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.

Light current

All's I've been trying to do is enforce the rule that banned users cannot edit, and about all it's bought me is tsuris. It seems like very few here care about that rule, so maybe it's time to throw in the towel. I'd like to see a list of registered ref desk regulars who want to keep the LC ban in place, those who would like to see it lifted, and those who don't care either way:

Lift ban

Retain ban

Neutral

1. The user was banned before I ever heard of either that user or the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Revert, block, ignore. It's pretty simple. Threads like this just feed the troll. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   That approach doesn't work. I revert him, I get yelled at for it and the troll-feeders put the questions back. I'm getting tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the banned-user rules. So why even bother? They want him to edit. So let him edit already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and seen many editors get frustrated with the project over things like this. Making a big song and dance about how you've given up and vandals should edit freely isn't helpful. Take a break for a while, come back refreshed. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

   I haven't actually given up. I just want the Wnt's of this crowd to put up or shut up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On what are people basing their conclusions that certain IPs are LightCurrent? They seem to jump to that conclusions based on one or two edits that could have been made by anyone. The IP addresses are from a large ISP, so you can't tell from that. I haven't been able to notice any particularly conclusive patterns in the types of questions asked or the writing style. What clues am I missing? --Tango (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the types of questions LC always asks: about the intestines, and about screwing dogs. So, do you want to lift the ban, or leave it in place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a far broader range of questions declared as being from LC than that. So far, I'm not convinced that these questions are all from LC, so I don't consider LC's ban relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are the ones that come to mind. If you think it's appropriate to leave obviously trolling questions standing, then I don't what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't ask what to do with obvious trolling questions (the answer to that is: revert, block, ignore - the difficulty is that what's an obvious troll to one person is merely a misguided or ill-informed good faith OP to another); you asked what to do with LC's ban. That's a completely different question and not one that I'm convinced is relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

RBI DOES NOT WORK WITH LC. How many times do I have to tell you that??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence that this *is* LC. As far I know, LC stopped editing years ago. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You may not be keeping up-to-date then, scroll to the bottom. Lots of other stuff gets quietly vanished, as it's just routine admin work. I tend to think of these ongoing issues as "Lc-related cloud of disruption" so as not to conclude that it really is that exact person. It's always the same thing, it comes and goes like the tide. That's separate from Bugs' particular issue though, where my advice is generally if it's bothering you, then stop doing it. If you were right, someone else is going to notice. Franamax (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I can't speak for anyone else, but my impression is that people aren't on you so much for reverting banned trolls, but for the zealousness and belligerence which you bring to it. I get the impression that you're deeply invested emotionally in this, and any disagreement or questioning is seen as a personal insult and attack, which causes you to "double down" on the subject. For example, take this thread. I have a hard time believing you're seriously fronting the proposal to de-ban LC, and from your comments it looks as if you're setting up a strawman - either Wnt et al. come out in favor of the ban, in which case you can claim to be vindicated and can tell him to shut up, or he comes out against the ban, in which case you can publicly ridicule him and tell him to shut up. It's perfectly understandable as an action of someone seeking validation, but it is not a course of action that's going to minimize LC-associated drama/disruption.

You tend to take a very black and white, either/or approach to this, and my impression is that you don't give much time for considering the possible merits of viewpoints which differ from you. That's where I see these conversations continually going around in circles: someone makes a point, someone raises a counterpoint, counterpoint is ignored and original point is repeated more forcefully, counterpoint is rephrased in an increasingly exasperated tone in hopes that it'll be understood, point is reiterated now with subtext that the person raising counterpoint is an idiot for disagreeing .... Eventually the conversation dies out without any conclusion, only to be reopened again next time because nothing really has changed. Cynically, I'd say that consensus process on the RefDesk is not so much "a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised", but more "whatever, just shut up already" (or as recently put, "Just... let it go."). All this because we're consistently talking past one another, and trying to beat down the opposition, rather than talking to one another and figuring out why we (seem to) disagree, and if there's some course of action which can address all of our concerns.

