Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


To ask a question, use the relevant Reference Desk
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.

Proposed change to Reference desk Guidelines[edit]

The guidelines at WP:RD/G contain a section titled What the reference desk is not. It contains five bulleted topics of explanation. The third bulleted topic is much larger than the other four and contains the following sentence:

Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as RD-deleted) pointing to these guidelines.

I see two problems with this sentence so I am proposing that it be deleted. These problems are:

  1. The section is titled What the reference desk is not but this sentence doesn’t contain the word “reference” or the word “desk”. It contains procedural information, not explanation about what the reference desk is not. It says questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice are likely to be removed and replaced with a message, but this statement has nothing to do with what the reference desk is not. The necessary procedural information is comprehensively covered at WP:RD/G/M. Deletion of the sentence will not diminish the extent to which this bulleted topic explains what the reference desk is not.
  2. In recent discussions on this Talk page I have discovered that the sentence is misleading Users. Use of the expression "may be removed" has the appearance of granting a permission but, in fact, it is only stating a likelihood. All the permissions required for dealing with questions asking for medical advice are provided at WP:RD/G/M in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. What is more important, several other considerations related to removing a question, such as notifying the person who posted the question; and "Also, note the removal of the question by posting the diff on the talk page of the Reference desk" are only found in the section titled Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. Some Users have been removing questions and answers without notifying anyone, and without noting the removal of the question on the Talk page of the Reference desk, believing this sentence in What the reference desk is not gives them permission to remove questions without regard for the considerations and procedural information published in Dealing with questions asking for medical advice.

I am interested to see if other Users have views on the above proposal. If not, I will make the deletion in a few days. Dolphin (t) 14:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

