Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Idiotic post removed

Diff --Viennese Waltz 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically the same question LC has tried to post several times already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Standard LC question from a known LC IP range. Good removal. --Jayron32 23:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think these removals are actually necessary, but when they're not real questions we can give a useful answer to there's nothing actually lost by removing them, and some people here take so much pleasure in it. Then again, actually this one isn't entirely vacuous - we could refer the questioner to pegging, which gives paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence on feeding the troll is much appreciated - by the troll, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph Pegging (sexual practice)#Psychological pleasure answers the OP's question directly. If the OP's post were not censored I would not hesitate to give that reference. Do Baseball-Bugs et al. say that such Wikipedia mainspace text is "idiotic" or "trolling" or just "forbidden to ask about"? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just this question, asked by the troll who asked it. --Jayron32 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not say that. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of deleting things because it might maybe possibly not be an honest question, but if this one is pretty much the same as LC's method, and LC is banned, banned users cannot edit. No matter what. Zap it. Good delete. Even if it a perfectly reasonable or legit question. Banned user? Does not edit. Mingmingla (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. Will it be fine if I ask the question, and then C3 can post his excellent response, and then we can be done with this? Buddy432 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank Buddy432 for their kind appraisal but I am.....errh, uncomfortable with their assumption of what my gender may be, considering the subject of the question in question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. (Which may have been your point.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The same claim might be made of those deleting posts to make the point that banned users can't edit. But it would be best not to assert this in either case. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, deleting additions (be they article edits or talk page comments) by banned users is standard practice, see WP:BAN, which explains this fully. --Jayron32 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope indeed. After all, deleting a banned user's post isn't making a point about anything. It is deleting a banned user's post. Mingmingla (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any rule can be abused. Imagine if someone said "Nominating an article for deletion isn't making a point about anything. It is nominating an article for deletion." APL (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a comment on this particular deletion, which I'm not at all aware of, but surely enforcing a rule and being disruptive are not mutually exclusive. Usually WP:POINT violations are caused by people taking a real rule, following it to the letter, and enforcing it to some ridiculous and disruptive extreme.

If there were a hypothetical situation where deleting a post would demonstrably and predictably cause a disruption, then intentionally ignoring the context and performing the deletion "because the rules say so" would absolutely be a WP:POINT issue. (As would saying "Well, I guess that means we should unban everyone!!!! I'll go start the unbanning proceedings!!" and then actually doing so. )

I've argued in the past that if the troll is actively trying to troll you into deleting innocuous-looking threads, then doing exactly that is disruptive because it's against the spirit of DENY, but I'll concede that this notion did not get much support. APL (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the posts, which is totally within the rules, feeds the troll very little. What mostly feeds the troll is the same old arguments against enforcing that rule, which the troll is counting on the troll-enablers to do. He suckers them into it nearly every time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My fondest desire for this particular troll is for him to create a well referenced, accurate, neutral, beautifully written, FA-quality article, and then for you to edit-war to delete it. APL (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I had asked for him to be unbanned. He indicated that he doesn't want to be unbanned. Regardless, I've stopped treating him as a banned user. Like you, I would like to see him write a fine article and demonstrate his value as an editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sept 2005 Humanities Archive

I was perusing the September 2005 humanities archive and noticed that after question 364, the archive just made a second copy of the questions from that month (Question 1 was included again as question 365 etc...). Was this something done on purpose that I should leave alone, or should I delete the 2nd copy of the questions? Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to delete it. No doubt there was an error when the bot attempted to remove the content after moving it to the archive, resulting in a second copy being created when the bot ran again. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

China discussion (Humanities)

What often annoys me is when the first respondent to a question seeking a prediction correctly states our policy not to answer such questions but the next visitors just ignore that and give answers anyway. It appears to show a great deal of disrespect for both our own policy and the first respondent. The policy does not even say "the ref desk cannot provide accurate answers", it says unequivocally "the ref desk does not answer" - period.

If we're going to ignore the policy, it's best we change it.

Please discuss in less than 1,200 words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't read the first reply. I know I don't always read all the replies to a thread before I reply to it. 82.43.90.90 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a very witty and pithy reply, full of subtle sarcasm, until I saw the first response, and then I stopped. I don't know how we reign in everybody though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But, Friend 82, those who reply to questions need to abide by our rules and policies, which means being aware of them. The nature of this particular question precluded any answers other than a notice that an answer will not be forthcoming, which was fully covered by the first respondent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