By the way, I should make clear that I completely support removal of inappropriate posts on masturbating dogs, etc. and fully support removal of any and all posts by banned users (while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users"). I'll also point out that I'm not a "drive-by" in the sense that I've been posting both questions and answers (more answers than questions), and participating on the talk page here on the RefDesk for many years (I check these pages more frequently than is probably healthy). I've just done so via different ISP on dynamic IPs, rather than with an account. One of the things I originally liked about Wikipedia was the implication that the content of what people post is more important than who they are - that posts should be judged for their content, rather the poster's standing in the community. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I have reverted a small number of edits from IP addresses that have been authoritatively linked to LC. My justification for doing so is the following postings by User:TenOfAllTrades. TenOfAllTrades has done a lot of good detective work to uncover the fact that LC now operates as a troll using IP addresses in the series 88.104.xx.yy. TenOfAllTrades has established that all postings from 88.104.xx.yy have been from LC. TenOfAllTrades has asked all Wikipedia Users to delete (on sight!) any posting to a Reference Desk from IP 88.104.xx.yy. See HERE 1 and HERE 2. Dolphin (t) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Dolphin, I'm not trying to pick a fight here (I'm actually trying to get to a point where we can defuse these things once and for all, however misguided that might be), but this is sort of what I was talking about when I made my comments about "talking past one another". Your post is indented as if it's a reply to my post, but I don't see where it addresses or touches on any of the points which I brought up. It completely ignores the main thrust of my argument, and the bulk of the rest of it. The only point I made which I think might be related, and what I presume is the impetus for your post, is the "(while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users")" bit. Which you don't really address or acknowledge directly, instead you just make the point, effectively, that the guideline you used for determining "posts by banned users" is "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users", where X=TenOfAllTrades (or that's how I read it in context). So not only have you effectively ignored the main point I was making, but you've sort of sidetracked the discussion by bringing up a highly charged ancillary point (I've seen the rabbit hole that discussions of ToAT's directive leads down, and previous such discussion have informed the GP post), and have done so in such a manner where you haven't even really acknowledged the opposing viewpoint as presented (whether or not we believe that ToAT's guideline is a useful heuristic to follow, that doesn't mean that we're agreeing that "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users" are identical). To reiterate my original point, to get anywhere with these conversations, you can't just shout talking points at each other until the other side throws up its hands in frustration, you have to at least acknowledge you read and understood what the other person wrote, even if you disagree with it from the bottom of your soul. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@174.31.219.218: No offence taken. My posting was intended to provide information relevant to the initial posting by Baseball Bugs, and to the general theme of the thread as it has evolved so far. My posting was not a reply to you, or a response to your comments. Often when we make postings that are directed at a particular editor we preface our postings with the @ symbol and the User's name or IP address, as I have done here. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you all want to continue allowing LC's socks to edit, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, this is what I'm talking about when I said you tend to take an either/or approach to things. Just because people think you're being overzealous doesn't mean that people aren't in favor of removing troll posts. To blow an analogy to extremes, people can be opposed to death squads roaming the streets looking for terrorists without being in favor of another 9/11. Likewise, in a much, much, ..., much less extreme case, just because people don't agree with the tactics and attitude you've taken doesn't mean they're pro-Light Current. There is at least a possibility for a solution which addresses everyone's concerns, a solution where LC's posts are removed, but where we can assume good faith about IP edits and not have a week long argument every time someone asks a question about the colon. But we'd need to discuss it instead of getting offended that people disagree. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on an admin's off-wiki advice, I'm done defending the ref desk against LC. He's all yours. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed another deleted question today. My question is this, are the questions themselves objectionable? or are we removing material just because? I can understand RBI policy with regards to article content or trolling comments, but some of these questions appear to have people trying to answer them seriously. I have to ask, what's the big deal with answering a question, if it's not trolling. I am in favor of removing troll posts but legitimate questions just because someone feels they ought to be? that way lies madness. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason has been explained extensively on this very version of the talk page. Please read through the proceedings and if you still have questions, feel free to ask them. You may find the last archive or two informative as well, or is you are really curious, read the archives for the past 3 years or so. The answer is there over and over. Franamax (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Still broken

For me, the Reference Desk pages are still semi-permanently broken, usually apearing in a version hours or days old, and sometimes incorrectly displayed as read-only. This problem has been ongoing for many weeks. It may be that the logged-on users do not see it, so regulars here are not aware of it. Unless it is just some weird local quirk that only I see, it really does need looking at guys. I have reported it before, but I have never seen any indication that anyone in a position to actually fix it either knows or cares... 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens to me as a logged-in user too that the RD pages sometimes (not usually) appear in a version hours or days old. For me, hitting Refresh usually fixes it. Pais (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Displaying old pages is probably just an issue of your browser caching old pages. Read-only happens when the database gets backed up and the system needs a few minutes to catch up. That's been happening a lot lately, given the recent news (Obama's birth certificate, William & Kate, bin Laden's death), so it's not really an error as such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a local caching issue. Page refresh makes no difference. 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's a problem with Wikipedia, I've tested on a completely clear browser cache and experience the same thing as the OP. Many others have see it too, some of the recent discussions on it are here here and here. Purging Wikipedias server cache usually fixes it. Perhaps someone should start a thread at WP:Village Pump 82.43.89.63 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PS from OP: Sorry, I should clarify that I don't actually know that the constant stale page problem is specifically an issue with the RD. It could be that I only notice it here because the pages are so obviously time-sensitive. If I went to article X I'd probably never know... 86.184.110.34 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Village pump wouldn't be able to help much. Hit up WP:BUG for how to file a bug report, the developers might be able to do something. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible you've gotten into the transcluded archive section? I just logged off temporarily and to me, things look as they should. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This happens to me as well, as of the last couple of weeks. I get a version that is not the most recent. It did not use to be that way, and has started to occur both on Windows/Firefox and iOs/Safari at the same time. In Firefox holding Shift and clicking Refresh always fixes it. I was sort of waiting for it to return to the good old way by itself... Jørgen (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Never happened to me, and I visit the ref desks on an almost daily basis. I'm on Firefox, btw. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It happens to me all the time. Refreshing the page with control-F5 seems to get the latest version. Clearing browser cache doesn't do it. I'm guessing Ctrl-F5 may send different stuff to the server (cache control headers or whatever), but I haven't bothered wiresharking it so I don't know. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the browser, but I believe both Firefox and IE simply refresh the cache with F5, while Ctrl-F5 forces it to reload the page from the server. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the last several weeks, I have needed to clear the cache (Firefox, shift-ctrl-R) to get the most recent version. This is a new issue (I've visited the refdesks regularly for the last five years). I use both Windows and Ubuntu, from three different locations, all in Oslo or Bærum, Norway. I have not experienced problems with the edit-link disappearing (whether I'm logged in or not). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's ten days later, but I also regularly see stale (very stale) content on the Reference Desk pages while I am not logged in. Shift-Refresh in Firefox fixes it. I do not see the problem when I am logged in. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the problem still happens regularly for me too. As often as not I get a page many hours old, or a day old, or several days old. However, for me, browser refresh usually doesn't fix it. I can only get the latest page with the "action=purge" thing or by going to the edit history page and clicking on the top entry. Is there any chance an established editor here might be so kind as to file a bug report about this? It is a bad and annoying problem that has been ongoing for months now, and that someone surely should be looking at with some degree of urgency. 86.181.168.97 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, bug 10173 says, "When you edit a page, the server send a message to the squids asking them to discard their copy. Seems it's not being done for pages redirected to it." This issue — or at least the one I have personally seen — may well be this because I always use abbreviations when typing in the RD URLs. The bug has 1 vote; if you want it fixed, adding your vote may make a difference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know, I think you may possibly be a genius. I also usually type in the abbreviations. I just went to "WP:rd/l" and "WP:rd/s" and, as usual, they were out of date, this time by about half a day. Then I clicked on the "Project page" tab that links to the "real" pages rather than the redirects, and, hey presto, I got the up-to-date pages. If anyone else who gets this problem is still following this, does this work for you too? 81.159.104.139 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't use the shortcuts and I still get the problem 82.43.89.63 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current's ISP and IPs

There's been some doubt expressed here recently as to whether the recent problematic edits here that show up on geolocate as coming from Liverpool via Opal Telecom DSL are actually the banned user Light current. I, too, didn't recognize those edits as being LC at first, because I'm familiar with LC as having an ISP of Tiscali UK, and an IP within the ranges 79.75.*, 79.67.*, or more recently 88.104.* or 88.105.*[1]. In contrast, the recent edits not only show up in different IP ranges, but show up as having an ISP of Opal Telecom DSL, so at first glance it looks like a completely different user.