hmm. I would like to add a section called "what the reference desk IS". Anyone want to suggest content for that section? (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the above changes. Its fine, it is telling people that if they ask questions that violate our guidelines, they could be removed. "Permissions" misses the point entirely. We're all adults here, we're not asking for "permissions" as though we were little kids seeking to stay up an hour late. This is not a game, there are not rules we follow or need permission to do. We do what is best, we follow established guidelines, and we fix problems when they come up. There is no "permission" to remove a thread, there is just threads that need to be removed if they are against our guidelines, and anyone may simply do so. --Jayron32 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jayron32: You say "we follow established guidelines". I say "Some Users have been removing questions and answers without notifying anyone, and without noting the removal of the question on the Talk page of the Reference desk, ..." I can supply diffs if you wish. We like to think we all follow established guidelines at all times, but the truth is that it isn't happening at all times. I can supply diffs.
I'm not doubting that you and I and most of us follow established guidelines; but I am trying to fix the problem that causes some of us to violate those guidelines.
I say again in case you missed it - some of us are violating those guidelines. Does this concern you? I can supply diffs if you wish. Dolphin (t) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
If we aren't notifying anyone or posting notice on T:RD, then we should be doing that. If you find that someone has forgotten to do so, you can just remind them. It's no big deal. You don't need to hunt diffs to shame people who may have forgotten. Just a little note when you see it happen. If its been months ago, well, that ship has sailed. If it was today, then either start the discussion yourself, or kindly remind them to leave the notice. --Jayron32 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jayron32: I'm pleased you acknowledge that we should be posting notice on T:RD and notifying people whose posts are being censored. I'm talking about people who appear to be defiant that they do not need to observe Dealing with questions asking for medical advice, found in WP:RD/G/M. This happened about two weeks ago and when I found what was happening I started the thread titled "Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?" You contributed. You can still see the thread at the top of this Talk page. I finally got to the bottom of it and found that at least one User genuinely and innocently believes he doesn't have to pay any attention to Dealing with questions asking for medical advice because he is relying on a sentence he has found in What the reference desk is not. His interpretation is clearly opportunistic, and it is legally naïve. The guidelines that you say "we follow" were seriously violated in this case. It appears to be a systemic problem, albeit sporadic. Dolphin (t) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Please note that there are editors like this one who do not require notification when their posts are removed. MarnetteD|Talk 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MarnetteD. I agree with you! Dolphin (t) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I interpret "may be deleted" as "it's possible it will be deleted". Clearly, it's not always deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bugs. That’s great news. So do I. I call this interpretation of the word “may” - stating a likelihood. I have looked carefully all over the Ref desks and the Guidelines, and I am convinced that, on the Ref desks, “may” is always stating a likelihood.
But the word “may” has another meaning that I call granting a permission: for example when the wedding celebrant says to the bridegroom “You may now kiss the bride”. This sentence is not about “it’s possible” or “it’s likely” - it’s granting a permission. Other examples of granting a permission are “You may leave the room” and “You may have another piece of cake.”
I have found one User who looks at the section titled “What the reference desk is not”, sees the sentence saying “Questions that ask for medical ... advice may be removed and replaced with a message ...”, and interprets this sentence as granting a permission, (an authorisation, encouragement etc.) and relies upon it for removing questions from the Ref desk without respecting the advice given at “Dealing with questions asking for medical advice” which is in another guidance document. That appears to be the root cause of this problem. Dolphin (t) 21:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing this sentence: "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message (such as RD-deleted) pointing to these guidelines" from WP:RD/G. However, I agree that the auxiliary verb "may" can denote permission or possibility. Therefore, I ...
  • Support rewriting the question. If our intention is to denote possibility, the sentence should be rewritten to something like this: "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice might be removed ...." If our intention is to denote permission, the sentence should be rewritten to something like this: "Editors may remove questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice and replace such questions with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Our intention is to denote possibility. Dolphin (t) 14:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Very few users here oppose boxing up or deleting blatantly obvious medical advice questions. For example, "I think I have cancer. What should I do?" And obviously the answer is, "See your doctor." The core issue is just what constitutes a medical advice question. Some want a narrower interpretation, some want a broader interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully, everyone wants the two Guideline documents to provide accurate, adequate information. At present, that isn’t the case. I see some evidence of Users thinking “the Guidelines don’t say what I want them to say so I will have to work around them.” Dolphin (t) 07:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs wrote: "The core issue is just what constitutes a medical advice question." I don't disagree, and clear, comprehensible prose is important throughout.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My position is exactly the same as Markworthen's: Oppose removing the sentence; Support amending it for clarity. Cheers. Basemetal 11:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Markworthen opposed removing the sentence from WP:RD/G. Instead he supported rewriting the sentence. Basemetal's position is the same as Mark's. Baseball Bugs appears to be of the same view. To implement Mark's suggestions I am proposing the changes shown in this diff. If you wish to comment, you can do so on this Talk page, or on User talk:Dolphin51/Sandbox. Dolphin (t) 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In order to harmonize "the RD community might agree to remove the question..." and "removal of a question from an RD is discouraged" you may wanna make it clearer that what is discouraged is unilateral removal by an editor without first seeking consensus from the RD, by notifying on this talk page that the offending question has been removed or is about to be removed and explaining the rationale for the removal. On the other hand I do favor summary removal of any answers to offending questions because then time may be of the essence.
Incidentally, you may also wanna include a link to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. For example questions such as: "Should I invest my life savings in Company X's stock?" or "My goldfish is behaving bizarrely these days; should I add some vinegar to his water?" or "I'd like to experiment with the fuel/air mixture on the carburetor of my vintage Cessna C 165; could that lead to any problem?" that do not fall under the specific medical and legal disclaimers do fall under the general disclaimer, and answering any such question at the RD is also to be strongly discouraged.
Basemetal 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Basemetal. I have tweaked my proposed version to make it clear that answers that constitute professional advice will be removed, but removal of questions is discouraged. Seriously inappropriate questions might be removed by the Reference desk community acting in accordance with WP:RD/G/M#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice - see my diff.
At this stage I'm not willing to fine-tune the guidelines to make it clearer that what is discouraged is "unilateral removal by an editor" whereas removal by the Reference desk community is not similarly discouraged. This sentiment is not found at WP:RD/G/M#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice which simply says "removal of questions is discouraged". I expect the Reference desk community will take account of the risk that exists while the question remains visible, and if the risk is not substantial they will resist the temptation to remove the question. My current objective is just to clarify one minor point in a manner consistent with the existing guidelines, not to incorporate new considerations that don't presently exist. There will be opportunities in the future for refining the guidelines, and incorporating new considerations. Dolphin (t) 13:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made the changes - see my diff. Dolphin (t) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone's heard from Medeis?[edit]