discussion hatted. --Jayron32 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Often we can give useful information even if we can't actually answer the question. In this case, there are plenty of people that have written at length on the subject of China becoming a superpower and we could have linked to those writings. They are all opinion pieces rather than reliable sources (since there are no reliable sources about the future!) so we wouldn't want to actually conclude anything from them, but we can tell the OP they exist. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and these "opinions" aren't always driven by feelings and subjective values either, but often they are educated guesses, speculative of course, but based on expert interpretation of facts. For example we have an article on human extinction (yet to happen). It's improvable, but it does include references. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago, I answered this by stating that it there is a very normal juvenile response that causes a person to respond to "Do not answer this question" with the attitude of "You can't tell me what to do." Unfortunately, nobody read my statement in whole. They only read one word: juvenile. Then, the entire discussion derailed into accusations of "assume good faith" and whatnot. I feel it is a valid point. We have many different people here. Certainly, some have the normal juvenile response, which is not limited to those of juvenile age (totally unrelated use of the word "juvenile"), and those that do will regularly respond to direct orders with blatant refusal to obey the orders. -- kainaw™ 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I obey all orders properly given by the chain of command. Of which, no individual here is a part of. Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you will follow consensus if and only if Wikipedia is completely restructured to have a clear governing body that makes laws and a policing unit that enforces them. Is that not a juvenile response? -- kainaw™ 13:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps say something along the lines of "The reference desk will not provide opinions or speculation on future events, but we may be able to refer you to other places where these topics are discussed." And put something in the advice on how to answer questions like: "The reference desk is not for personal opinion. Restrict your answers to factual information and references to other sources." Not that anyone will read it anyway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why have any guidelines, instructions, policies, rules, procedures at all? Seriously. If we have so little faith that users will read the rules, that's our problem, not theirs. The ball's in our court to do something about it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question removed.

LC question removed. See [1] for the asker and [2] for the removal. All people who commented have been notified as well. --Jayron32 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I logged the comment. No gripe with the quashing. Sorry for tossing food at him. 205.215.254.210 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found

This appears in large red letters at the foot of a desk page, whenever anybody pastes text from an article with the <ref> tags still in it. How should I react when I notice this? Should I edit the person's post to remove the tags completely, or move the references out of the tags into normal text, so they aren't lost, or leave a nagging message requesting the person who did it fixes it, or relax and do nothing? (What would it take to allow <ref> tags to function properly on the ref desks?)  Card Zero  (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd put <references /> at the bottom of the thread so the refs display. Angr (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that worked (on the humanities desk at the moment). I wonder if it will work twice, though, if somebody does it again in a thread below the first one.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would edit the post to use specific reference groups, as described here. —Akrabbim^talk 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems perfect, except I wanted to pick a fairly unique identifier for the group, so I used the title of the question. I didn't realise the name I picked would then show up in the ref link, like this: ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 1]} and ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 2]} and ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 3]}. I guess that's OK. Might be seen as interrupting the flow of the post.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You could abbreviate it a little. How about "spy"? It only needs to be unique within the sections that are on the page at the same time as it (the archives are done by week, so if it's ok before archiving it will be ok after archiving). --Tango (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

November 2005 Humanities Archive

The November 2005 Humanities archive has a lot of text in various colors. Would it be against the ref desk archive guidelines for me to reformat that into the standard black text? The text has no rhyme or reason for the odd colors as far as I can determine. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a broken signature from a single user. I see absolutely no reason not to fix a broken sig that is messing up the page - so I fixed it. -- kainaw™ 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just not all that comfortable with changing things in the archive unless I am sure it wasn't done that way on purpose. Googlemeister (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The user knew about it and fixed most of it back then. His current signature doesn't have the same issues. -- kainaw™ 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question removed