But what I have just found out, that some other editors here might not have noticed, is that in July of 2009, Tiscali UK was acquired by TalkTalk (see TalkTalk#History), which also (in 2002) acquired Opal Telecom. So Tiscali UK and Opal Telecom are actually the same ISP; they're both at this point just different brand names of TalkTalk.

I also until recently didn't recognize Liverpool as having anything to do with LC, because doing a geolocate on one of LC's old IP addresses doesn't show anything for the city. But geolocate on one of LC's old IPs[2] does give a latitude and longitude, which if you look on a map is on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is an island with a population of about 80,000, that's about an 80 mile ferry ride from Liverpool. Liverpool is the closest city to the Isle of Man on England's mainland with a population of more than 150,000. So the older LC edits and the Liverpool edits geolocate to the same basic area.

Perhaps the strongest link connecting the new ISP name / city name / IP ranges with LC's historical ISP name and IP ranges is that the string of questions about sexually pleasuring your dog started out coming from LC's previous ISP name and IP ranges on January 11,[3] and continued on coming from the new ISP name and city name starting on January 13.[4]

I did a search through the histories of the Science, Miscellaneous, Humanities and talk pages, and there have been no edits from LC's historical IP ranges to those pages since January. And although I searched less extensively, it looks like the edits from Liverpool didn't start until January. So there apparently was a complete switchover from LC's historical IP ranges to the current Liverpool via Opal Telecom stuff in January.

LC's IP unfortunately appears to draw from a somewhat larger pool now than before. In addition to IPs from the ranges 78.150.*, 89.243.*, 92.25.* and 92.29.* as pointed out in the "A few of them" section above, there's also at least 78.148.* and 92.28.* (see 78.148.137.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 92.28.43.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

While looking into this, I also noticed that it's not uncommon to get perfectly legitimate questions here from the 92.29.* range,[5][6] so range blocking that range, at least, should presumably be avoided. But the good edits in that range at least don't show up as coming from Liverpool, so at least it's possible to distinguish LC manually that way.

Perhaps the most certain way of identifying LC might be by doing a traceroute. For the moment at least, if you do a traceroute on any of LC's new IPs, the last router on the list is always 62.24.255.78 . Using that criteria would limit any false positives to TalkTalk's DSL customers that connect to the same router that LC connects to, which I'm guessing is a smaller group of people than TalkTalk's DSL customers that geolocate to Liverpool.

Yes, I know I'm doing a really horrible job of WP:DENY and the "ignore" part of WP:RBI with this post. But I'm hoping that this post may help make the reverting of this banned user proceed a little more smoothly here. Red Act (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that it would have been better to talk about this off-wiki, but he knows what he's up to in any case. The Isle of Man, eh? Interesting. Is there any way to block the router's IP for a short time and see if it has any effect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for all this good detective work. It's what we needed, and is a bit beyond my technical know-how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the Traceroute is an interesting thing, while I've never bothered much with LC, I have tracked other users before but a Traceroute isn't something I've used. Now that you mention it it occurs to me it may be useful as you will often get something similar. Incidentally re: the recent Nazi/Arab/etc posts it's worth remembering LC does watch the talk page so may have been influenced to start posting along those lines by the recent discussion I initiated. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

62.24.255.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are, of course, no actual contribs from this IP, so this is just FYI. So, could that IP be blocked for awhile, or is there too much risk of collateral damage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a block would have no effect; an intermediate address like that is not normally visible to the MediaWiki software. (Blocks act only on the actual address you post from.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a place for this kind of discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. This isn't the place to evaluate evidence and ask for blocks. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your demonstrated willingness and eagerness to feed trolls renders your opinion on this matter irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This baby-talk is a plague on Wikipedia. Sock puppets, feeding trolls... any kind of crazy talk to keep people from thinking in straight lines. If a question is answerable, it's not an abuse - and if it's not answerable, it's not a temptation! Wnt (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, I appreciate your willingness to answer all questions and AGF, but really, the thinking is in decently straight lines here:

• Banned users are not allowed to edit, period.
• This is Wikipedia policy and (I believe) strong RD consensus.
• Being not allowed to edit means not being allowed to post questions, even "reasonable", answerable ones.
• Being not allowed to edit means one's posts get summarily removed, even if they're questions, and even if that sometimes means removing well-intentioned answers, too.