On May 4 2010 Medeis made his first ever edit to WP (at least as a registered user) and it's been exactly 2 months since he last made a WP edit. Checking his contributions there does seem to be some years ago a gap of about a month but generally speaking he's been pretty much addicted to this place since May 2010 and specifically to the RD since he discovered it about a year later. All this to say I am kind of worried, especially since this seems so abrupt, without any warning (the days before seemed pretty much business as usual), and since he had at times mentioned some serious health issues. Has anyone been in contact with him by email all these years? If you have, have you heard from him after March 4? Basemetal 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a mystery. I've had occasional emails with Medeis. The last one was February 23. As you note, the last Medeis edit was on March 4 - nothing significant, just routine edits. I've sent an email or two since then, with no response. Checking up on Medeis through other means could be difficult, as I don't think anyone has real-life information on Medeis, nor an email other than the one connected with the account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Same sort of thing happened with Epeefleche a few years ago. We had exchanged a few emails in the years prior to 2015 when he stopped editing, and my emails to him after 2015 have gone unanswered. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It happens. I used to enjoy chatting with User:Julia Rossi who was a positive presence on the ref desk. One day her contributions just stopped, with no indication that she was leaving the project or anything. I've often wondered what happened to her. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's amazing. The freaking rotational barn-stars keep turning long after the editor has ceased editing. It seems like a metaphor for something. Count Iblis might be right. Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a metaphor for the fact that it's hard to get a good night's sleep—otherwise why would there be so many mattress stores? Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's all hinting at the cyclical nature of generation and regeneration. Some people spend eight hours at work, eight hours sleeping and eight hours doing the other thing. Some people put in eight years for their business, hibernate for eight more and wake up to strange new worlds that keep them busy for another eight. Like my legal and medical qualifications, my police and astrological instinct has often and rightly enough been questioned at these desks (JackofOz told me I was an underachiever instead of a real-life Batman on my first day here), but nonetheless I'll predict a Medeis return for March 20, 2034. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, May 12, 2018 (UTC)
I resile from nothing. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
What was the exact quote and when was that? Face-smile.svg Basemetal 09:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
2012 sometime, something like "Typical overemulating underachiever" or "Classic underemulating overachiever". It was terse, however it went. Jack (or someone) also wanted the whole thing deleted as trolling, which may explain why I can't find it in the archives. I wasn't trolling, of course; just wanted to know how much a functional batsuit might cost, ballpark. Bit of an "odd" question, perhaps, but dead f**ging serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, May 24, 2018 (UTC)
"Risk-averse under-achiever.". The someone who hatted the question was not Jack, by the way, but someone else. (And the person who removed it entirely is vigorously robust and green, yet not fit to eat :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That was it! "Risk-averse". Worst thing anyone's ever called me online; made my pants rip but my shirt stay on. If I recall correctly, anyway, which I clearly don't (thanks, Sluzz!). My edit summary jogged my memory insofar as deleting myself goes, but I can't explain why Medeis disappeared (then or now). "Prickly Old World birdshit"? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, May 24, 2018 (UTC)
Well, now that my mind has been refreshed, I see that you were wanting to save the world but needed the Wikipedia Reference Desk's imprimatur to ensure you were doing it right. So tell us, how did your world-saving exercise go?  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Still turning, ain't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Stimulating debate about Medeis's gender[edit]