I removed this question[3] posted by LC. It's from LC's IP range, and it's exactly the kind of thing he posts. Red Act (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why cant you leave this type of question alone and let people answer them if they want? Some pepole would like to know the answer to this type of question (I included).I mean, who else could you ask?? BTW who is LC?.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.252 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Light Current is a banned user, meaning he is not permitted to edit here AT ALL. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What you call "LC's IP range" is, in fact, the entire IP range of a major UK ISP, is it not? If all you have to go on is the ISP, the fact that he posts to the ref desk and that it comes under a very long list of topics you think he's asked about before (and that are topics we do tend to get legitimate questions on from time-to-time), that's really not very convincing evidence. Even if it is from a regular troll, how do you know it is LC? That account has been blocked for years. As I understand it, what you now consider to be his IP range isn't even the range he edited from when using that account. You really have no significant evidence whatsoever that this question was posted by a banned user. --Tango (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, either because you don't pay attention or don't care, or both. The IP comment, posted 23 minutes before yours, was made by LC, being the same kind of comment that LC often posts in his own "defense"... and which is actually intended to start the debate rolling, to feed that troll - and you took the bait. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question concerned treatment of piles. If the question had not been censored I would have responded "A Wikipedia article describes treatments for piles (hemorrhoids) and these do not include vibration." A banned user is supposed to be still allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, including searching the Ref. Desk archive, but may not post a reasonable request for a reference. The latter restriction has little to do with combatting vandalism and I would not mind it being lifted. A proper question deserves a proper answer, no matter who posts it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The rule is that a ban is absolute. I don't think the ref desk can make an exception to that and I don't think the wider community would support such a policy change. Bugs has previously tried to force these discussions into discussion about banned user policy, but I really don't think they should be. The question we need to answer is "Was this edit made by a banned user?" and unless the answer is "yes" or "almost certainly, yes" then banned user policy does not apply and it should be judged on its own merits. The only evidence I have seen presented for this being an edit by a banned user is that it was made from a particular (very large) ISP and that it's a ref desk question that involves an anus. That is nowhere near enough evidence, in my opinion. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A traceroute of the OP's IP address[4] also shows that it came through the 62.24.255.78 router, which is the router that LC usually connects to nowadays.[5] Red Act (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that that isn't just the router that every user (or a large proportion of users) of that ISP goes through? --Tango (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To those of us who've been doing battle with LC reverting this nonsense for many years, it's more than obvious who this is, but it's not in the spirit of RBI to spend yet more time discussing it, so I won't. Your skepticism might be admirable in other quarters, but here I can assure you it's not helping. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't go about accusing people of being banned users based on a hunch. If you have the experience you say you have, then you should be able to explain how you know this is LC. You are the one making an accusation, so the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. Your unsubstantiated accusations are what is not helping here. --Tango (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:DUCK is relevant here. 82.43.90.90 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Physical + behavioural evidence = satisifes duck test, proof ebough. We are not going to come to accomodation with a troll so as to satisfy each and every other editor that we are being fair enough. Why are you so eager to play their game? Franamax (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This all reminds me of state secrets, particularly in wartime, where it's necessary to take on trust that one's leaders are making sane and fair (or at least pragmatic) decisions, that such-and-such a place needed to be bombed for the greater good, and that so-and-so was correctly convicted even though the evidence was secret. So, I've just compared admins (or checkusers?) to MI6 or the CIA. That situation is a bit odd. Granted, the evidence isn't secret, just tiresome, but even so, I don't know, it's not ideal.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Card Zero, this is not a particularly secret process, it happens all over the wiki. There are maybe 2 or 3 dozen long-term problematic users whose activity needs to be constantly monitored. You can see some of the action at WP:SPI and WP:LTA, but much of it is handled at lower levels without the bureaucracy. Some "good" editors get familiar with the pattern of behaviour and act on it, other good editors just get on with editing and don't even notice, or occasionally wonder why someone got blocked. And there are a few editors who feel it necessary to question everything. It's not secret though, if you want to spend all the hours to piece it together, read all the archives here, learn about IP address allocation, check the contribs of entire ranges - you will find yourself at the exact same conclusion. Yes, I (we) ask you to trust me (us) on that, but dude, knock yourself out if you want. But do please assemble the overall picture and recall (or learn, if you look at it all) that the aim of this particular troll is to disrupt by causing this exact same discussion to take place over and over. This thread right here is the trolling, and once again a GF editor has enabled it. But sure, see for yourself. Contact me on my talk page if you want some pointers where to start, and set aside a large part of your day. Franamax (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is the intention of sanctions in Wikipedia that an editor improve their contribution, be punished, or be eliminated as a contributor?
2. Do watchdogs who pounce on contributions coming from a particular address care to weigh the amount of constructive edits that come from that address? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your physical evidence is that the user edits using a particular ISP and your behavioural evidence is that they asked a question on the ref desk about an anus. That is nowhere near enough to conclude who they are. Lots of people use that ISP and lots of people ask us about anuses (the Ref Desk provides a valuable service as somewhere people can get good quality information about potentially embarrassing subjects). You have, perhaps, demonstrated that it is a living thing that frequents bodies of water. You have not demonstrated that it is a duck. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The consequences of being wrong are pretty low — some sad user who coincidentally has the same IP as LC and asks exactly the same sort of questions as LC (which are often not terribly edifying questions in my opinion) will be shut out of asking such questions on Wikipedia. I think it's pretty duckish. It strikes me as quite a huge coincidence to assume it is not LC or someone connected with him. