Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Alphabetical order

Shouldn't all the icons listed for the Reference Desks (Humanities, Computers, Mathematics, etc.) be in alphabetical order? Is there any reason why they are not? "Miscellaneous" and "Archives" are listed last, and they are not listed in alphabetical order. Is this intentional? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The main desks are in alphabetical order (Computing to Science), with Misc on the end - this seems fairly logical to me. Moving "Archives" to the beginning in the name of lexicographical perfection would probably introduce unnecessary confusion. Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I would support a motion to move Misc before Science if it's being formally proposed. Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should all be alphabetical. What confusion would it cause to move "Archives"? In fact, that would make more sense, to have it at the very beginning as opposed to the very end. As such, the chronology of the Ref Desks would actually match the alphabetization of their names. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The order as it is now, alphabetically except archives last and miscellaneous next-to-last, looks totally logical to mine eyes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous" is not a category on the same level as the others, which all describe a discipline or field of study or at least a thematic field, while Miscellaneous is the catch-all sink for questions the querent can't (or doesn't wish to) place in any of the five six specific categories we suggest. This is why it seems logical to me to have it follow our selection of desks. The decision whether it belongs in our "other" category or not is best made after having read what the actual thematic classes are. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(By the way, I spoke of five six specific categories, but I see "Travel", linking to Wikivoyage:Tourist Office is on our main WP:RD link too now. When did that happen? It does make the miscellaneous desk look a bit isolated, being an external and thus different-colored link and all. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC))

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 97#Wikivoyage Tourist Office (February and March 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 98#Travel Desk links (March 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 98#Wikivoyage Tourist Office Link (March 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 99#Misplaced question (March 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me that Misc would be at the end. It is a catch-all after all. Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems like change for change's sake. Certainly next time we add (or remove) a category we could reorder it. Right now, I don't think it need to happen. Mingmingla (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote for keeping the order exactly the way it is, rather than mixing Misc and Archives in with the thematic categories. Red Act (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with that consensus. I guess I was more curious as to why these were listed in this particular order. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

transcluded archives can be confusing

[four comments copied from this thread on the Computing desk]

...next time, no need to copy-and-paste the thread -- we would have noticed and replied if you'd merely updated the original January 2 entry. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When I click Edit for the original January 2 entry, I get redirected to the archived version. I couldn't figure out how to edit the original entry so that's why I created a new one. AnonComputerGuy (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but it turns out that the recent few days' worth of archives -- including, as of today, January 2's -- are made to appear here on the main page, via a slightly-obscure process Wikipedia calls "transclusion". Go ahead and edit the (archived) January 2 entry now, and see what happens! —Steve Summit (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this procedure confusing too when I first encountered it. Does it serve any useful purpose? It would be much clearer if threads were only moved to archive once they moved off this page. 86.128.3.18 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing and a bit of a pain. I assumed it simplified the archiving process, but if it serves no definite purpose, I'd like to see it go. Removing at the time of archiving seems fairly straightforward...? Steve, you're the go-to guy on this topic. What are your thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't simplify the process; in fact the extra wrinkles involved in inserting the transclusion links and then deleting them a few days later represent a pretty significant extra dollop of complexity in the archiver. But the code's long since written and debugged, so it's obviously no trouble to keep doing it that way today. But, unless I'm completely incompetent, the code will also work perfectly well if the (eminently configurable) number of transcluded days is set to "zero", so if we want to go that way, we can. (One small part of me would like to say, "but the transclusion code is so cool, we can't turn it off", but that'd be way unprofessional, so I won't. :-) )

Bottom line is, we can do absolutely whatever we want for editor and reader convenience; it makes no difference to your humble archiving botherd. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I just ran into a case where the transclusion is a bit annoying. I added a comment to a transcluded question, then when I went back to the desk noticed that it didn't appear. Luckily I knew that I had to purge the page and looked up how to do it in the help. I can imagine the problem completely throwing off someone who didn't realize what was going on - they would be able to answer the question but not see their response, but if they went to edit it again they would see it was in the source. Katie R (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I don't know why manual purging has been necessary so often lately -- that's a recent occurrence. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is becoming official, I would support a motion to remove transclusion from the live desks. I can't honestly see any advantage to it. Those of us who have done any programming will appreciate the fact that the code works, and acknowledge our appreciation, even if it isn't in use. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The only advantage I can think of is that it tends to reduce the page load time while editing. But it does not (despite occasional vague claims to the contrary) do anything to reduce the page load time while viewing.

I honestly don't remember why we first started doing it this way; it's basically a case of "we've always done it this way". Speaking as an ordinary editor (that is, taking my botherd's cap off for the moment), I would have no objection to shifting to straight N-day archiving. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What's a "botherd"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Shepherds herd sheep, botherds herd...

—Steve Summit (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, duuuuhhhh (to myself). I was reading it as "bother" + "d", and that somehow just didn't mean anything to me ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Having the archives transcluded used to be a huge benefit since it meant you didn't have to sit around waiting for hundreds of kilobytes of text to load every time you wanted to edit the page, this of course was prior to modern high speed internet being ubiquitous. Also, back then the desks were a lot longer, in some cases megabytes of questions and answers would accumulate prior to archiving. It was the best solution available at the time. It's clearly no longer the most efficient way to do it, and I suppose it's mainly persisted due to the histroical precedent. Keep in mind that it's been this way since before any of the archiving bot(s) existed. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm but why would you edit the entire desk? I've very rarely edited the entire desk usually to fix issues, but 99% of the time, whether I'm editing an archive or a current question I only edit the section for the question. This also likely reduces the risk of edit conflicts. I can't personally see a reason you'd frequently need to edit the whole desk. You may need to do so on odd occasion like fixing an issue someone introduced or archiving the desk manually (or similarly adding date headers) but these are rare enough that they aren't worth worrying about. But there are still enough people with slow internet connections and perhaps more importantly (since you do need to load the page anyway) browsers which likely couldn't handle editing an entire desk. So if there is a common reason why people would need to edit the whole desk, we should consider carefully the way forward. Barring that, the only real advantage I can think of is it makes it easier to reduce the size of the desk if the bot is inactive for a few days. But most of the time even when this does happen people don't bother and it's not that big a deal. So I don't think that's worth it for thast reason. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer is that there wasn't always a section edit button, or at least I don't think there was. My memory is a little fuzzy on this, we are talking about a very long time ago. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, I take it back. If the transclusions predated the section edit button there'd have been no way to edit them individually, so that's probably not the answer at all.(+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The change that would be most useful (and I'm sure we've discussed this before) would be to archive questions individually some number of days after the last addition to that question. This would keep active topics from scrolling off the page and rid us of easily answered questions after just enough time has elapsed for the OP to read our responses. I understand that this is technically challenging - but I thought I'd mention it here again "just in case". Ordering questions by the day they were asked is a fairly useless convention anyway...sorting them by the date of the most recent answer would be more productive and automatically keep active threads at the bottom of the page where most people will find them most easily. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thought occurs to me that might be interesting to discuss - separating out the question from the answers. Suppose that the questioner posted to some "main" page - and our answers went into a transcluded page beneath it. This would have the interesting side-effect of placing answers into different pages...which in turn would allow us to do things like semi-protecting answers without preventing IP users from asking new questions...which in turn would allow us to fix the "WickWack" problem. There is a slightly tricky matter of how an IP OP would be able to ask followup or clarification questions - and I'm not sure how we'd handle that. Anyway - it's just a thought. SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've talked about it before and I do like the idea. Similar processes are in use elsewhere in WP, though I think they're manually archived. I wouldn't object to that, or at least trying it out. Having considered it a while, though, I think I'd rather see the desks operating more or less as they are, but with no transclusion and also with fewer days. It would be interesting to study, but my impression is that most questions get answers (if they're answered at all) within three days and most of what goes on afterwards is just chatting. A smaller number of days would also make it more feasible to reincorporate the Ent desk with Humanities, which is something I've long been in favour of. I don't think I'm in favour of your second proposal, though I'm not sure I properly get how it would work. Matt Deres (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of a technical challenge standing in the way of doing after-N-days-of-inactivity archiving -- that's the way most discussion pages on Wikipedia (including this very talk page!) are archived. There's at least one bot -- and maybe several -- ready and able to do the archiving for us that way if we wanted to.

The biggest change would be that the archive pages would end up being a numeric sequence (Archive001, Archive002, ...) not the strictly per-day ones we have now. (Or perhaps one of those other bots can dole the archived threads out into calendar-based archive pages; I don't know.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion is an unnecessary pain and confusing for newcomers, and should be ended because, with transclusion, contributions to the pages don't show up in their history (and one doesn't even know the posts were transcluded without hovering the cursor over the edit button). Precisely when and how threads are archived though is a separate issue which I've no strong opinion on and can be addressed separately, thus let's reach a consensus to end transclusion first and foremost. -Modocc (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. I agree, it clearly no longer serves a purpose. Just to remove any ambiguity, I originated the current archiving practices (circa 2006) and even I don't quite remember why I set it up that way in the first place. All I can say is that at the time it was simply the best option available for keeping the desks editable. I don't think it even occurred to me that it would stay like this quite so long. For reference, I was an undergrad then.. and now I'm nearly done with my Ph.D. So it's been a while. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 17:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the historical perspective! There seems to be good consensus here; see new resolution thread below. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

James Matineau Page

I am not sure where to go BUT could you please check the references for the James Martineau page - PLEASE look at references 12 13 and 14 - have I done it correctly? Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.168.82 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you'd probably want to ask this on the talk page for the article in question. Also, when bringing up a new subject, start a new section so it is not missed. If you need help with anything, you may want to take a look at: [1], [2], [3], and [4] :-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

archiving changes imminent

Okay, as a result of the thread above, there seems to be pretty good consensus here to, at the very least, eliminate transclusion.