If an editor is rather consistent about some facet of their identity, and they're not disruptive about it, it rather goes against WP:AGF and even WP:OUTING to speculate to the contrary. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medeis is female. (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Really? How do you know? Medeis's edits've always sounded to me very much like they'd been written by a man. Basemetal 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the "smoking gun", although Medeis has not (to my knowledge) expressed a preference for any particular form of pronoun. Tevildo (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not altogether clear on Medeis' gender, which is why I just say "Medeis". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok. Thanks. Had no idea there was this clue. But my instinct tells me different. Medeis might have been joking and seemed to like riddles. Incidentally Μηδείς (signature) in (Ancient) Greek is masculine. The feminine would be Μηδὲ μία. I'll just do what Bugs does. I'll forgo the pronoun and say "Medeis". Basemetal 18:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Medeis is male. No woman writes like he does. He's just being mischievous. --Viennese Waltz 20:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Medeis has multiple times used female forms for herself, as noted above using "waitress". Your own personal opinions over who she should be based on how you think she writes is irrelevent. It is beyond rude and insulting to assign genders to people they don't themselves use. --Jayron32 12:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If it was any other editor we were talking about, I would agree with you. But Medeis is not like any other editor. He is prone to mischief-making and obfuscation, and likes nothing more than to sow the seeds of confusion in the minds of other editors who he believes to be lesser than himself. He is a troll who uses the ref desks for his own personal entertainment and should have been blocked years ago. Whenever he's used the female gender, it's not been a statement of gender identity. He's just doing it for the lolz. --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Right. When people make self-referencing statements about their own gender, it's trolling. Thank you for letting the world know the exact kind of person you are. It will allow us to be informed on how to understand the context of everything you say in the future. --Jayron32 14:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You're missing my entire point. I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about one person in particular, whose long history of trolling on the ref desks leaves me in no doubt as to his true intentions. You need to stop talking in general terms and start focusing on the known peculiarities of this one editor. --Viennese Waltz 14:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No one here knows Medeis' gender. And if Medeis' self-references as female are consistent, then it's the best evidence we have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the point is, you think you can identify a person's gender based on their "writing style", in contravention of the fact that every gendered self-reference they have ever made is 'female'. That is, you're willing to assume that your presumptions about how females write trumps their own self-expressed gender identity. THAT is the kind of person you are, and that you are willing to state that without reservation tells me that you are not worthy of listening to on this or any other matter. --Jayron32 14:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What we don't know isn't determined in the multiverse. With only a finite amount of information in our brains, we are a set of identical copies in the vast multiverse living on slightly different Earths where the exact state of other people can be radically different. If I know something about Medeis that no one else here knows, then that still doesn't fix that piece of information to you here, because there are then sectors of the multiverse where you have an exact copy where the facts about Medeis I'm aware of are different. So, I've then split away from my previously identical copy there while you remain the same until that time I disclose that piece of information to you. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There might even be branes where you may make sense. Not this one obviously, but the ones where you soak your head in a bucket of ice water. Basemetal 23:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I forked this to a separate subsection, as it obviously needs thorough investigation. It's really, really important that we establish Medeis's gender. ―Mandruss  23:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Count Iblis's edit (and my response Face-smile.svg) have anything to do with this important matter. In fact if someone can tell me what Count Iblis was talking about I'd be grateful (and amazed). As far as I'm concerned we can hat the discussion about Medeis's gender. It's unlikely to ever get more productive than it's already been, and we've been stimulated enough. We can hopefully go back to trying to find out what happened to our friend and fellow editor, even though unfortunately that too is very unlikely to yield any firm result. Basemetal 00:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record:
    • On 28 September 2011, Medeis wrote "Having been a waitress, I think I have a leg to stand on". (This is the smoking gun Tevildo referred to above)
    • Later, she denied that "waitress" implies any particular gender: see her comment at 6:15 on 11 October 2011 @ Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 87.
    • I cannot find the diffs now, but she has nevertheless made it very clear to me in later communications that she is a female.
    • I post this solely in order to stop this speculation. We should not be speculating - and I never have - but when an editor uses a term ("waitress") about themself, that is prima facie an invitation for the world to believe they are female. No amount of "I neither confirm nor deny"-type statements made later can alter this. Medeis is female, because she has told us she is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's please try to remember...[edit]

It's contrary to policy and proper courtesy to our fellow editors to speculate upon or attempt to research the offline circumstances of contributors. I know this is a difficult situation, and that the discussion here so far has been based in well-intentioned concern, but even a casual investigatory effort quickly takes us far too close to unintentional WP:DOXING--which is (for great cause) expressly forbidden by policy. Many of our editors have very compelling reasons for keeping a firewall between their editorial handles and their other public and private identities. I don't think there is harm in having asked about emails, but going much farther would almost certainly be a step too far in my opinion. I hope we hear from Medeis soon, but I think we need to respect their privacy until they or someone speaking for them from off-project can tell us what is up. Snow let's rap 07:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm sure Medeis would say the same thing about questions being raised about anyone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs says "It's a mystery" why Medeis no longer contributes here. He's lucky he didn't get a response when he emailed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"WP:DENY" should not be used on contributors currently in good standing[edit]