I doubt you'll find much interest in reopening any of these points for debate. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet in the process this page has been turned into a second ANI, and 1/16384 of the entire IP namespace is deemed to be a single user, if they ask questions at the Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can either help or you can get out of the way. At present, you're doing neither. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that I've come close to saying the same to you on some occasions. I think we have entirely divergent purposes here. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's a suggestion on how you can help: SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Don't ever again discuss the subject of trolls here. Then you'll be helping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please do not operate this way. Have strongly held viewpoints, by all means. But please never tell fellow editors their opinions are irrelevant, merely because they happen to diverge from yours. Telling other editors to shut up is completely unacceptable. You have been the self-appointed Trollfinder-General for ages now, but that doesn't give you any of the special rights you seem to think it does. What's the point of having a Glorious Quest against the disruption caused by trolls and their ilk, if you're going to act in an uncivilised manner yourself? That's just swapping one evil for another. The Taliban are similarly misguided. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What Jack said. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll support JackofOz's first 4 sentences entirely, then it tails off into a bit of a rant. How did the Taliban get involved here, is Bugs against flying kites and playing chess? As far as "self-appointed" anything, umm, I forget when anyone ever appointed me to do anything here, we are all self-appointed to whatever we choose to do. And I haven't seen Bugs claiming any special rights at all, though I've seen him get both plaintive and defensive at times when others disagree with his viewpoint. I've got a long list of places where I've completely disagreed with Bug's judgement, on the Desks and on other en:wiki pages, but I'm pretty comfortable with his spotting record on this particular area of disruption (though it's not perfect). But yes, I would be much more comfortable if Bugs would pull back a bit on the "you're either with us or you're with the <xxx>" attitude. Franamax (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I got a bit rantesque there. I wasn't suggesting that identifying trolls and dealing with them is not a good thing, and of course I support Bugs's and anybody else's work in that regard. If he wants to spend a large amount of his time on that activity, good luck to him. But his extreme language here, and his shouting in the thread below, which he knows as well as anyone is not OK behaviour, needed to be brought back a notch or ten. I was trying to find a good analogy for doing bad things in the name of righteousness, simply to suggest that no amount of righteousness can make a bad thing a good thing. I thought of Torquemada, but the Taliban are more topical.

And now here I've gone and broken my own rule: Give trolls no air at all, by being completely indifferent to them. Which is why I generally prefer not to get involved in these discussions. But sometimes, something needs to be said. I'll go and crawl back into my cave now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

)I think you were right to call Bugs out on the language and shouting they've been using here and elsewhere. It's certainly a tempting target for trolls of any stripe if someone can be wound up that easily. There is no Inquisition here though, this is a well-defined years-long pattern of behaviour. Enable the .js thing on Special:Contribs that let's you scan an IP range and take it for a spin on some of the CIDR ranges mentioned lately. Draw your own conclusions. Franamax (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At ANI they've concluded there would be too much potential collateral damage to do a range block. So we'll just have to swat the fleas as they arise from that mangy Manx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Liverpool-via-Opal-Telecom IP has signed his initials to a post, confirming that he is indeed LC.[7] Red Act (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kci357

Kj650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kci357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wdk789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see User:Wdk789 was blocked, one of the many incarnations of Kj650 and whatever they've gone with before. If we're starting to get serious about blocking them they're back as Kci357. While not an RD issue, I see from their latest talk page they're still causing problems in the encylopaedia proper so perhaps a good reason to enforce the block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is time to expose Kj650's latest sock. I initiated the investigation in Feb; Jayron32 initiated it in April. See HERE. Feel free to initiate a new one. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Discussed here as well, a couple of weeks ago when the pattern was not as well-established. -- Scray (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

I propose the following compromise to deal with questions from banned users.

1. Remove anything that the banned user says, which is not part of the question (e.g. "I don't want to hear any bull about...", "It is well known that..."). If there is no discernable question at all, then the whole thing can be deleted.

2. Reformulate the question to be more encyclopedic where possible - correct misspellings, remove gratuitous assumptions. Thus, "Why are ____s so stupid?" becomes "Are there any measurable differences in intelligence between ____s and other races?"

3. Preface the question with a simple header saying that the question appears to have been made by a banned user and has been refactored; it should cite the diff. This could be done easily with a simple template that takes the diff as a parameter. The header should not say that the questioner is definitely banned, since if it were clearly so, he couldn't post. You're typically assuming an IP is banned because it is shared with or near to that used by a banned user, but it could just be a school, for example, where any of dozens of people are asking sometimes juvenile questions.

4. Preserve any answers previously made as they were, and add answers normally afterward.

Now some may ask, why preserve a question from a banned user? Well, if it is a question, it has value; this is the Refdesk after all. The Refdesk should answer even juvenile questions, and especially provocative questions, since these have the most social relevance and are most in need of reasoned attention. WP:IAR says that if something benefits the encyclopedia then the rules don't prohibit it. There's also no policy against removing answers, which have been made by people not banned. Policy clearly allows any of us to ask the same question previously asked by a banned user, whether by coincidence or not. But by removing/reformulating the question we have still denied the banned user his limelight. I think this could deal appropriately with concerns by all sides. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

NO. NO, NO, NO. BANNED USERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. The alleged quality of their edits IS IRRELEVANT. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. IAR DOES NOT APPLY. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I'm not sure I agree with Wnt, but why doesn't IAR apply? People shouting that rules should be followed no matter what is exactly why we have the IAR policy in the first place. Staecker (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then UN-BAN HIM and let him edit freely. Because if you allow a banned user to edit anytime, then you have effectively de facto unbanned him. So just make it official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true at all, and doesn't hold up to logical examination. It's an argument that I'd expect from an angry ten year old, and I can't help but imagine you stomping your feet,shouting at the top of your lungs. I'm not saying that I agree with WNT, but any rational person can see the difference between allowing someone to ask a reference question of people who have volunteered to answer questions to all comers, and allowing someone to edit a collaborative project. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Whether or not either of those two things is a good idea is another question. But anyone who claims that they are the same or equivalent is not arguing from a position of logic. APL (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

OK, Wnt and other enablers of the LC troll, you got your wish: I have taken this question to WP:ANI. Go there and make your case, as to whether banned means banned, or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, before racing off there, you might have given the argument more than 52 minutes here to run its course!