For reference, here's the current archiving scheme, as documented in this thread from back in 2010:

desk	days to keep	also transclude	average length
Computing	2	3	5.5
Science	2	2	4.5
Mathematics	3	3	6.5
Humanities	2	3	5.5
Language	3	3	6.5
Entertainment	3	3	6.5
Miscellaneous	2	3	5.5

Over the next few days, I'll wean the archiving bot off of its transclusion habit, eventually resulting in this new schedule:

desk	days to keep	also transclude	average length
Computing	5	0	5.5
Science	4	0	4.5
Mathematics	6	0	6.5
Humanities	5	0	5.5
Language	6	0	6.5
Entertainment	6	0	6.5
Miscellaneous	5	0	5.5

(As it happens, the bot would not have done quite the right thing with a 0-day transclusion interval, after all, but the fixes are straightforward and will get their test in a couple of days when the Science desk's first drops to 0.)

But this may only be an interim measure. Several people have re-brought-up the idea of doing per-thread rather than per-day archiving, and I don't think anyone has spoken out against the idea. Moreover, I notice that there was also good consensus for that idea in an even earlier talk page thread, back in 2009.

So I'm thinking it may finally be time to make that change. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems like as good a place as any to thank you (again) for looking after this stuff; your time and effort are appreciated! Matt Deres (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! A question on per-thread archiving. Earlier someone mentioned a rule like "Question gets archived if it is over X days old AND no additions in Y days". Perhaps something like X=3, Y=2 would work for many desks. Is this something that is feasible with the current bot/scripting framework, or would it require a total overhaul? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are a number of bots that can do per-thread archiving, most notably ClueBot and lowercase sigmabot. As far as I know, they typically archive after a straight Y days of inactivity (i.e. not the slightly more complicated "X days after first post and Y days of inactivity" you mentioned), but I don't see that as being much of a problem. Also, it looks like they can archive to day/month/year archive pages (i.e. they're not limited to numeric Archive001, Archive002, etc.), after all -- although it may be that, unlike our current practice, the date archived to matches the date of archiving, not the date of first post.

Bottom line is, although we've always rejected them in the past, bots like ClueBot and lowercase sigmabot are looking like pretty decent options for us today. (And I certainly wouldn't mind putting scsbot out to pasture for a while.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I don't think I have the time and skills to be a botherd, but I'll be happy to support further discussion if/when we decide to change the system more fundamentally. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

interaction bans, topic bans, consensus, procedurality, and ANIs: getting it right

First, there was this ANI which was closed such that The Rambling Man, Medeis, and Baseball Bugs were to be subject to an IBAN and topic banned from the refdesk. Concerns over the close, its implications, and the whole discussion that led to it arose on numerous talk pages and noticeboards, with the most substantial at the Administrators' noticeboard. My interpretation and proposal (which is in large part a synthesis of other people's ideas up to that point), explained in this subsection of the same thread, can be summarized as: the initial discussion successfully found consensus regarding the IBAN, but was procedurally and discursively flawed in its attempt to conflate the events leading up to the IBAN with longer-term issues at the refdesk concerning Medeis and Baseball Bugs. As no proper discussion could be had on the latter because of this confusion, outcomes regarding the topic ban should be nullified and a new, separate ANI be opened to address the matter directly and without ambiguity. In practical terms, this means letting the IBAN stand and lifting the topic bans, leaving the latter to be determined by the new ANI. The closing admin, jc37, agrees that this is a viable course of action (though I'd invite him to clarify if I'm oversimplifying). I believe this route satisfies on one hand those who have sought an avenue to argue for a topic ban long before the problematic interactions between the three parties, and on the other hand those who contested the determination of consensus that led to the present topic ban.

I'd be happy willing to start the other ANI in a couple days if nobody else will, but I don't think I'm the best person to do so. Process and policy I'm pretty comfortable with, but I haven't been engaged with the refdesk as much or as long as many most who will read this, and simply don't have the experience, results of previous discussions, and important diffs ready-to-hand as I imagine others do. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done on AN NE Ent 22:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not productive. You created the ANI, linked to the past two discussion mires and said "go." Defeats the point. This has to be a new thread unrelated to the previous ANI. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole reason I was asking for someone else to do it was specifically not because I don't understand how but because in order to present a thoughtful case you need to point to evidence of a problem -- and I don't have the experience to have built up that cache of evidence. Pointing to the past ANIs just continues the problems we encountered there. I removed the ANI with the hope that we can develop one that will actually be productive this time rather than yield a total mess and an unnecessarily controversial outcome. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bah. It seems nothing changed. Any ANI would effectively be an appeal per jc37's most recent comments at the AN. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there were likely problems with that recent decision, along the lines that you discussed. However, I think the easiest procedural path is to let those users make their own cases if/when they choose appeal their individual topic bans. (I am no expert on WP policy and procedure though :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like that's going to be the case. Oh well, I feel like I've said my peace over at the AN. This thread should probably be closed pending unforeseen developments. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice concerning community sanctions

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis

And noting that this discussion had noted concerns about "decorum" and "disruption" here at the reference desk (and its talk pages and subpages) - something other editors may also wish to read and keep in mind while editing here. - jc37 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that there was no consensus to ban anyone from the ref desk. Option 1, the mutual interaction ban, is the only item that had consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- does jc37 really believe that "instant block" for questioning such a notice is really, really the best way to handle any of this? My own count did not show any significant net explicit support for either options 2 or 3, and it appears that involved !voters were given the full or greater weight than that given to given to noninvolved !voters on the "sanctions" -- and jumping into "block mode" this quickly does not impress me :(. Sorry. Collect (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And now this. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that consensus doesn't mean "most votes" - the ANI result said that the closing admin called Option 2 as supported by consensus, and even went to far as to explicitly state that consensus doesn't necessarily equal "most votes". When the preponderance of reasoned debate leans heavily to one side and the other side is a bunch of "Me Too!" !votes, then a slim minority can hold the consensus - and that's clearly what happened here. The idea that the closing admin uses best judgement as to what consensus was or was not achieved is a tough one to accept - but that is the way Wikipedia works (WP:CONS makes this clear). Wikipedia is not a conventional democracy. I think there should have been more explicit clarity for the three people named in the action. A post to their talk pages saying that "From now on, you mustn't do X, Y or Z" would have been helpful - so I can understand why Bugs got confused....I think I might have been had I been in his shoes.

User:jc37 has explained the decision in a post to Medeis here: User_talk:Medeis#Queries_from_Medeis and apologized for a less than 100% clear notification process.

I think this is a wrap - there are now three fewer people posting here - and hopefully this will be a calmer, more thoughtful place as a result. These unfortunate sanction-imposing events are like a magnet to people's attentions - and in the end, after the dust settles, we need to move back to our primary mission and answer the worlds most pressing questions in the best way we can.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let people know, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Okay, uninvolved admin analysis, the topic ban on BB, μηδείς and TRM has been vacated based on an uninvolved administrator's review that it lacked consensus in the original discussion. The interaction ban between BB+μηδείς and TRM remains in effect. So don't be surprised if you see these editors editing again here on in the RD proper. If anyone feels it necessary, they are welcome to open a compliant WP:RFC/U on any of these editors as a next step. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a self-imposed ban on closing threads

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This follows from the above "reported to wikimedia foundation" discussion (as the latest of many examples).

At this point it seems there's an overwhelming body of evidence and significant support for a sentiment along the lines of "Medeis's editing at the refdesk is problematic." Especially after the last ANI debacle, it seems almost a foregone conclusion that the matter is headed for its own ANI (sans messy conflation with separate interaction ban issue). However, as frustrated as many people clearly are, there's no denying that Medeis also makes a great number of positive contributions.

A substantial portion of the controversy that follows Medeis concerns hatting and deleting of questions/threads. A topic ban via ANI would solve such a problem, yes, but would also preclude Medeis's productive editing. Rather than seeking sanctions, I propose something a bit more informal and localized: for Medeis to apply a self-imposed ban on closing threads for a period of not less than three months. ("Closing" to be understood as deletion, hatting, archiving, reverting, or any other means having the effect of obstructing future engagement. "Threads" to be understood as inclusive of individual questions or statements, entire threads or sections, or parts of threads or sections).

Question to refdeskers: Do you agree that this is both necessary and preferable to a topic ban?

Question to Medeis: If this proposal has support, would you be willing to give this a shot for the sake of harmony, productivity, and good will in the refdesk community? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am quite willing to obey exactly the same rules that every other ref desk user obeys. I am not willing to give up my right to act according to general policy. I notice that about a dozen threads or more were closed and/or comments removed by AndyTheGrump during the same period. (I do not object to his actions.) This has been done without talk page comment by the person deleting the comments and closing the threads or any other party. I find your appointing yourself arbiter here, Rhododendrites, after the last ANI, found in my favor, where you admitted you are not familiar with the desk, absurd. I am the one who started the above thread you quote as an example in good faith to notify the editors here, when policy says approaching an admin in private is sufficient. The one thread I deleted since the ANI I have deleted according to explicit policy quoted above. I did so after another user remarked that it should be closed. I reported it to wikimedia foundation. I myself filed an ANI. No one at the ANI objected that my action was improper. The ANI found the matter should be left to WMF to handle. The IP user himself has said his posting on wikipedia was improper and that his threat was insincere. And no one has seen fit to revert me. I suggest this is wikihounding, and that you drop this immediately. Do feel free to change the general policy, and I will follow whatever is adopted by consensus. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A Reasonable proposal, ending with a very reasonable question. Unfortunately, There is an unreasonable situation before us, that will continue until a restriction is put in place.54.204.179.139 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The above is the IP-hopping Amazon-based troll yet again. It's building up an interesting track record:

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs) Dec 17, 2013

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs) Dec 28-29, 2013

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs) Dec 31, 2013

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs) Jan 4, 2014

54.204.117.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 6, 2014

54.196.70.85 (talk · contribs) Jan 19, 2014

54.226.217.226 (talk · contribs) Jan 28, 2014

54.204.179.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 29, 2014

It would seem that there's a new rule allowing non-contributors to take shots at other editors without fear of reprisal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is that only the first number in that series of dotted quad addresses is the same ("54"). An IP address that starts with 54 and has three more bytes covers almost 17 million computers (256x256x256 - it's actually more than that because of address sharing) . Probably around 1% of all of computer users in the world. What you're saying is that you want to unilaterally block that number of people with the only criterion being your personal view that this must be the same person. But you really, truly, cannot possibly know that just from a few sentences in a question. So the bottom line here is that you're GUESSING. You don't know for sure that anything you're saying here is true. IMHO, it's far worse to accidentally block a legitimate user than it is to allow through a slightly crappy question now and again. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

None of those specific IP's are "legitimate" users. "They" are a lone, harassment-only user who has convinced himself he's untouchable, and will continue his drive-by activities until someone decides to do something about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Medeis - That you started the above thread doesn't change it's familiar tone or content. I'm not really interested to jump into the debate over that specific example here. If people have a problem with Andy, they should address it. That hasn't been apparent to me. Maybe that's because I've only frequented the refdesk for the past few months (far less than many -- and this is, I imagine, what you mistakenly interpret as me "admitting I'm not familiar with the desk"). In those few months I've seen many threads in whole or in part about your editing. And each time people's concerns are dismissed or met with righteousness (as this very proposal has been). For example, the way you describe the thread above: Medeis did everything right, nobody had a problem, everything was by the book.

