd like the opinions of the people here about Coke versus Pepsi"...then you can't answer, and it might be worth pointing out to our OP that we can't answer questions like that.

In general, (and I say this a lot), it is the height of arrogance to say "I know better than everyone else on the Ref Desk, so I'm going to HAT this in an effort to prevent those lesser idiots from answering it"...and that's how it feels like when someone does that. If you respect other members of this community, and WP:AGF, then it's safe to simply not answer the question - and assume that (if you're correct) they won't either...and accept that you're going to be wrong some of the time - and so are they - and that the world won't end because of that.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And responders often assume they can read the OPs' minds. There are some examples in this very section. All you have to go on is what the OP actually said. The question was answered almost as best as it could be. However, the right answer is "because the laws say so." Now, if someone wants to live by standard time, they can do that. But if they show up at work or an appointment an hour late, it won't be the fault of whoever they were going to visit. If someone doesn't like that law, or any law, they can always write to their appropriate legislator. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The ban on opinions and debate is one on asking for debate on RefDeskers' opinions - it's not a ban on asking for (well referenced) third party opinions. I think most here would agree that closing the question "What was Paracelsus's opinion on the doctrine of signatures?" with the rationale "We don't answer requests for opinions" would be inappropriate, and excuses about "but they explicitly *said* they wanted an opinion" would be considered fatuous. I think the principle should extend in general, even if the third party is not explicitly specified. We should assume that the questioner is making a good faith attempt at obeying the RefDesk guidelines, and if a question can be interpreted as a request for (well referenced) third party opinions, it should be interpreted as such. With ambiguous questions, assuming that they're definitely requesting for RefDesker's personal opinions - or that they're explicitly requesting a debate - is as much, if not more so, "reading their mind" than the other way around. Answerers should limit themselves to providing references to third party arguments, and *answers* which don't conform should be hatted/deleted, with the *answerer* being (politely) admonished to follow the rules. (Perhaps there could be some template for such questions with reminders to people to stick to references when answering.) Only in cases where it's clear to the majority that the questioner is looking for personal opinions specifically of RefDeskers, or where a question poses an attractive nuisance which rises beyond the capability of the desk to handle, should a question be closed as asking for opinions. (Though the latter should be viewed as a failure on the part of the people answering the question, rather than the person asking.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The only nuisance such questions attract is people who feel like their role as the police force at the ref desks is more important than just ignoring such questions. --Jayron32 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The theme I'm gleaning from the above is that we run the Reference Desks and we are the ones who must stay in control (that's a reminder to myself as much as to anyone else). That means, inter alia, that just because a question asks, or appears to ask, for opinions, that does not mean our only choices are (a) give them an opinion or (b) hat or delete the question. There's usually an embarrassment of easily obtainable and relevant referenced information we can supply in response. That may include well-sourced third party opinions, but it may be something else entirely. Our job is to be helpful, and that sometimes means not being slaves to the literal wording of an OP's question. We do get to reframe their questions into something useful. We also get to ask for clarification where a plethora of unrelated responses would otherwise be possible, with no guarantee that any of them would be even close to the mark. Our policies and guidelines are there to guide us, not to be used as a stick with which to beat people up (but they give us authority to act differently where questioners come here to cause disruption). I also strongly support the enforced tattooing of Phoenixia1177's dictum on whichever body part we visit most often. -- Jack of Oz 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

↑ Sign my name to what Jack said. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mine's likely not big enough to fit the whole sentence... Perhaps in a really small font... --Jayron32 03:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We should try an experiment of ignoring the guidelines totally, for a week or two, and see if it makes any difference. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Mandatory reading of the guidelines at least once a month or so. I admit it's been somewhat longer than that since I last read them. -- Jack of Oz 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Using what method of enforcement? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

When an OP, in this case 206.255.28.252 (talk · contribs), plunks down a question like this one, and then doesn't bother to come back and clarify, it's a sure sign of trolling. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How could you possibly know that? Maybe this person expected an answer in like 5 minutes - and when (s)he didn't get one, gave up looking. Maybe the OP found the answer by his/her self? We can't know for sure whether someone is a troll or not until we've had many problematic interactions with them. SteveBaker (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It was clearly a reasonable question. I've unhatted it.