(And are you sure that there are enablers plural?) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently Bugs has seemed paranoid that regulars here are out to get him. Presumably he thinks he'll find a more friendly audience there, and strategically he must ask their opinion before we all align against him and form a consensus that weakens his position. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wnt, I disagree on almost all counts. I disagree that a provocative question from a known troll, "even a juvenile one", has any (positive) value. I disagree that such questions should be preserved; I especially disagree that they should be "reformulated". I disagree that doing any of this would benefit the encyclopedia. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is harmful to the encyclopedia to confuse banned users by giving them the impression that they are allowed to edit the encyclopedia. It's important to be clear, so that banned users understand what it means to say that they are 'banned.' The encyclopedia can bear the loss of a few questions better than it can bear banned users who don't understand that they are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. We have plenty of interesting questions from non-banned people to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Steve, the rewriting part especially is a bad idea as it's not our job to reword the question to what we wish had been asked. But the whole approach to taking questions is wrong too in what Wnt is saying, the desks are not the place to invent questions just for the purpose of answering them We want questions from people who are genuinely interested in the answer, no matter the quality of the question. Those we can handle with the usual range of responses. We don't need made-up questions to either "stump the Desk" or get editors arguing about whether or not it was a legitimate question, nor do we need to rewrite questions to have more interesting answers. We just need to answer questions from the actual curious public. Franamax (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain why. Making blanket statements about the topic under debate and ending them with "Period." does not help. In fact it makes things worse. APL (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The key issue is what purpose is the RefDesk serving. If it was the same as the stated purpose of WikiAnswers, that is, to accumulate a database of questions and answers, then I would be prone to agreeing with you - an answerable question is an answerable question, regardless of where it comes from. However, Wikipedia's RefDesk isn't about accumulating question/answer pairs, it's about providing references to those who have questions. The goal isn't to answer questions in an of itself, it's to assist people - and not some hypothetical person in the future, but the person who's asking the question now. So when it's blatantly clear that the original questioner isn't interested in the answers to the question they posed, there's no point in keeping the question around, even in revised form. There's no one there to assist, and the question no longer fits the purview of the RefDesk. - That said, if a banned user asks a question that you *genuinely* want to know the answer to, or that prompts you to have a related question, I believe it should be permissible to (re)ask it in a new section. Topics shouldn't become tainted solely because they're touched by a troll. But when reasked, you are then the person we are assisting, and the answers are for your benefit. Reopening questions for the benefit of some nebulous third party is really out of the scope of the RefDesk. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I really had thought that composing such a database was the point, or at least a point, of the Refdesk, just as it is the point at Ask A Scientist, for example. I realize no one has gone through the effort to make an organized index of all the past questions, but I've assumed that this was purely a matter of laziness. If we aren't aiming someday to generate a useful public domain database of questions, then this whole project seems unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. But it is my belief that, with a bit of advance in natural language software processing, that in a few years people coming to Wikipedia will be able to just type in a question to the search box, and get not only a Refdesk answer but recommendations on the most relevant articles to look up.

Because I see it this way, I see the "troll" questions as being more likely to be looked up by such future questioners than the serious questions.

But I should also repeat that I would assume many of these "trolls" are children. We should not view them as some faceless evil; anything we say to them might help them find enlightenment. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

LC isn't old, but he is a man

He lives in the banned, in the Isle of Man

The ref desks were created several years ago as a spinoff from the help desk, when users started asking questions about wikipedia facts, as opposed to how to use wikipedia. The archives can be searched, which is how it is sometimes pointed out to a questioner that a question has already been addressed. Whether there's ever been any discussion of trying to make a formal database, I don't know. But I could argue that we already have that database. It's called Wikipedia! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Many of the questions (like why a computer program isn't working, what error was made in a math problem, or which translation of a Latin phrase is most accurate) are not things which would ever appear in our articles. In this sense, Wikipedia contains the theory, and the Ref Desk is the application of that theory. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The other day I composed and posted what I thought was a wise and hopefully educational response to a "Why are ____s so stupid?" question. It did not answer the question, but addressed the inherent problems with such questions. I had hope that the OP might learn from my response. Sadly, within minutes of posting, the fact was posted that the OP was a banned user, and the conversation was hatted, so my wisdom disappeared from sight. I can understand the view that banned users should just stay banned, but I also have these great hopes for the human race that even ignorant bigots can sometimes be educated out of such a condition. If it's possible to turn around such editors, it would be to the benefit of all of us. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor doesn't care about your answer, they never did. They are trying to create all this noise on this talk page. That is the nature of their trolling. They start off with seemingly reasonable questions, then start ramping down, usually pretty quickly. People answer in good faith, then they start warping it. At some point it has to be stopped, otherwise we will end up patiently explaining why Uranus doesn't look brown, over and over again. It's too bad you got caught on the wrong side of the line, but a line always has to be drawn. For this particular editor, the line is at zero. I'm sorry your work went to waste - but they never cared anyway. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, I STILL have hopes for the human race. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The human race is worthy of your hopes. Light Current qualifies for neither... --Jayron32 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case he should be banned simply because he's an alien. I'm sure there's a Wiki-policy somewhere that says "Non-human sentient creatures are not permitted to participate in Wikipedia". Seems a bit discriminatory, but best to be safe than sorry until we can learn more about them. If properly invoked, that would probably weed out quite a few other editors, too. Now, how to identify the little green buggers ... ? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He needn't be a space alien. Being a troll is good enough to be considered a distinct species. --Jayron32 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is all in good fun, yet... maybe this really does underlie the general nastiness of the Internet, and which people have complained about at Wikipedia. We dehumanize the people we talk to, reduce them to "trolls" in this extreme, but more generally, to templates like Democrats and deletionists. I suppose this is only the continuation of a trend that I remember reading that some Native Americans complained about where writing was concerned. But we should make sure we never really forget that the troll has a boyish face. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Right on, Wnt. We call someone who's killed someone else a "murderer", but they're still a human being. We punish their behaviour. They themselves - that's something separate. Which is why I compleltely disagree with Jayron's statement above, while noting the humour with which (I hope) he intended it to be received. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I intended it to be drole. If it was not received as such, I apologize. If you thought I was serious, I retract my statement. If you thought I was merely making a joke (even in bad taste) I stand by it. --Jayron32 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal is a really bad idea, and I agree with the clear majority here, as well as with the policy. If a question from a banned user has already been answered, then the matter can sometimes turn into a more delicate situation that requires a bit of thoughtful judgment. But if the question hasn't been answered yet, then the question should just be deleted on sight, period, with no need to give any consideration at all to the content of the question, and no requirement to take any other action. The direction we need to head in is toward making getting rid of anything that comes from the banned editor as efficient as possible. We do not need a new roadblock getting in the way of doing that. Red Act (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) We should avoid deleting questions from people who may not be banned. A vague feeling that it might be a banned user isn't enough.