To be clear, the last ANI (if we're talking about the same one) did not "find in your favor." That a topic ban was overturned because your behavior was problematic but, due [at least in part] to the ill-formed proposal and confused discussion that followed, not quite problematic enough for consensus to settle on a topic ban, does not mean the result was "Medeis was right all along."

You'll note that of the two times I've tried to formulate a proposal that might gain consensus, in neither case did I advocate banning you. In fact, the first time (in the ANI appeal discussion) I argued against your topic ban ("wikihounding?" really?). It wasn't because I was "in your favor" or think you're remotely in the right but because it's in the best interest of the project for the procedure to have integrity and for solutions to fit the problem as presented. As you don't seem to appreciate that you will very likely be the subject of another ANI in the near future (noting the climate, not making a threat), and noticing the majority of problems people have with you concern what someone described as "curation," it seemed to me it would be best if we could address the problem while avoiding a ban. So, this section is an attempt to suggest that seemingly simple solution that would end so much drama. You aren't interested. Fair enough. Proposal dropped. As far as "dropping it" in general, while I make no such assurance, it certainly doesn't seem to have been a good use of my time (or anyone else's engaged in these arguments) to search for compromise when one side professes actions that are beyond reproach. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that this sanction on playing wiki-cop is necessary and preferable to an outright ban.

I don't believe that Medeis would ever voluntarily take on such restrictions. The whole problem is the profound arrogance that makes him/her believe (s)he knows better than everyone else. That kind of arrogance is incompatible with voluntary sanctions. APL (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the arrogance of editors who can't see a threat of harm, and therefore conclude that there isn't one? How about letting the WMF do its job and decide what the risk is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support the voluntary ban suggested here; if not, I would support an outright ban from the reference desk. I like Medeis, I think they make many positive contributions; but, they also cause a lot of problems and stir up seemingly endless controversy. I'm not a great contributor here, by any means, but the constant debate/hatting/deleting/etc. definitely inspired me to avoid this place for a bit (not that I can't be obnoxious on occasion myself, but the point still stands).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pity. I felt (and still feel) that, ignoring the throwaway trolling accusation and focusing only on what I too interpreted as a credible threat of harm when I read it, Medeis was justified in treating that thread as part of the threat and removing it from view. (FWIW, I support removals/hattings only in exceptional cases and would prefer to see unsuitable questions given a brief "Sorry, we can't answer this", or preferably ignored altogether.) Medeis has generally supported his/her "curation" activities with reference to policy; the interpretation of this is what leads to controversy and drama, time after time. His/her interpretation of the outcome of the recent ANI discussions speaks volumes. It seems we've reached the point where nobody cares any more what policy Medeis interprets as permission to hat/remove RD content, or whoever else is continuing to do it, or even whether it may be potentially a good call; they just want him/her to stop doing it, preferably by choice. I have to agree. I respect Medeis's scholarship and expertise. A topic ban would make the RefDesk a much less combative place to get on with finding references with which to answer questions, but deprive us of a valuable resource. I would prefer it not to come to that. - Karenjc (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Note - The Amazon-based 54's are here solely to harass editors. I'm consulting with an admin to determine the best way to get that user banned from that activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs - aren't you in violation of your interaction ban by posting to the same thread as Medeis? I really think you need to back off before you get yourself in a lot more trouble. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're funny. There is no interaction ban between Medeis and me. Details about editing restrictions throughout Wikipedia are on the page Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Look for my Username there and you'll see my editing restrictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Karenjc and Phoenixia above: in short, I feel that Medeis can and does make valuable contributions here. S/he also can cause lots of contention and disruption. As I see it, disruption comes from contentious close/hat/delete practices, and occasionally weird/cryptic/joking answers. In its defense, I'll say that Medeis doesn't usually bicker over answers with other respondents, and seems to have decreased on the jokey-snarky answers. I would not like to see a topic ban put in place, but it may turn out to be the "least bad" solution if Medeis can't make an honest effort to get along here. Medeis: is it really no fun to just provide good answers and references here? Please think about APL's advice regarding a "narrowly avoided ban". Finally, I'll note that I (and many others) end up following the "sanctions" being suggested for you. I just try to contribute positively, and ignore anything that I see as negative. There are tons of unsourced, crappy "answers" given here. There are also tons of questions that I think are boring/lazy/demanding. I used to think I was doing a service by critiquing, but now I usually just ignore, and try to post a better answer below if I can. If you really think that restraining yourself from various types of closing threads would limit your contributions or enjoyment here, then I encourage you to think carefully about why you participate at the refdesks at all. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's IP 78's most recent contribution: "Life sucks." It really doesn't matter to me whether that is characterized as trolling or not. In fact, I said above that I hope the user is trolling us rather than being sincere, and the user himself ended up saying he was insincere, but continued the behavior. Yet, bizarrely, we have an ongoing discussion as to whether I am the one who has caused this disruption. Other than that I followed WMF policy exactly in regard to threats which have been documented above, there's no complaint, no evidence, no diffs. What else needs to be said? μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are certain editors here who have no inhibitions about attacking registered users, while bending over backwards to kiss up to trolling IP's. The technical term for that oddity is "double standard". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites - To second APL, "Medies" and "voluntary" do not belong in the same sentence, as hir responses above demonstrate. I personally would not consider such a sanction to be _preferable_ to an outright ban, but it might have a better chance of being implemented. Tevildo (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're on the wrong side of this issue, and you should leave it be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing ref desk archives

From the header to the Science desk archive (I assume the others are the same): "The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages." Has this always been the advice given for ref desk archives? I ask because I'd not noticed it previously, and was suggesting to a contributor that editing Wikipedia archives was generally discouraged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the archives a couple of times when I've happened on a definitive, sourceable answer to a question that I recalled had not received one when originally asked. That seems OK to me, as it may be helpful to someone using the ref-desk search function to find information. I agree, however, that editing the archives of articles' or users' talk pages is to be discouraged—perhaps mainly because those archives aren't put automatically on the watchlists of editors who watch the talk pages, so that edits to them are unlikely to be seen or reviewed. Deor (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

AFAIR, the Rdarchives have said that for a long time. Remember that until recently, an entire date was archived after abour 3 or 4 days and these were were transcluded on whichever main RD page. So if you didn't edit the archives that meant you nominally couldn't edit questions despite still appearing on whichever RD. We still could have discouraged people editing the archives after they disappeared of the main page despite them theoretically editing archives while they still appeared, as we can now. But I don't see this as necessary as there are some differences between here and most other talk pages where it is discouraged. Note also as long as we archive entirely by date without regard to activity, discouraging editing after it rolls off is bit arbitary as someone writing something a few minutes before a date is archived isn't much more likely to be seen. Nil Einne (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:84.209.89.214

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user posting from this address has been formally accused of being LightCurrent, and its recent postings aren't inconsistent with that accusation. Now, I can smell WickWack a mile off, but I didn't have sufficient interaction with LightCurrent to do the same. Might I advise someone who has more experience of this particular person to make the call and take appropriate action regarding 84.209's postings? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

84.209.89.214 (talk · contribs) was actually labeled as an LC sock in the summer of 2012. The primary question would be whether this incarnation of 84.209.89.214 is editing in a disruptive way, or whether he's a different editor who was just unlucky enough to have somehow inherited one of LC's old IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it isn't Wickwack. As someone who knows the tricks for spotting Wickwack, in the interest of WP:BEANS, lets just say that this isn't him, unless he's doing something radically different than a few days ago. --Jayron32 04:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided the first response to the Ref. Desk question and expressed an objection to Tevildo's hatting of subsequent comments on his page in the following words, by which I stand:

• it is done disregarding the OP's question and making no attempt to volunteer useful information. The stated aim of the "hat" is to stifle discussion of the particular motor shown, which will prevent the reasonable subsequent question by SpinningSpark being answered.
• a reference desk should respond with best-effort answers to questions and not entertain prejudice against real or imaginary persons.
• The post that mentions a squirrel-cage motor is coherent, constructive and compatible with my own post. It simply addresses the motor principle in more detail than I did. I do not appreciate having my posted answer now isolated as the "only acceptable" one of three but that is exactly what Tevildo's action does.