The "WP:DENY" thing is already a disease, but the example currently on the Humanities desk is even further off base than usual. Here User:WaltCip closed down a thread about the content of the Christianity article that was started by User:Sahansdal. I don't think it is appropriate to shut down a thread on that basis because the poster has a clean block record, and indeed, was not even given a complaint on his talk page.

To be clear, I don't deny that the thread sounds like an invitation for opinions and debate, which is against the infamous WP:Reference desk/Guidelines. It is also a discussion about article content, which belongs on some other kind of noticeboard about disputes or third opinions. It could, indeed should, be shut down, yes. But not without an edit summary, and above all, not with a reason that implies that the user is simply here to troll us rather than, for example, being a new user unfamiliar with the rules. That discussion may also be taken up at WP:AN or the like, but I don't mean to encourage or suggest that outcome. I mean to use this case as an example that WP:DENY is being overused, nothing more. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting it outright would have been better. Whether the user is generally a troll or not, it's not an appropriate entry for the ref desk - it's just spouting anti-religious propaganda. And by the way, tha "new user" has been here for over 10 years, and his very first entries were debating details about Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Wnt never claimed that Sahansdal was a new user. He was merely giving an example of what would be an appropriate reason to hat any thread, not this one in particular. --Viennese Waltz 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my decision. Deletion would have scrubbed this from the archive, which seemed a bridge too far considering that responses had already been made to the question. Regardless of that, the entry served no other purpose than to provoke and to grandstand.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:DENY says it is about "True vandals and trolls...", not grandstanding editors. I'm not saying the section shouldn't be hatted, just that a real editor deserves a real mention of actual policy rather than the implication that he's totally illegitimate as an editor. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
So, what policy would you cite in support of it being hatted? --Viennese Waltz 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The actual guidelines are clear as mud, as usual, but they say something about "not being a place to debate controversial subjects". There is some standard message I've seen people put up that the refdesk can't answer requests for opinions, debate, and open-ended conversation or something, but that isn't in those guidelines. I mean, my own notion for a criterion would be much simpler -- if something's not given as a question we can answer (or try), there's nothing we can do here. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Even editors with long editing histories are capable of trolling. --Jayron32 11:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Geez, ya'll. I was just asking a question. Sorry if I have the wrong site. Maybe someone could redirect for further discussion? Wiki is a maze for the novice. Sahansdal (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You started 10 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
During which he made a grand total of 222 edits. It's clear that his perspective hasn't really meshed with the usual focus here, but this is as much our fault as theirs. And (as I said above) my focus isn't so much to defend him as to reject using "WP:DENY" as a rationale, because in this case the snide essay calling him a troll does absolutely nothing to get across the point of what the refdesk is or isn't for. There are a lot of people like this who we can either teach to work with us or drive away as we choose -- unfortunately, most editors choose to drive them away and "mark their territory". Wnt (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you do something then? I don't mean start a pointless thread here. I mean visit the editor's talk page and help them. Heck while it's often frowned upon to unhat threads, in this instance if you are willing to provide a useful answer to it, I'm fine with it. While meta and conduct discussions including ones about how to better improve the way we handle stuff are sometimes useful this one seems particularly useless to me coming as it is on the RD and with someone who's willingness or ability to ever make useful contribs to the encylopaedia proper is highly in doubt. We are all volunteers here and if all of us feel that trying to help that editor is a useless waste of our time that's our choice. Chiding us on how evil we are because we don't want to waste our time isn't likely to change our minds. (Especially since plenty of us do spend a lot of time helping people with questionable backgrounds both here and in other parts of the encyclopaedia. E.g. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has tried to help someone who they strongly suspected was a sock or troll at ANI or elsewhere and later been shown to have unfortunately been right. And then there are all those editors who don't seem to be learning much e.g. SSS.) If you're so sure that there is a better way, why don't you prove it? Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)