2) Answers aren't just for the benefit of the OP; other people read them too, and may also benefit. Therefore, we shouldn't delete or hide good faith answers, even if they are responses to bad questions.

3) The online database of Ref Desk answers is an interesting thought, but probably only 10% are the type of thing that other posters will ask again. Thus, a FAQ section might be a good approach.

4) I like the idea of refactoring the Q, but it should be done in addition to the original post, not in place of it, in case your interpretation is wrong. I often say something like "I think you meant to ask ..., in which case the answer is ...". Sometimes there are multiple interpretations possible, so I list them all. Then there's cases where I have no idea what they are asking, so I ask follow-up Q's. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that questions by banned users should be removed on sight. Enabling trolls by refactoring their questions serves no useful purpose, quite the contrary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not confident that banned user questions should, in general, be allowed. And I am strongly against half-way measures that mangle a person's question, but still leave it to be answered. Besides being deceptive or confusing to later editors it's counter-productive. Either we believe that the person is wasting our time or not. It doesn't make sense that someone is intentionally wasting our time with three out of his four sentences, but that the remainder is worthy of our serious consideration. However, I would support a judgment call on particular questions if there seems like a legitimate scholarly or intellectual curiosity and desire for a reference. (After all, in that case answering the question would still perform the RefDesks' function at no harm to the rest of the encyclopedia. ) I also support answering, as normal, questions that are on "touchy" subjects but not from known trolls. Many people are curious about, for example, female genitalia, but are not intentionally wasting our time. APL (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have considered that subject worthy of in-depth study, and have made it our lifes work. I am still working on studies of my own, and always appreciate the opportunity to run new experiments. </creepy> --Jayron32 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. Banned users are banned users. Re-writing their questions makes huge assumptions on our part. I have no problem with answering questions on difficult subjects from people who want answers. But feeding trolls is a fruitless exercise. We have enough questioners to sustain us without inventing new ways to let trolls post questions. Invoking IAR generally means one has hit a brick wall in terms of argument; IAR is meant to be invoked when the rules are hampering the project as a whole. I see zero evidence that erasing trollish questions are hampering the project. Frankly, Wnt, it seems that you are really alone on this, for reasons that I think ought to be clear. If you want to answer their questions, set up a blog or something. But don't waste time on the RD trying to come up with ways to let banned users participate — there's a reason they've been banned. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point has been made: A banned user is a banned user. I also see that Wnt's purposeful refusal to accept that anyone could be banned (actually banned, not sort of banned) is pushing BB to an extreme. It is apparent that Wnt is making these proposals and arguments with the sole purpose of trying to get BB to make extremist comments. Then, Wnt can use those comments to discredit the entire concept of banned users. I'm not falling for it. We all know that BB is emotional and his little fits don't matter when it comes to banned users. They are banned. They do not want to be un-banned. They want to do nothing more than score points by getting posts to stick. If you don't understand the game, check out sites like uncyclopedia or encyclopediadramatica where they post their exploits to keep tabs on who is currently winning the troll game (yes, LC recently beat out Avril) -- kainaw™ 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree a banned user is a banned user and their edits must be removed on sight, I would like to see a little more evidence of analysis than "he asked about dogs testicles and therefore he must be a LC sock". Astronaut (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring that the IP address is checked also. If it resolves to LC's location, then it is considered an LC sock. -- kainaw™ 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with WNT that "punishing" trolls or "not letting them get satisfaction" has clearly become a major goal in the minds of some people, when in most cases it really doesn't matter in the slightest. This isn't fourth grade.

But I am opposed to his proposed compromise because it seems like it's a worst-of-both-worlds situation. It still creates an entertaining (for them) contest between trolls and troll enforcers, AND it still involves spending time answering a question that is probably a waste of effort. On top of that it involves editing other people's posts for content, which is widely agreed to be a bad idea on the Ref Desks. APL (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly trolling question?

On the off-chance that it was sincere, I've just provided a brief answer to the recent question WP:Reference Desk/Humanities#muslim_sex_in_india. If, however, more experienced Wikipedians deem the query to have been trolling and delete it, I will not demur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.11 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, so far. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:49.2.4.186

49.2.4.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't want to start a big discussion nor am I recommending removing the long thread on Americans being illiterate but as a word of warning for those who haven't noticed [8] [9] [10] followed by [11] were the first few contribs of this IP Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

[trolling removed]

[I have removed my troll-feeding as well. If anybody rejects, restore it. I apologize for feeding the troll as well. Falconus^{p t c} 16:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)]

[more trolling and troll-feeding removed]

I've blocked 49.2.4.186 for 24 hours for trolling this page, and apologize for previously making matters worse by feeding him myself. —Angr (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think people should get so worked up about "trolling". Don't worry if someone is "putting one over on you" - this place is for exchange of information, not playing dominance games. Off-the-wall comments like that just give us something to talk about - at least they're more interesting than the WP:policy blather that fills up so many talk archives. Like it or not - and I agree, not - there are whole countries where people look up to Osama bin Laden like a hero. Talking to those people in a neutral forum - while demanding reliable sources for background - is bound to turn up interesting sociological information. Wnt (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Osama bin Laden the terrorist or Osama bin Laden the president of the USA? Anyway back to the point. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to post this here. I had thought that by keeping it brief and without recommending any deletions it wouldn't result in a big discussion among normal respondents and by not posting it to the thread it would avoid concerns of the thread being de-railed or meta discussions happening on the RD proper. But there was always a risk the 49 was going to comment particularly since I notified him/her of this thread per the previous fuss when people weren't notified. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