Tevildo now chooses bring attack here not on my opinion but my person. So be it. I take this opportunity to address the "real WickWack" as follows:

Sir, I have no reason to associate myself with those who villify your contributions. This massive deletion by Tevildo removed a helpful, intelligent and interesting reply to this question. Since we have quite coincidentally shared in responding to some questions, I appreciate your efforts that others (who do less) would like to stifle. As much as Tevildo repeatedly puts his hat on you, Sir, I doff my hat to you. Tevildo could learn from this example by Tamfang that there are good and bad ways to edit someone else's post. Yours sincerely 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) (Newsflash: Already the Wikipedia server questions whether mine is a "potentially automated source" whatever that is.) 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good answer; no way you can convert a run of the mill fan into a generator. Folks concerned that 84 is a sock should go file a SPI rather than disrupting a reasonable conversation in progress. NE Ent 17:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind before starting an SPI is that checkusers will typically not comment on IP's unless there's incontrovertible evidence (like if the IP admits it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it fairly obvious that 84 is neither WickWack nor LC but is a well known banned editor? As to what to do, I don't know although a quick look at their history shows in 2012 they admitted being the sock who was later blocked, and were pulling funny business deleting their own work linked by someone else in December last year and still couldn't resist modifying someone else's admitted unsigned thread closing statement for spelling reasons in November. Either way, I have to run, its a nice day outside and my cat is waging it's tail. But reading the most recent checkuser tells you who it is if you still don't know. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now someone is playing games because the "Nil Einne" that I know would not make the mistake of interchanging the meanings of "its" and "it's" in a sentence. Hmmmmm, do we know someone who does that deliberately? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to let everone know that this user is not Lc. LC Gave up in 2009 after years of persecution by rd vigilantes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.188.78 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

LC was offered a chance at amnesty and turned it down. So the conclusion has to be that he really wasn't interested in editing anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes (s)he obviously decided that it was impossible to carry on editing the ref desks any longer owing to the persistent hounding by the rd dogs who would yap then run after and quickly ban anybody that looked remotely like lc. I see things havent changed much Bugs except maybe that you are now leader of the pack still trying to sniff out the evil lc after all these years. Why dont you give it a rest now and try to contribute something to the pedia?109.144.179.65 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I stood up for LC and he let me down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor claimed to be LC back in 2013 and I don't see any reason to disbelieve them although they didn't do anything much else and the edit itself came over a year after what they were referring to [5]. So it's probably fair to say they're not particularly active. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

84.209.89.214 self-identified as the IP of a blocked editor: [6]. No comment on association with LC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ADDENDUM - I have reverted an entry obviously posted either by an LC imitator or LC himself.[7] This is the kind of garbage LC typically posts. I'm posting this just to raise awareness. Other than that, I do not intend to take any action against LC. Let others here deal with that character, if they care to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP says the article gives certain information, he wants more. The article contains no such information, and I have reinstated your original deletion. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the post and blocked the IP, as it is from a banned editor, readily identifiable by type of post, user conduct, and ISP. Don't feed the trolls Medeis, especially not just becauase you and Bugs enjoy pissing matches with each other. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever that's supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody reading this should be aware there's no hostility between myself and Bugs, never has been, and that I supported his action here, reverting the now blocked troll, not reverting Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, Medeis; I apologize for misreading what you said—I incorrectly read what you wrote as indicated that you had reinstated the post from the banned editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given some of the false rumors flying around it might be hard not to have made that mistake, no problem. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing TOAT and some others here have is a cultural memory of the LC user, as this was debated at some length a couple of years ago or so, when LC was at his peak of activity. TOAT did a pretty good investigation of where LC seemed to be emanating from. As for me, I and a few others tried to give LC a chance, and he spat on us, so dat was dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Relative viewership of subject desks

Hello. Is there any way to estimate how many readers each desk has in a given month? That's probably too difficult, but what about page views? I ask because I was thinking about posting a question to Humanities, then thought about posting to Misc to get more eyes on it, then realized I have no idea which of those two has more readership! (I ended up going for Misc anyway, though I don't have much hope for a correct answer... my thought is that many readers read in their area, and also Misc, so Misc might have the highest readership) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason which seems odd to me, Misc seems to get very little attention, going by post turnover, and Humanities quite a bit. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• In fact here are the user views for humanities in October 2010. Drag down the month you want and overtype Humanities to get the other desks and dates. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! But now I'm thinking of how I'll reload pages several times when composing a response, or reload a bunch if I'm waiting for an answer... SemanticMantis (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm a bit suspicious of the data here. For instance, this [8] says Math has been viewed 25 times in the last 90 days, but I'm pretty sure I've loaded that page at ~15-20 times myself in that time! SemanticMantis (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's because the name of the desk is mathematics, which gives the right results. You're looking at the separate results for a rarely-used redirect. I also believe the daily stats are unique views, not refreshes, based on the stats I've seen for pages I created and editted many times which showed only a very few views.μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, that makes sense, thanks again. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting that the graph of "math" offers fractional page views. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP

I removed this comment as a borderline violation of WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK and notified the user of the deletion. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

reported to wikimedia foundation

Per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm: "In all cases, administrators should be notified, including cases where an administrator is the first responder. Non-admins may still respond even though they may not have all the tools. Although individuals who discuss committing suicide may not be actively suicidal, some of those people may become actively suicidal. The same can go for claims or threats of violence. Many claims are empty threats or hoaxes; some are made by people who are depressed or angry, but not suicidal or violent. Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat all claims seriously and as an emergency." [Emphasis added]

At best we're being trolled by user:78.156.109.166, and I hope that's the case. They are fresh off a 30-day block, have been rev deleted, have begun a thread about predicting suicide, and have made edits on their talk page about how life sucks, we're all fucked, and we know the solution.

I have emailed the wikipedia foundation, and they have responded they are investigating.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=592845584&oldid=592845256 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:78.156.109.166&diff=prev&oldid=592844233

I have deleted the thread https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=592903126

Nothing here is encyclopedic, and we don't need to be anywhere near it. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As Steve Baker pointed out, my math was pretty flawed there anyway. By "decent guess", I mainly meant "the answer the site the OP offered would have offered the OP on December 31." If he was already trusting his stat site's guess, it seemed an appropriate shortcut. Truth, but not near the whole truth. No problem with deleting it, and hope it didn't hurt anyone.

For what it's worth, I'm interested in the concept of suicide, think life sucks (sometimes) and bet we're all fucked. But I've absolutely no intention of killing anyone, least of all myself. Probably goes for a lot of people, possibly the OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not about math. Nor is it an accusation toward you, Inedible. If the IP user is sincere, they need help, and if not, they are playing us. Either way, we shouldn't be involved in such questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Entirely the right call, Medeis. - Karenjc (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is the user's background justification to delete a thread? Why is it being "unencyclopedic" reason to delete a thread? Surely you're not proposing it's perfectly ok to delete any contribution you don't deem encyclopedic. I don't see any evidence of trolling. If the question doesn't seem answerable or the user seems suspect, everybody's free to make up his or her own mind as to whether or not to bother replying. Where is the policy behind this? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too. All I see is: Medeis is back for a few days, goes on a whirlwind of activity catching up for lost time, then accuses someone of "trolling." I have no problem with the report to WMF, that's Medeis acting on behalf itself and the OP - no concern to me. But I don't think there's any need to delete the question. After a few years of witnessing its antics, I think Medeis just really wants to be a hall monitor, and won't stop, despite repeated requests, unless forced. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. The policy requires us to treat people who discuss committing suicide as if the may become suicidal, to remove their comments, email emergency at wikimedia dot org (done) report them to admins for blocking and rev delete, and to err on the side of overcaution. That's all rather clear, and it says nothing about getting consensus from any talk page discussion. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're misreading. We're completely allowed to discuss committing suicide. For instance, our article suicide claims that ~800k commit suicide each year. Are you suggesting that I report you, myself, and InedibleHulk to WMF immediately? I understand that you think this was a threat to harm. That's fine. Welcome back :) (signed later by) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, mysterious unsigned editor. :) You may have missed the user's various self-deleted comments on his talk page and edit summaries. The suicide thread alone is problematic as a request for prediction, but it's in the wider context the matter becomes more serious. Also, from policy:

"Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat all claims seriously and as an emergency."

This has been reported to ANI, and the decision there was to leave the matter to the WMF--not to close it as unfounded. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I agree inedible & semanticmantis. I just posted to the wrong website, that's all, except it is insincere. After all, this is allowed on enotalone, but not here. No intentions here, just wanted to say that life sucks, but I couldn't go to enotalone. The threat was not sincere, as I have no intentions. I am not lying, since then you couldn't trust what I write now. That would be an offense towards my King.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that certain ref desk editors (well, let's be honest: Medeis) have taken it upon themselves to determine who is and who is not "a troll" and are taking actions to (in effect) impose a topic-ban upon that user, barring them from the reference desks by unilaterally removing or hatting their posts here. The problem with that is that it circumvents ALL of the procedures and guidelines that Wikipedia has painstakingly put in place to review the actions of problematic users. Where is the a reasoned community debate whether they are "trolls" or whatever - the determination of whether there is a consensus for action - to decide what (if any) defensive measures we need to put in place - and to direct a properly vetted site administrator to impose the resulting conditions?

What Medeis is undertaking here is akin to a lynch mob - vigilantism at it's worst. If Medeis doesn't personally like someone's posts, they are declared to be "A Troll" and that used as justification for unilateral action...often in the face of clear opposition from other editors - and most certainly without any consensus agreement to take those actions, either from ANI or from the community that runs the Reference Desks. If the person involved has been reported to ANI and they decided on some specific action - then let that action take effect - we have no authority to exceed that action. If ANI imposes a two-week block, then Medeis should not turn it into an indefinite ban. If the conclusion is that this person should endure a topic-ban on the Ref Desk, then let it be imposed there, officially. If for some technical reason, we cannot impose the ban as a software-imposed automated thing, then let's announce here that ANI made the decision and then it's up to all of us to be vigilant and remove/hat those posts.

Sure, it's necessary to remove an occasional post - we have rules about that - things like the WP:BLP rules. But removing perfectly legitimate questions just because you think someone is not a nice person rather than it being inappropriate content...that's not acceptable.

What Medeis continues to do is quite unacceptable - acting as judge, jury and executioner - and this has to stop. I really don't care what the circumstances surrounding this particular episode are - we're talking about a pattern of Medeis' overstepping the authority of a normal editor...actually exceeding what even a Wikipedia Admin is supposed to do without the opportunity for a review and various appeals processes. I invite other editors here to imagine how it would be if Medeis suddenly decided that they were a troll. No much fun, eh?