The metadiscussion on whether the question was inappropriate, however, is an unnecessary distraction (it should have been here), so I've hatted it instead. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My read on the consensus here -- though I concede that I am not an unbiased participant -- is that the DST question was a reasonable one, which is why I unhatted it. Does anyone disagree? Medeis does, as she has reverted my unhatting, but I am going to go rerevert it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're in the wrong, and out of line. So what else is new? I take it back. You're actually following my suggestion of ignoring the guidelines. Bravo! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A positive example

See this recent question in which OP asked about using his spouse's credit-card. It could well have been hatted as a question about possibly illegal conduct, and I doubt anyone would have unhatted it. But I was happy to see that refdesk regulars gave reasonable and helpful responses instead, even though

1. the question was borderline impermissible,
2. on the wrong desk,
3. giving a referenced answer would perhaps be regarded as giving legal advice

And I was very happy to see that none of the responders chimed in anecdotal evidence, "well, I used X's credit card and it turned out ok". Given that we are so self-critical about the issue of rule-enforcement, let us pat ourselves on the back when we get it right (at least IMO). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The question the OP asked looks like he's up to something. And, as usual, has not returned to comment. The answers given were reasonable. Maybe the OP liked them, maybe he didn't, but he hasn't bothered to clarify what he's up to, so it's basically done. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Great activity on RD/S

Just wanted to say that the RD/S is humming along pretty nicely. Great content, thanks to many contributors. -- Scray (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Sazonov

User: Alex Sazonov has been editing Misplaced Pages for six or seven months. His editorial history seems to consist entirely of the Reference Desks and of responding at his talk page to comments about his posts to the Reference Desks. His English is poor, and no one knows what his native language is. (Native speakers of Russian do not understand his posts any more than native speakers of English.) Two recent posts make no scientific sense, because they use the word 'valence', which is a technical term of chemistry applicable only to chemical elements as if it applied to compounds and manufactured materials. He has been repeatedly advised either to find a web site in his own language or to use automated translation. I have posted to his talk page to that effect again today. I see that his talk page includes previous such advice. If he continues to edit the Reference Desk in ways that do not make sense, we should go to WP:ANI and ask that he be either topic-banned from the Reference Desk or blocked from editing. (Since he does nothing but post his stuff here, there is little difference between a topic-ban and a block.) I think that we have been patient long enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the first bit is no problem: anyone is free to use the refdesks, there is no requirement to do other things on WP too (though some editors do seem think so). I personally am happy to ignore his posts, and occasionally supply some links if I can get a general sense of what he's asking about. If he is editing in bad faith/trolling, IMO he is a very poor one, because he doesn't disrupt much, and doesn't really argue with us or do other things that make trolls bothersome. Finally, it doesn't matter to me what the native language is, e.g. if his native tongue were Greek but he chose a Russian-sounding username, why should we care? In my view, ESL status should not make users into second class citizens, and this particular user is not harmfully disruptive in my estimation. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

He sounds like many regular editors at the ref desk, who are single-minded and don't really understand that they're not actually improving Misplaced Pages with their "contributions" here. Why just pick on one editor? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk on its talk page, it's hard to AGF with you. Do you really think this kind of feedback is improving the discussion? You don't have to like what we do here but if you won't help fix the problems you perceive then please be polite enough to just ignore those of us who enjoy using the desks to help people. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SemanticMantis. It was getting to be excessive and disruptive for a while but the number of contributions has gone down to a level where they don't cause too much trouble. Try just ignoring the posts if they annoy you. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have hatted his two most recent posts. I agree that he isn't a troll, just a clueless editor who doesn't know English and uses scientific terminology incorrectly. Evidently he thinks that 'valence' means something other than its technical meaning in chemistry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One previous editor about a month ago at the Mathematics Reference Desk was indeffed for posting flawed proofs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to ignore him for a while, but he is a nuisance. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I decided weeks ago to ignore him. I'm not convinced that he or anyone else is getting any benefit from the conversations that he has been starting. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on doing anything other than ignoring him. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is difficult. We're required to WP:AGF - and he doesn't seem to have done anything to cause us to believe he's not acting in good faith. His questions are invariably meaningless babble - and because the words seem correctly spelled - but wildly meaningless in context - it certainly seems like he's using automatic translation from some non-English language. In the last case, who knows what word in his language is being translated into "valence"? His questions don't seem to violate any guideline - so we kinda need to gently point out that asking questions here is a complete waste of his time, and ours...and failing that, I'd suggest that nobody even attempt to answer them unless their meaning is completely clear. But when he starts to ANSWER questions - I have concerns. His answers don't survive translation any better than his questions do - they are just complete nonsense - and I'm quite sure they are very confusing to our OP's. I'm actually of the opinion that we need to block his answers from the list somehow. Technically he's engaging in "disruptive editing" - but because of WP:AGF, I don't think we should take punitive sanctions here. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)