See [12]. I'm going to regret this, I know... Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual questions asked are basically just "is it possible to get hold of this particular drug", which we could answer. However, the description of symptoms makes it sound like the OP is really after a diagnosis, which we can't give (even if we wanted to - those symptoms are far too vague). I think it is reasonable to have removed the question. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Which means WE DON'T FUCKING ANSWER IT, Wnt. I've deleted your answer. I suspect more of teh epic lulz are to follow. Tevildo (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not address any diagnostic issue, but merely pointed out that the drug wasn't what the OP said it was. [13] I understand that to some people, the height of ethics is telling some poor guy in India who can barely speak English that he should go "ask his doctor", and not point out to him that we have an article that talks about the drug he's interested in, and not tell him that it isn't quinine, let alone pointing out to him that the reason he can't get it anymore is probably because it was widely used and mosquitoes in Asia are resistant to it. (Even I didn't do that last bit, being too lazy to check whether India was one of the affected areas) I understand that you think that I am fouling up the balance of nature, preventing the harsh realities of evolution from taking their natural course, risking some tiny chance that the mysteries of modern medicine might inadvertently make their way down to the unwashed masses --- but what I did not do was provide anything vaguely resembling diagnosis, rather merely cautioning the editor. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with Wnt's post except that it is not an answer to the question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Tango, but I'd say that "the description of symptoms makes it sound like the OP is really after a diagnosis" only if we're being unthinkingly, knee-jerk paranoid about removing anything and everything that's even remotely medical.

The question asked was purely factual. The additional information about symptoms appeared to have been for background only, and did not in any way seem to me to be requesting a diagnosis.

Why not just mention, "of course, we can't offer you any advice about those symptoms", and let the factual question stand? Why go the draconian route of deleting it? —Steve Summit (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A faintly ridiculous problem

Having mentioned Mike and Ikes in the sprawling section on foreigners' surprises in America, I now suspect I might mean Good and Plenty. However, I am unable to edit that section, for reasons that might just be the device I'm using, or a wider problem, or a combination of both. Not only am I getting a pseudo-protected page, when I go into the history and choose the most recent version and click the 'edit' thing (which previously has worked), I can't make an edit not be a conflict (though there doesn't seem to be something changed). No doubt this will pass, as such things do, but it bothers me to be unable to add the caveat to my comment :) 86.164.78.220 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added your clarification. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. As I say, slightly ridiculous, but you know how it is... 86.164.78.220 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by "Looie496"

Three of my posts have been deleted by this person, with the explaination being that I am a "banned user". Yet I am not a banned user, and the questions are perfectly reasonable and unremarkable. Looie496 added to one post I had un-deleted that he thought I was someone called "Lightcurrent". I am not "Lightcurrent" and I've never otherwise heard of him or her.

The deleted questions were "Colourful butterflys" from the Science desk, "Length of time of feelings of jealousy" from the Humanities desk, and "Reflection" from the Language desk.

Can Looie396 please be prevented from deleting any more of my posts? Thanks

Edit: I have now seen and skimmed the posting about "Lightcurrent" at the top of this page. While LC might have ISPs starting in 92, that does not mean that all ISP addresses starting with "92" are his/hers. I use a large ISP and the ISP number changes every time I log on. Wouldnt it be better if you just deleted individual questions on their own merits? 92.15.1.9 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not really been following this whole thing, but the banned user comes from the ISP "OPAL TELECOM DSL" whereas the OP of this thread is from "CARPHONE WAREHOUSE BROADBAND". They do appear to be different people. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if you've been inadvertently harmed by overzealous attempts to fight banned users. I will leave a note for Looie. Also, I suggest you sign up and get a name here, to make this less likely to recur. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in Britain - a comparatively small island with a population of 60 million. So saying I am near some bad person is not informative. Also a very large number of people use the same national ISP - millions, probably. "Opal Telecom" seems vaguely familiar by the way - Carphone Warehouse probably rent other ISP services as well as having their own. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, either it's a really incredible coincidence or I have a serious misunderstanding of how Geolocate works. This IP geolocates to the Isle of Man, as do many that are clearly associated with LC. The population of the Isle of Man is 80,000. What are the odds that there are two different editors from the Isle of Man who both ask large numbers of trivial Ref Desk questions? Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

80,000 is enough people that having two Ref Desk posters from there isn't all that surprising. However, I also expect that the Isle of Man is just where the ISP is located, and that they serve customers from a broader area. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting Isle of Man from? According to geobytes.com the ip is located in Norwich 82.43.89.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandings on how geolocate works? Oh that's easy. I can tell you how Geolocate works. It works poorly.

Seriously, some ISPs have access points with far reaching sphere's of influence, but still just geolocate to the big city they're located in. Or occasionally to the small town conveniently located between two big cities.

On top of that, every once and a while it's completely wrong. Occasionally you'll find IP addresses that you know for a fact are on one continent, but geolocation services show them on another. I don't know why that happens, but I assume it's something to do with out of date databases.