So - my take on this is that Medeis SHOULD NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES undertake actions beyond that imposed by a proper review, held by ANI - or at the very least, widely debated and agreed here on the Ref Desk talk pages...and if I see it happening again, Medeis can expect to face another round in front of ANI to explain how this can be a good thing for the encyclopedia - with luck we'll get a topic ban that'll stick this time and be done with this pain in the neck forever.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the fact that the IP himself just said that he shouldn't have posted his comments here, but at another forum, and that he made an insincere threat. I don't think there's much more to say. Certainly not anything to scream about. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Those few days of grace we had were absolute bliss. I didn't opine on the last ANI discussion, but the difference between the desks with and without Medeis was so remarkable that I'll definitely be !voting next time. If there is a next time. Tevildo (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As has been amply demonstrated here, you and Baker's complaints are in the wrong on this issue. Obviously, it's "bliss" when you get it wrong and there's no one around to challenge it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's bliss when Medies isn't here. I meant to imply nothing more, and nothing less. If sie were to go permanently, I would be happy. If, as is more likely, sie's going to be around for the foreseeable future, I will be less happy. Make of that what you will. Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And for some others, it might be bliss when you're not here. So what? Instead of attacking established editors (even when they make correct decisions), maybe you could turn your wrath towards the 54 troll that keeps turning up and is contributing absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

On an issue which I hope we _can_ agree, 84.209.89.214 has been formally accused of being LightCurrent, and his recent behaviour is not inconsistent with that accusation. Might it be appropriate for more formal steps to be taken? Should, indeed, this be a new section? Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you narrowly avoid a ban, purely on procedural grounds, the intelligent thing to do is not to continue the behavior that brought you so close to the ban in the first place. APL (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I take Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and when I first glanced at this I wanted to take your side μηδείς, I really did. But once I actually looked a bit more, it became clear I couldn't. First the actual question wasn't really a concern. if the editor had asked about suicide methods, or heck even something about religion related to death, or even something related to their life or life in general, then perhaps taken with the stuff on their talk page you could justify deletion regardless of the question being legitimate.

But the question wasn't anything like that, I guess you could say that hearing the numbers will make them depressed or make them think it's a good idea or something but that's a stretch. (Also as the guidelines hint at, you have to be careful anyway. While we don't want people trying to help due to the risk they will make things worse, blanket deletion is not always the best solution either since there's also a risk that will make things worse.)

More importantly, even if deletion was the best bet because of the risk the editor was truly suicidal, your response seems to have missed the core point of the guidelines namely you should notify others probably admins (as well as the WMF), you should also aim to avoid drawing attention or making a fuss. It's surely fairly obvious from experience that posting your removal here by you was pretty much guaranteed to result in a vigirious discussion.

Yes there's always a risk, but removing it quietly with a clear cut edit summary like 'Removing per WP:Responding to threats of harm, WMF has been contacted and revdeletion will be requested, contact me privately for explaination', or even just 'Removing per WP:Responding to threats of harm, contact me privately for explaination' is likely to have a lower risk. If you're not sure what to do about notifying admins, at least post at ANI rather than here. And if any of that still resulted in a big fuss as well, at least you tried to avoid it.

And even worse then that, as you yourself emphasised we're supposed to treat all threats seriously. Beyond contacting the WMF, this also means, as much as we may think it, we should avoid publicly calling someone in such a case a trolling or saying they are not serious which you did in both your first comment and in the followup. In other words, either you treat this as a possible treat of harm that needs to be dealt with properly, or you don't. You can say we need to treat it seriously then a paragraph later say they're probably trolling.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Medeis was right to delete and route it to WMF. Better safe than sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP specifically predicted their own demise (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A78.156.109.166&diff=592851568&oldid=586393887 this is a diff to the more completed user page than the diff which Medeis provided), thus the question pertains to the IP in such a way that the deletion was justified. -Modocc (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I listed who made the predictions. It's just a list of end-time predictions. The 2014 suicide thread was an error, since I forgot that Wikipedia doesn't do prediction. If I could think at the time, it should have been 2013. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events&diff=586692645&oldid=586692463 Here you see that I didn't predict my own demise, but informed who made the predictions. Same on my user page. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

beating a dead horse

This subject came up on my talk page. I'm beating a dead horse, yes, but I can't help but feel I (along with anyone else who disagreed with Medeis's actions) am being passively cast as somehow callous and indifferent to suicidal threats (along the lines of "how can you question this when nothing should be more important than someone's well-being"). Especially since it was my own talk page on which this Bizarro World was emerging, I was a little bothered and compelled to reply. But I'd rather not fork the discussion there so I'm copying my comments here since this thread is still open. Apologies for what I know is an intrusive block of text on a subject I know most people have moved on from.

[To a casual observer reading Medeis's and a couple other users' comments, it might sound like there was a user threatening harm and the removal of his/her question/thread was necessary to ensure he/she didn't act on those threats.]

1. In fact, there was no threat made. The question asked was about predicting yearly suicide rates. Worded in part as a prediction, but it's a statistics question. We don't do predictions, no, but we do statistics and whether such statistical predictions have been done by others. We also do communicating with people who might not be aware of the scope of the page.
2. The IP who asked the question has asked many legitimate and unrelated questions at the refdesk before. A few look for eschatological predictions or deal with some manner of religious speculation inappropriate for the refdesk, but it's clear he/she isn't disruptive. Even statistics requests have come up before.
3. Medeis, your initial reaction was to close the thread and accuse the person of trolling because you didn't like that it seemed like it was requesting a prediction and the user (or someone else on the same IP) had been blocked in the past. If you're truly concerned about suicidal intentions, aggressively shutting down requests for information and discrediting intentions are pretty poor ways to help that person, no? (Even if policy did necessitate it, the way you did it does not show any indication -- as your words and Bugs's words above suggest -- that this is all for the sake of the user's well-being).
4. Bugs correctly pointed out that this person is into doomsday predictions.
5. You then deleted the thread based on the combination of (a) the subject of the thread (suicide statistics), and (b) the following text on the IP's user page:
   • "LAST JUDGMENT MAY 21 2011 to NOVEMBER 21 2014 / Inside myself is a dark place where I live all alone / I'm doomed / We have a problem and don't know what to do / End-time predictions: / February 22, 2014 (Ragnarök; 25 days; could happen) / February 28, 2014 (Last Judgment; 1 month; Benjamin Christen; won't happen) / June 1, 2014 (End of the world; 124 days; NASA; comet; won't happen) / November 21, 2014 (Last Judgment; 297 days; 78.156.109.166 aka Adrian Skotnicki (me); will happen) / December 16, 2014 (Google World Domination; 322 days; could happen) / October 7, 2015 (Last Judgment; 617 days; won't happen) / August 2015 - November 2015 (markbeast.com; won't happen) / 2016 (markbeast.com; won't happen) / 2017 (Last Judgment; weatherbill7"
6. JohnReaves responds to an ANI on the matter (started by someone else) by saying "Looks more like a doomsday fanatic, the suicide aspect is specuation. Concerns should be directed to emergency at wikimedia.org though, not here."
7. You created a new ANI to say you reported the IP to WMF/emergency. You point out the editor's recent block and refer to his/her refdesk question as evidence (the one about suicide statistics) of editing that's "disruptive at best, and suggesting we know the solution diff at their talk page amounts to self-threat." But again the contrary is the case: the link you provided (to a version of the user page with text identical to that quoted above but a diff just before the IP added the doomsday dates), specifically says we don't know the solution.
8. JohnReaves reiterated that it seemed to be a person just interested in doomsday predictions and suggested you remove the ANI. You didn't. Here and also multiple times on the refdesk talk page you point to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for justification. You were absolutely right to contact WMF if you suspected suicidal behavior, yes. Number 3 at the top of that page, however, is "Contact an administrator privately to remove the revision from public view and have the user blocked" not post to a noticeboard and the reference desk talk page.

In sum, you accused a user of trolling when he/she asked a question about suicide statistics, hatted and then removed his/her question and subsequent answers, interpreted doomsday musings and predictions as suicidal threats, then used multiple public venues to try to have the user blocked, still maintaining that he/she was trolling/disruptive but continuing to point to WP:SUICIDE for justification, even though that page says to contact an admin privately...and, most importantly, even though no threat was ever made.

So you can "better safe than sorry" and point to policy as much as you like, but it was the unilateral actions you took to remedy the situation based on your own subjective judgment -- and inflexibility on those actions -- that was the disruption here. Reporting to WMF is as far as I can condone, because it's an avenue suited to discrete "see something say something" suspicion or liberal (even undiscerning) application of "better safe than sorry." Nothing else you did was in anybody's best interest -- let alone the user, whom you dismissed, accused of trolling, reported publicly multiple times, and made assumptions and judgments about their mental status. I can't imagine a clinical psychologist who wouldn't be cringing. We may not be a good venue for medical advice, but that doesn't mean we have to flip people off who might need it.

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I closed the OP's thread as requesting prediction. It did request prediction. I didn't close it again after SteveBaker reopened it, did I? Only after it was reported the user was discussing his own psychological issues did I lookup the threat policy and followed it. You are accusing me of having used my judgment. I did use my judgment. (You are equally as guilty of using your subjective judgment in continuing this.) I posted this thread as a courtesy letting people know what I had done. I am not sure of your point complaining I did so, but we can always have this rev deleted if you think that's better. I, myself, filed an ANI. No one here reverted me. Not including people who voted to ban me at the failed ANI resolution before, no one disagreed with my judgment. I reverted no one. The ANI did not revert me. You can unarchive the ANI on this and re-open it. No one here contested the ANI. The OP admitted his actions were insincere, even thought he continued his activity, just today posting "life sucks" randomly on user:InedibleHulk's talk page. No one has seen fit to admonish the OP for this? I find this continued hounding of someone who's made a whole two edits day's apart on this thread bizarre to say the least. Quoting the opinions of imagined clinical psychologists? Why not just re-open the suicide thread if you think that's warranted? I won't be dignifying this further. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing I have really struggled to get a handle on through this whole saga is: Is the OP in question (a) a horrible troll who deserves to be dealt with and shut down, or (b) someone contemplating self-harm and making a cry for help which we are duty bound not to ignore? Some enlightenment would be appreciated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I'm inclined to say (c) neither. As for him "randomly" posting on my talk page, I can't see why that should be admonished. Maybe if he'd said "You suck". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked until August, as well as having his talk page privileges revoked. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Link Breaking

We've had two recent threads on heroin, and in the cause of making the header more useful to those searching the archives, I have changed "Heroin" to "Heroin (why cook it?)" [9]. I made a similar change yesterday but a drive-by IP reversed the edit saying I had been warned about not breaking links. Regardless of the strangeness of someone not wanting to sign that comment, I thought the link breakage issue had had to due with bracketed links in the header, not changing the header. So I have aded back in some informative info about the question, and intend to leave it that way unless one of the people who maintain these pages tells me a problem still exists. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPOC, point 12, which says, in part: "In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: {{formerly}}, {{anchord}}, {{anchor}}."