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Ten) Tango, pick any other major ISP range in the world and count how many anus questions originate there over, say, a 6-month period. That will give us an estimate of how many false positives may be flagged on Opal's range. Or perhaps provide epidemiological evidence presentable to the UK medical authorities that they may have a serious problem that needs looked at. Also, the other 2 edits made by the IP are positive (if post facto) confirmation. Franamax (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The desire among certain editors to assume good faith does you credit, but this is a ship which long since sailed. While Tiscali is a large ISP, it still represents a very small fraction of total internet users worldwide. We at the Ref Desk actually get relatively few edits from this ISP (or, for that matter, from any particular unique ISP). Believe it or not, the last time I checked, the majority of edits from Tiscali's IP ranges made to the Wikipedia namespace really were confidently identifiable as Light current. Now, when I say 'majority' I mean that over the course of 12 months, the Ref Desk saw maybe two or three total edits from Tiscali that weren't Light current. Even if we totally ignored the issue of edit content, we could actually soft block the entire ISP from the Ref Desk without causing much in the way of collateral damage. Any anonymous Ref Desk editor with an anal fixation who shows up from Opal Telecom/TalkTalk (formerly Tiscali) is Light current, with quite a high degree of confidence. (The connection, one might say, is tighter than a WP:DUCK's ass.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a technical clarification though, the previous Tiscali ranges have over the last few years been merged into Opal's much larger set of assigned ranges, so presumably there may be more valid questions now from the broader range. I did that same analysis on just the Tiscali ranges but over a 2-year period and at the time, yeah, we could have set up an edit filter and lost basically zero valid content from the RefDesks. The situation now is a little more complicated but the rule still applies: if the Whois report shows AS13285 as the route origin and the behavioural pattern fits, to an extremely high probability it is the same troll. Franamax (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've debated this all before and still oppose the deletions; I just don't care to dive in when I don't have a good answer to the question anyway. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We are well aware that you're a troll enabler. You need not remind us yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Necessary, Bugs? Let's talk about the issue without applying labels to editors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The troll enablers, i.e. the ones who foment these arguments against deleting troll entries, over and over and over, are largely the ones to blame for feeding the troll. It is their insistence on feeding the troll that is the actual issue here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Describing editors' behaviour ("the ones who foment these arguments against deleting troll entries ...") is fine, but once you label them as "troll enablers', you've stepped over the line into personal abuse. That's no more OK than being a troll is. It's not hard to stay on this side of the line. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of them here have said in past that they feel no need whatsoever to enforce the rules against banned users editing. If that isn't enabling, then what is it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain it one more time: Pointing your finger at what someone does/says/writes and making comments about it is acceptable. Pointing your finger at the person themself and calling them names is not acceptable. Got it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain it one more time: There are users here who actively, defiantly and proudly continue to enable the troll. If you enable the troll, then you are a troll enabler. Got it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The deleted question is very obviously an LC question, as anyone in this discussion who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention should know. Why don't you all just un-ban that moron and be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And just where is LC when we need him? This question[6] would seem to fall into his area of special interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'know Bugs, reading down this thread I was all ready to jump in there just above with my own opinions on what are the possible signs of "troll enablers". But then I read this last bit with the "moron" terminology and lost my enthusiasm, way to stomp all over your own point. I'll bow out now, lest I be tempted to add that I hadn't noticed any morons present until you posted. ;) Possibly lame attempt at demonstrating NPA :) Franamax (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'know Fran, if you think I'm going to apologize for calling LC a moron, think again. I went to bat for him to get him unbanned. He let me down. He doesn't want to get unbanned. He wants to continue jerking the other users here around - especially with the aid of those who stand up for him and pretend that it might not be him, every time an obvious entry of his gets zapped by someone who knows what he's doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Those who do battle with trolls should be careful not to become trolls themselves" -- Nietszche. Wnt (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This "so what?" mentality I see here, from you and others, is the reason I have stopped deleting LC's entries and have stopped trying to get his socks banned. But I am still going to comment from time to time on active enabling of socks, as you and others continue to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Name calling notwithstanding, I have to agree with Bugs on this one. If someone (anyone) so chooses to actively ignore the rules about banned users not being allowed to post, I think that is an issue, as it is effective allowing the banned user to post, since any follow-up posts wouldn't make sense without the context. While Bugs may or may not be over any lines I don't know, but so is any user who insists on ignoring the rules regarding banned users. Mingmingla (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And to be crystal clear, bans apply for good as well as bad. It is unambiguous. Mingmingla (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocking User:Belchman

Could the user be blocked? He is harassing people who indeed contribute to the RD, and could stop doing so if OPs like him have such a horrible attitude. See here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Mercantilism_vs_protectionism and also the last two posts in his talk page: User_talk:Belchman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)

This is the wrong place to request that somebody be blocked, and in any case Jayron can take care of himself, I think. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not only about Jayron, BTW. Anyway, what's the appropriate place to snitch on someone? Quest09 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to request that an editor be blocked is WP:ANI. But in the current situation that's not going to happen -- a more useful response would be to open a discussion at WP:WQA. Note that in either case you would need to notify Belchman of what you are doing. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayron takes very good care of himself whenever the subject of spelling arises.^{<diff suppressed>}. A fleabite from Adam Bishop [7] can be ignored. The gross taunt using the attrocity ridden term nazi and a swastika-derived symbol by Obsidi♠n Soul [8] is unacceptable. I have received the same abuse and Belchman can count on my support in this issue. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)