All that said, however, I'm suspicious of this post by 92.15, (it hit's all the right points and uses all the right lingo, weird for a first-time user.) but I don't care. If it is him, and he wants to crow about tricking someone into answering question about butterflies I don't know why we should spend any effort depriving him of that pleasure. APL (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a note I left on a desk a few days ago: oh no, an internet vandal has maliciously enticed us to discuss things we are interested in! I really don't understand the hassle that erupts over this stuff. Nimur (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of principle. What's the point of going to the extent of banning an editor, something that's not done lightly, if nobody cares when they come back under another guise? We may as well never ban anyone. Such a policy may have merits, but it's not our current policy. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's far more important to not delete questions from innocent bystanders than the catch every post from banned users. I'd apply the "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the absurdity of this before,^[14] but some people assured me that LC could be recognized - despite his personally making up 1/16384th of the Internet - because he only asked questions about sex, feces, and racism.^[15] And butterflies, and jealousy, and reflection, I guess. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I said, and I will thank you not to misparaphrase me. Let me boil this down to simple terms, since you don't understand (or refuse to understand by choice) the situation. It is obvious you cannot recognize LC when he appears. If that is the case, then don't get in the way of the people that can. Let me repeat that: if you are not good at recognizing him, leave that job to the people that are. If we have to explain every permutation he makes to his editing patterns to you every time he makes them, it would lead to stupid discussions like this where you feed this troll every time he edits. Plus it lets him know how we know it is him, so he can change his patterns intentionally, which just sucks you Wnt into his trap again. Just stop it. Answer questions, work on articles, and leave the sock hunting to the big boys, because you obviously don't get it. --Jayron32 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32, Wnt provided a diff that contains exactly what you did post. Neither that post nor the one above exemplify the civility that one reasonably expects from a "big boy". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, you are using the "appeal to authority" argument, with you as the authority. Why should I believe that you know when it's LC, and WNT doesn't ? If you can't prove that it's LC, I'm not going to be convinced that it is solely because you say so. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that this is LC. I'm just tired of Wnt prolonging the drama. You should know by now that everything I say is always wrong. You can be assured that if I think something is true, then it is false. --Jayron32 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do whatever is necessary to enforce all rules" has never, ever, been a "principal" of Wikipedia. In fact, IAR and other related guidelines, were invented specifically, not to cause chaos or to generate an excuse to do whatever you want, but to force people to think pragmatically about their actions instead of following the rules blindly. In this case, blind following of the "rules" is allowing LC to manipulate you and Bugs like puppets into whipping up a fury every two weeks. It is against Wikipedia's most fundamental principals to blindly follow the rules when they have obviously failed.

Relax. Enjoy life. The world will continue to turn if you don't play the part of Internet Cop for a while. No one will be hurt if we answer a couple of pointless questions about butterflies or sex. And if LightCurrent gets pleasure out of it, that doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't bother you either. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who are you addressing, APL? I introduced the issue of principles, which you've misquoted back at me as "principals". But then, I'm not one of those who are "whipping up a fury every two weeks", on this or any other issue, so I don't know who that sentence is addressed to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize completly.

I intended to refer to people, as a group, that justify demonstrability disruptive deletions with the "principle" that banned users must not post under any circumstances, as if that single concern should be elevated above all others.

"Principals" was, of course, a spelling error. APL (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite surprised if 92.15.1.9 isn't LC. There are at least connections between 92.15.1.9 and LC that seem unlikely to be coincidental. The ISP of LC's DSL line generally shows up as Opal Telecom, which is currently a brand of Talk Talk. 92.15.1.9's ISP shows up as The Carphone Warehouse, which Talk Talk started out as a subsidiary of, although it looks like Talk Talk and Carphone Warehouse demerged about a year ago. Traceroute says that 92.15.1.9's immediate router shows up as being Opal Telecom's[16], just like LC's immediate router. IP2Location says that 92.15.1.9's latitude and longitude are 54.166997, -4.482106,[17] which is on the Isle of Man, and is the exact same latitude and longitude that IP2Location gives, for example, for 88.104.81.205,[18] which is an IP that LC used in January.

The Carphone Warehouse is primarily a mobile phone company. My presumption is that LC's ISP shows up as Opal Telecom when he's using his DSL line, and shows up as Carphone Warehouse when he's connecting to the internet via his mobile phone. It looks to me like he's been using his DSL line when he doesn't mind being identified as being LC, and connects via his mobile phone for posting generally innocuous stuff. The exceptions I've noticed that look like LC in terms of content but are coming via his mobile phone are this topic he started here on the ref desk talk page, and these pokes at ref desk volunteers.[19][20] And note that the latter of those two edits suggests a familiarity with the ref desk regulars that's inconsistent with a newcomer to the ref desks, who's so new here that he's never even heard of LC. Red Act (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, It wouldn't surprise me if it was LightCurrent, but the difference is ... I don't care. Not in the least. It's nice and relaxing. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the IP who can't resist telling us how evil the British royal family is every few days LC? Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this yet, but I just wanted to say that there have been quite a few changes in the UK ISP market in the last year and I have been a victim of these. When I first started posting here I got banned because of this, but I did ask to be identified as a bona-fide poster and become immune from this blanket block, which has indeed happened. Opal Telecom is an overall ISP for people who used to be with TalkTalk, Pipex and Tiscali among others. The 92. subnet (or whatever it is) may well have hundreds of thousands of subscribers (if not millions) and to just block that particular part of an address isn't exactly fair on the rest of them. Just finally, not everyone who is new here is also new to the internet: I was posting on the internet and reading Wikipedia for many years before I took the plunge to post. And actually, I hadn't heard of LC until all this hoohah erupted a few months ago! By the way, it's possible Opal Telecom is based in the Isle of Man for tax reasons. Its servers may well be distributed on the mainland. Just my 2p worth. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current has been de facto un-banned by APL and Wnt, who refuse to help enforce the rules. So the best course of action from here on out is to forget the ban and treat him as a regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, Bugs, this I'm-going-to-take-my-toys-and-go-home attitude of yours -- where, if you don't get what you want, you then try to dramatically punish yourself and everybody else by arguing for the hyperbolic opposite of what you wanted -- is (a) childish and (b) tiresome. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in your comments do I see a denial of the truth of what I said. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Because arguing with you is a pointless waste of time; you'll believe what you want to believe. But if you insist:

1. LC has most certainly not been unbanned, by those two or others, de facto or otherwise.
2. Although their behavior has been annoying, APL and Wnt are under no obligation to "help enforce the rules".
3. Finally, forgetting the ban is obviously not "the best course of action", and to assert that it is is a textbook example of WP:POINTy behavior.

—Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)