—Wavelength (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Where do you put these templates? Can you either fix the relevant thread for me so I can see it as an example, or point me to an example? Appreciate it. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a recent example at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 January 27#8-tuples of 4 hex digit numbers.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you very much. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

triple request for horoscope deleted

The other two posts of this request have been hatted. I deleted the third one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment&diff=594548793&oldid=594535226, we don't need it showing up in the archives three times. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it should show up in the archive even once. Be that as it may, supposing any frequent editors here know anything about astrology (beyond its being a total humbug), is the question theoretically answerable within the confines of astrology? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was content to leave it there once, since the OP should know the question was shut down. I left it there twice, since he should also learn not to double post. The third time? μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there any admins here who will warn, if not block this?

The User:Great Time has been warned, criticized by multiple editors above as a sock puppet, and continues with such nonsense as this: [10]. Are there no admins here who will warn or block this disruption? μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, WP:ANI is probably the place to raise the matter. I'm inclined to agree that it is probably time to put a stop to this serial cluelessness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen admins freak out over a benign one sentence comment by productive existing users. Where are they on this? This user has been hugely disruptive, now deleting an entire thread on one of his "questions". I find it hard to believe we have no admins who've noticed this. μηδείς (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to me, I'd be happy to do it, except I have no interest in participating in the interrogation that would surely ensue. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, and you're not one of the several admins whose name was in my thoughts at that point. But, please, do take some action. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am here again due to the same concern. User:Great Time is either laughing at us or unable to take a hint that he has to change his ways. His questions are pointless. I am surprised some contributors found a way of seeing an answerable question in his posts. Some people have a definition of "assume good faith" that is maybe too broad. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an obvious agenda going on with that user. The solution would seem to be to hat or delete his questions whenever they turn up - provided we could get everyone here to agree to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was happy to answer the empire one, but even then I felt it was pushing a bit of an agenda. This fine as far as it goes: everyone has their biases. Just because someone has an opinion we don't like doesn't mean we shouldn't answer... But after three such questions it started to look more like just an excuse to rant. Mingmingla (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no factual answer to the question, only opinions. But the point is that the user keeps asking these kinds of questions, leading up toward "trying to prove something". You should read through all the questions he's asked so far and see the pattern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure you are addressing the wider problem, Mingmingla. The world is divided into right-side driving countries and left-side driving countries. It is divided into rich countries and poor countries. The rich countries control wikipedia. What is the opinion of Greek Mythology on this fact? I am erasing the last three threads people have answered in good faith [11] [12] [13] on variations of this theme because I want to. Discuss. (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity’s sake, the above comment was added by μηδείς [14]. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had fixed that with this edit, but I see not. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not discuss. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I blocked him because he's obviously a troll and presumably Bowei. Let's see how long that lasts, or how long until he's back with a new name. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Finding your own answer

I would like to suggest that enquirers who then find the answer to their own questions are encouraged to share the answer by putting it on this page in the relevant section. Britmax (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We often ask them to do exactly that, when we've come up short on a particular question. Are you suggesting this be added to the general instructions at the top of the page? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Though not in the instructions, this is encouraged both here and at the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 20:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn's biggest fan ...

... is back. Or was, for a brief moment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the weird language, we can provide references to things Hepburn's said on the topic. I don't recall if anyone tried to answer this question in good faith the previous few times it was asked, but I got this list of sourced quotes from Hepburn about her religious views with my first google search [15]. My default response to this kind of question is to interpret in a way that it is appropriate for the ref desk (this is also what they usually do at real-life ref desks). So when the OP asks "Has [someone] been saved by Jesus?" I think of "I'm looking for things [that person] has said about her religious views"- and provide references if I'm able. I understand not everyone shares my interpretation and method of WP:AGF, but thought I'd share with the group. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The user has been answered that Hepburn was not a Christian of the sort who would talk in such terms. He's also repeated the question, obviously not caring about or bothering to find prior answers. And given heaven doesn't publish a registry, we simply can't answer, and shouldn't try to speculate.

I notice our "is there going to be a concert tour by X" poster from British Columbia is back as well. Does anybody remember one of his old accounts, so we can check for block evasion? μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm normally a fan of playing a straight bat with suspicious posts. For non-aficionados of cricketing terminology, that means answering the question exactly as asked as briefly as possible and with no commentary, thus giving the OP, if they are indeed a troll, nowhere to go but away. That's what we've been doing with the Chinese OP who's been asking what feels like dozens of questions about strange forms of expression. Some respondents are getting tired and frustrated with this OP, but they could simply not give in to those feelings, stay quiet, and get on with something else. By raising them as a possible troll, we give them the attention they crave and we fall into their trap. The best approach is NOT to discuss them, if at all possible, but just answer their questions with a straight bat and a straight face and hope they'll soon get tired of trying.

But with this OP, he's already asked exactly the same question at least twice, and been told we cannot provide an answer since there is no reference that could possibly help us know whether Jesus saved Hepburn or not. To just come back and ask the question at least a third time and pretend we didn't answer them previously is outright trolling, just asking for the question to be deleted outright. Which I did. I came here to report my action per policy, but I didn't want to start a discussion because, again, that is us wasting our time on an unrepentant troll, which is giving them precisely what they want. Now that I've wasted too much time on this chronophagous creature, I'm gonna shut up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The only answer that this person will accept seems to be "yes". We've tried in the past answering to the extent possible ("She doesn't appear to have claimed to be a member of any particular denomination that uses this terminology"), so I doubt there is anything else we can do answer-wise. I don't think it's trolling as much as just stubborn single-mindedness. Mingmingla (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good experiment, to restore the now-deleted question and just post the one-word response "Yes" and see if that puts an end to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't want to say 'no, Audrey was never saved and is going to hell, please find another soulmate' and hope that they next ask you whether Shirley Temple was saved by Jesus? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

IP user over usage?

The user 222.128 and 221.221 is using the language desk correctly (or at least in line with the way it has often been used), but are they using it too much? --Lgriot (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If the user is using the language desk correctly, there's no problem. Unless there's a guideline somewhere limiting the number of questions that can be asked? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I also see no problem. The user seems to be using the Language desk as a way to help understand English phrasing and idiom. Surely that is correct usage? The user is posting very many questions. I would encourage the user to ask about 2-3 phrases at once, rather than a new question for each phrase, but that's mostly a style issue. If some readers/regulars don't like the questions, they are welcome to skip over and not read or answer ;) I am also unaware of any limitations on number of questions asked. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

While there are no limits on the number of questions that are allowed, there have been cases in the past where users have semi-flooded the RD pages with questions. Some preferred getting their answers from real people rather than Google and one, who's username I can't recall right now, thought that if we didn't get enough questions here that we didn't have anything else to do. This last person was under the impression that they were doing us a favor by asking more and more.

In those cases, the users were discussed here and then when consensus was that they were abusing the desks they were asked nicely to curtail their questions. So far, it doesn't sound like this particular IP is getting on anyone's nerves but your own. If this changes, I'm sure you'll see something posted about it here. Dismas|^(talk) 20:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say more or less the same thing as Dismas. People who have been discussed in the past I can recall offhand including Bowei Huang, User:Cheminterest, User:John Riemann Soong, User:Whoop whoop pull up (well I had to search to find their name) and perhaps Planetcolourguy/Freewayguy/interracial marriage guy and also User:Donmust90. In some cases like BWH and PCG, they have also had other problems such as their questions being inappropriate for the RD. In others like JRS and CI, they've changed their behaviour after it was discussed, perhaps redirecting their efforts elsewhere.

It's worth remembering this isn't just about the problems to question askers trying to find other questions amongst a large group of questions from one editor which they may not wish to answer. It's also likely to be confusing to other OPs having so many other questions. And of course it's also a disadvantage to other OPs if their questions are missed because of the confusing array of questions from one editor or if answerers stop checking out any reference desk because of a mass of questions from someone they can't be bothered dealing with.

Or to put it a different way, as a shared resource one editors contributions can actually make problems for everyone.

However if people feel it's not a problem yet, then that's fine. But there was also nothing wrong with the issue being brought up for discussion. As with all areas of wikipedia, per WP:NOTBURO, we don't need a bunch of specific rules before we can discuss if behaviour is problematic and if it is, to tell an editor it is. In fact the previous discussions about this and the diversity of cases where the issue has come up to some extent have demonstrated the problems with any attempted condification.

The issue isn't simply the number of questions but the questions themselves (e.g. can they easily be answered by a search or by the editor understanding the basics?) and a bunch of other stuff (probably including the desk, how long it's been going on, what else is going on in the RD etc). In some cases we even have apparent trolls like Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 87#wut happens if i ask too many question.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have suggested that the IP try to post a single thread with multiple questions, rather than so many different threads. I strongly suggested he sign his posts, and not repeat basically the same question. But I agree the activity is largely benign, and what one would expect from an advanced English student. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I just figured he was writing an English grammar book, one sentence at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

English As She Is Posted? —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the science ref desk?

Looks like a lot of posts mysteriously vanished from the Science ref desk. I'm looking now to try to figure out why. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably the same problem that's been occurring with WP:ANI - see discussion here: [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bizarre. I am trying to edit Herbs and flowering plants. Clicked on the header at the top of the page. Then the edit box that opens up is The nature of glass. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I often see Edit open up the wrong Q. Apparently when you click Edit, it determines that you clicked on Q number X, then tries to open Q number X. Unfortunately, if archiving happened between the click and the open, or if a Q was inserted or deleted above that one, then it's no longer Q number X, and some other Q opens instead. I'd call this a bug with the way Wikipedia works. It needs to be made more robust to support simultaneous editing of multiple sections of an article. Going back out of edit mode, refreshing the page, then clicking Edit again usually fixes this issue, unless the section number changed again. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that usually happens when you've clicked on footer, and the footer changes as a new question is added or a new date header. In this case, my question was near the top of the page, and the one that opened up was near the bottom. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I happened to respond to the question that broke it (didn't look broken before editing), and then the question and my response were missing. It was back when I clicked edit, then gone again when I refreshed the deck. While I was poking at the history to figure out what had happened it fixed itself without anyone else adding an edit. The edit that looks like it broke it and the fix immediately afterward were both completed before I did my edit. Katie R (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Great Time

The activities of Great Time (talk · contribs) resemble those of a sock of an indef'd user. I think it was Boweii Huang, but I'm not totally sure. But maybe a user to keep an eye on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I combined the two questions posted under this heading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Global_Economic_Inequality_and_the_Law μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether he's a sock of a banned user, or not, he's off on some looney-fringe angle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I came here to start a discussion on the peculiar (just to use a polite expression) behavior of this user too. Don't know whether a sock or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I was looking at Great Time's behaviour too. Has just started creating a stream of implausible redirects, just like User:Bowei Huang 2 did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think Great Time and Bowei Huang 2 must be one and the same. GT just blanked his talk page, an old BH2 ruse. To make matters even more confusing, our eschatalogical friend 78.156.109.166 is posting cryptic messages on GT's talk page and on the misc desk. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree, when I first saw some of this editors later posts I thought BWH. At the time they had some redirects which were also suspicious. (This was before this discussion.) Now they've added a bunch of Australian related ones and seem to be bothering people on their talk pages, two other big signs (despite the single France redirect they also did). Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The user has seen fit to post a non-question protesting his recent thread shouldn't be hatted. I merged this with the hatted thread, and told him to bring his complaints here or face being blocked for disruptive editting. See here. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And, he's done it again: here. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The user Great Time has been blocked indefinitely. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Question on protocol relating to discussion of existing articles

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There has been some discussion about transformers on the science desk. I wish to refer to this discussion on the transformer article talk page. Am I allowed to copy this discussion to the talk page or should I just link to it?109.144.132.3 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC) The above user 109.144.132.3 is a "Light current" sock or copycat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC) EXcuse me. I am an editor who is trying to improve an article - thats all. What grounds have you for naming me as a sock or copycat?--86.168.108.70 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I just checked your contributions from this IP. I see no problems with those edits. I'm happy to WP:AGF. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I don't think it matters much. What I would do is quote a small part, and then also a link. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your advice SM. I shall do as you advise.--109.144.196.1 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC) There you go again. 86 was already blocked once for block evasion. And besides which, I was talking about 109, not 86. And anyone who knows about LC (which you clearly don't) would recognize his act right away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived "leftovers" from Feb 13

There are two topics on the Humanities desk that should be in the February 13 archive that have been left behind at the top of the page - one is above the TOC as it lacks a heading. Who knows how to fix it and prevent it from happening again? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The second of those will likely get archived tonight, along with February 14. I suspect the bot didn't recognize the "February 13" next to InedibleHulk's signature, as it's in an unusual, wikilinked format. (The bot's algorithm for detecting the dates on posts is... peculiar. You Do Not Want To Know.)

As for the first one -- the headerless text buried up in the page heading -- it will have to be archived by hand. Usually the bot detects and warns about these anomalies and I take care of them, but anyone can. Just cut and paste the text from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 13. (I usually open two windows.)

Done. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There's not really any way of "preventing" these errors, as long as Wiki discussion pages rely on human editing conventions. There will always be people who, for example, don't understand the importance of adding a level-two header before each question, or who do understand but accidentally forget. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change name of Computing reference desk

I would like to propose that the name of the Computing reference desk be changed to simply "Computers" or "IT". The word computing is an anachronism, redolent of bearded blokes in unfashionable '70s outfits. It refers to programming, software engineering and so on. Some of the questions on the desk are about that stuff, but a lot are about problems faced by end-users who can't get something to work and just need a quick fix. In other words, the desk mostly functions like an IT support helpdesk, and the name should reflect that fact.

There is also a discrepancy in that the ref desk homepage calls the desk "Computers and IT". That is a bit of a mouthful so I would propose that the ref desk homepage link be changed as well to reflect the new name of the desk. --Viennese Waltz 09:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Technology" be a better catch-all title? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Technology could mean anything, like a new kind of toaster for example. --Viennese Waltz 10:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd stick to Computing then if you're excluding other types of technology. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the desk is about computers and IT. Computing is a subset of that. --Viennese Waltz 10:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's about computing. IT is simply a method of using computers. Computing, should you wish to exclude toasters, seems wholly appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In the 1970s, Tomorrow's World (which featured a lot of guests with beards, you'll be pleased to know, HiLo) promised me that by now, toasters would have computers in them. Please tell me they were right. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In my occasional glances at Winter Olympic events in the past two weeks, it seems that most of the males in outdoor events seem to be sporting facial hair, albeit a bit thin yet for some of them. It's clearly part of the new macho image. Will hairy chests again be fashionable soon? HiLo48 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely. Many male Olympic athletes (e.g. swimmers) shave off all their body hair as they reckon it impairs aerodynamics. --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you haven't seen the Winter Olympics then, beards, long hair, all very much in vogue. Like computers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want a constructive discussion you could try avoiding insulting those of us who have been part of the industry since the 1970s, and do happen to have beards. Not a mature approach. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As an unfashionable neckbeard, I'd be horribly offended if it wasn't so true. I like that "IT" is more broad and perhaps more accurate. Only argument I can think of against it is, do people on the street understand what "IT" means as well as they understand what "computing" means? Friday (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

IT isn't exactly a good search term. In long that would be Information Technology. Personally I prefer to use one word instead of two and see no need to change. To do my own insulting I doubt if many of the younger generation have the stamina to type information technology even if they were able to spell it correctly, luckily Google will correct that for them. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, "computers" would be my preferred choice of name. The way I see it:

• "computers" is a more widely used, and easier to understand, term than "computing";
• computing is only part of what computers are about; and
• the computing reference desk handles more general questions about computers than it does about computing.

But if there's no consensus to make this change, I'll happily shut up about it. --Viennese Waltz 15:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know "IT" is usually used to mean a highly restricted field of computing. It is currently a particularly visible subfield to the man in the street (mainly because of the high degree of support needed). A company's IT department would only have the responsibility of maintaining the computer infrastructure within the company, with the majority of the computer software and hardware developers not falling under it. So, if the ref desk is for answering questions such as "How do I get my VPN to work?", but will exclude "How does a VPN maintain privacy?" or "How can an embedded processor run without an OS?", "IT" is your term.

On "Computing"/"Computers", the ref desks are best named after disciplines or fields, as opposed to categories of objects. I think the term "computing" as the name of a field might challenge the perception of meaning expressed by Viennese Waltz. —Quondum 16:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you name it "IT" prepare for questions about Tara Palmer-Tomkinson. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "IT" has come to mean the very narrow field of "The IT Department of a big company" - the people who look after the servers and networks and ask managers whether they tried turning their computers off and on again. Software and Electronics Engineers are generally not part of the IT department - and questions about why your toaster's USB cable won't plug into your iPad to allow you to install iToast have nothing to do with the modern meaning of the term "IT". SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

VW himself changed it from "Computing" to "Computers and IT" in June of 2008, but the linked-to object remains "Computing". I think the current labeling works fine as-is. The term "computer" is about as old-fashioned as the telephone "dial", but it's in common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• oppose - I vote for "Computing".

  The words "computer" and "computing" are not subsets of each other. "Computing" could include using an abacus to compute something - which (IMHO) would be a perfectly fine thing to ask about on WP:RD/C. "Computers" (at least in modern usage) excludes things like the abacus that aren't programmable - so (IMHO), it's not a wide enough topic name. I also rail at the idea of calling it the "computer ref desk" because a computer is a thing - not a discipline like math, science, etc - and I think that desk is about more than just computers. A piece of software isn't a computer. Neither is a USB cable and neither is a person interested in a job in Information Technology who needs career advice...all of which 'belong' on WP:RD/C.

  The desk is about everything relating to computers - and that field is called "Computing" - so the title is good.

  (PS: I started my software engineering career in 1977 - I do indeed have a beard, and I habitually dress in sandals, jeans and either a loud hawaiian shirt or a hawaiian shirt, left unbuttoned over a T-shirt with some kind of a joke on it that only computer geeks understand or love. Today's is: "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't"...yesterdays's was "Go away or I'll replace you with a surprisingly small shell script"...tomorrow will probably be my 1993 SigGraph shirt.

  SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SteveBaker (and others). From a usability standpoint, Computing isn't appreciably better or worse than Computers in describing the Desk's topic; and it is less likely to confuse than IT or even Information Technology. From the standpoint of maintaining the Desks, there's an awful lot of overhead involved in changing that -ing to an -ers—changing all the Ref Desk's many templates to point to the new location, figuring out how to handle archives so that we don't break their searchability or the myriad links to them from elsewhere on Wikipedia, and so forth. I just don't see the benefit outweighing the cost.

As a purely incidental note, Google's Ngram Viewer offers an interesting comparison of the usage of the terms computers, computing, and information technology over the last century or so. 'Computing' has been around forever, 'computers' took off in the 1950s, and 'information technology' didn't really become a thing until the 1980s. Really interesting is the dip after the year 2000; IT and 'computing' eroded a bit, but 'computers' just got hammered. The word 'computers' got less play in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available) than it did in 1982. What happened? Can't say for sure, but I think Steve may have brushed the edge of it. We will always need to carry out computing tasks, but the devices we use are less and less often called computers. To do one's computing these days, one uses a laptop, or a smart phone, or a desktop, or a tablet—not some dusty old "computer". The language is moving on; "computers" were a quaint flash in the pan. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I used to have a computer working on the desk just beside me. It was awful, she smoked some ghastly cigars. Oh dear I'm showing my age ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Human computer, for anyone who doesn't get it. I agree with TenOfAllTrades: the two aren't substantially different enough to matter, let alone to warrant the substantial expenditure of resources in changing all the page names and links. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

benign joking about a living person

I think it's pretty clear that the last two comments here are only mild jokes at Justin B.'s expense. I am concerned for consistency that this is a BLP issue, and that future searches of the archives for this person really shouldn't call up these responses. I am curious if, rather than hatting the comments, User:Clarityfiend and User:Dweller would be willing to delinkify the name and use an initial instead? μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons" (bolding from original). It's not clear to me that Clarityfiend or Dweller added any information about JB, but I'll be curious to hear what others think. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So apparently WP:BLP has been reduced to one sentence, and the warning against adding unsourced negative comments that disparage the subject has been removed? This material is off topic disparagement of a living person and inappropriate for an archived reference desk. People searching for the subject should not find a joke at his expense. To say that the joke is not "information" and is therefore unobjectionable by policy is absurd as saying falsehoods and insults are therefore acceptable since they are not facts either. We've removed comments about a dictator's speech impediment. We shouldn't be saying a living person deserves to be mocked by being made to wear embarrassing clothing meant for the opposite sex. The question is not if this material is problematic, but how to deal with it. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I simply wanted to raise a point for the group to discuss. I never said I was quoting the entirety of WP:BLP policy, I just thought the first sentence was a good place to start. Why do you seem so fighty and angry all the time? Why do you like to reduce other peoples' comments to straw men? Try to be civil and WP:AGF, I promise it will make your life here easier :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You called a long-standing editor a "troll" earlier on this page. Fix your own civility before complaining about the alleged incivility of others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bieber, who is not quite 20 yet, has been subjected to endless jokes by late-night comedians. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for us to do so. We should give the kid a break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this policy apply to Canadians?!? I'm sorry, I could not resist. Yes, I suppose it's somewhat inappropriate. I'll show myself out now. Friday (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, if Bieber were to sue the WMF over this comment on the Ref Desk it would make the Ref Desk world famous, all of us regulars here would finally feel relevant. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, the Ref Desk is bound to remain a bleak, desolate outpost on the internet that no one except us regulars knows about. Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP rules apply everywhere on Wikipedia, even on its bleakest, most desolate outposts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder where the Centre of the Internet is, and how distances from it to any named site are measured given that they're all as instantly accessible as each other. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. μηδείς, you're worried that somebody might get the wrong dead accurate impression about an extremely-high-profile celebrity whose antics have been plastered across every media outlet in the world not once but several times in the recent past? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Entirely wrong, and obviously disingenuous, since you do understand my point: I don't want people searching the archives for JB to find a gratuitous sexist joke at his expense as the only comment about him in a reference desk entry. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not okay for me to make fun of "JB", but it is okay for you to insult me. And sexist? That's an even greater reach than BLP. There is no violation of BLP, as Dweller notes. My joke consists of my opinion and the assertion that JB has been making an ass of himself; the latter I can source many times over. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Given your comments, you should now produce one or more valid sources asserting exactly that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

JB: a "stupid" "immature" "idiot" who should give anther JB a wide berth. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment was the only one that could be considered "contentious", so I've removed it and apologise for letting my sense of humour get the better of my sense of BLP. Maybe I'm spending too much time away. I think the original joke (if he does stupid things...) makes no contentious claims, so can stand, unlike my comment which insinuated that he does only stupid things. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, Dweller. But couching jokes and attacks in the form of questions or conditionals in no way makes them less jokes or attacks. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even Bieberpedia has the sort of rules that μηδείς wants to impose here. Rule 1 says: "This wiki is mainly for supporters of Justin Bieber, critics writing against or about Justin Bieber, music, other will be deleted unless kept to talk pages." Count Iblis (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is not only hilariously Stalinist in intent, but I reckon Uncle Joe could probably have put the concept into better English. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Was in my local pharmacy yesterday picking up some pills, and saw, right there in the centre of a big display clearly targeted at women, the Justin Bieber perfume. I burst out laughing at the incongruity of it all. Was I being offensive? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Brad Pitt did some perfume ads on TV recently, although I don't think it was named for him. And from what I read, those ads appeared mostly on Channel 5. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yuk, yuk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess my point is that if these guys put themselves out there in pretty silly situations, all in the name of money, we have a right to laugh and joke about it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you provide acceptable sourcing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the title of this section, I knew who was complaining about what. IMO, Medeis needs to chill the $%#! out. The title of the section, the title you gave it, says that the comments were benign, so just drop it. If, as your original post suggests, that jokes should not be archived because they don't meet some sort of intellectual, beard stroking quotient then why not protest every joke that anyone posts? Dismas|^(talk) 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP is one of those areas which has to be policed in order to keep Wikipedia out of trouble. That's why it's a very, very high priority in the Wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP would apply if I had said something like a certain person wore ugly pink clothes. Where is the BLP in my comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you insult a celebrity by quoting a valid source rather than making it sound like your own original research or synthesis, you might be off the hook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is getting more and more surreal. Voicing my own opinion/disapproval now needs to be sourced to avoid being confused with original research or synthesis??? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a fundamental problem with expanding BLP beyond article space (and I do know that BLP does apply to talk pages, albeit it in a milder form), is that in Wikipedia everything is visible in the editing history, we only delete things from there in extreme cases. So, it's rather pointless to hat or revert jokes about living persons on talk pages. In case of an article, one can say that the latest stable version is what is sanctioned by the Wikpedia community. While there may be reverted versions containing BLP violations, what matters is that it is clear what version the community supports. Count Iblis (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Right on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

All manner of stuff gets zapped from talk pages for various reasons, so the current version of a given talk page is likewise "what is sanctioned by the Wikipedia community". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Return of User:Great Time

Looks like Mr. "The World is divided into X countries and Y countries" is back as User:Pinkerman45 with his soapboxing and requests for prediction: diff. Hopefully someone will nip this in the bud. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether he's that guy or not, it's obvious his sole purpose is disruption, so I've posted him at AIV (which is currently backlogged, but that's not our problem). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV? I don't see a report there. But I am sure SPI and ANI would work. We already have checkusers watching here, and I would hope they would act on this discussion alone. This desk gets way too much trolling, and it should be much easier to file an SPI, etc., than it is at present. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It disappeared, as they issued him a warning. It's always potluck at AIV, since some admins will do their jobs and some won't. But at least he knows he's being watched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinkerman45 doesn't sound much like Great Time/BWH to me. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[comment redacted: I just had the realization that by responding to this attention-seeking behavior of Medeis, I am not respecting WP:DNFTT ]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for succumbing to temptation and responding to the question. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you misunderstand, I was redacting a comment I made here. The OP of the thread in question ends with ".. reasearch a way to protect our cities, is it? What is being done there?" -- this is a clear and straightforward request for information, that can be answered with references to reliable sources. To be clear, I thought that question and your answer were both fine. But, as usual, and despite the disruption that it causes, Medeis likes to close threads of its own accord. Gah, now I've given it too much attention again... I guess I'll go find and post some refs, in case any one else is interested in the question. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinkerman45 (talk · contribs)

So you're labeling a long-standing editor as a "troll", and at the same time defending the comment "... when is the West going to get serious about shunning these rampant polluters with some economic boycotts?" Way to go, SM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to help people find references and answers to questions. I saw a question (with a little bit of bias, sure), that also clearly asked for factual information. We can answer those questions with references. That is the purpose of the ref desk. Check my response there if you'd like to see my approach. I take it as disruptive when somebody suppresses my contribution. If makes me feel like I'm wasting my time and effort, if somebody else can come along and say "I don't like that, it's closed." As Sluzzelin mentions below, it doesn't really matter if Pinkerman45 is a "bad guy". We (should) judge posts on their content. It's an honest question, one I am very interested in, and one that I think many other editors would like info on as well. Whether or not an editor has been around for a long time (or new, or an IP) has nothing to do with whether his behavior in a certain instance can be disruptive or attention-seeking. Or do you think that only a few people have the right to call "troll" on disruptive actions? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to retract your "troll" comment above or else retract your complaint below about the incivility of others. You don't have any special pass to enforce a double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP was quite unnecessarily aggressive in the follow-ups in his question "Countries that historically do well in the Winter Olympics", hatted by Andy. The question(s) on global warming by the same user, however, are covered, of general interest (not just for the OP), and answerable with references. I unhatted the question and Marco polo's answer. Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get what justification there was for the second hat [17]. The claim is made that it was by 'consensus at talk'.

But this talk page was like this [18]. The only contribs to this discussion at that stage were 1) μηδείς the hatter, 2) BB saying the poster was disruptive something which they bizzarely reported to AIV and not surprisingly (since disruptive or not, it's not clear cut vandalism) were rejected, 3) and me suggesting I didn't believe it was BWH/GreatTime. I didn't say anything about the hatting because I didn't really care, but I definitely wasn't agreeing with it.

While silence can sometime be an indication of consensus, there needs to be enough time for people to respond and I don't think 16 hours can be considered that, particularly on something as likely to be contentious as a hatting by μηδείς and as unimportant as a hatting of a possibly disruptive question but where the evidence of disruption comes only from the question itself and the next question.

Even more so when the first hatting had already been removed which is an obvious sign someone disagreed with it. The issue NE Ent mentioned when removing the first hat wasn't even properly addressed as the second hat wasn't clearly signed. And I see the 1st hat was also by μηδείς [19] so I assume they were aware it was removed.

It doesn't of course help that μηδείς seems to be complaining about the fact many people did largely ignore the part which arguably was "soapboxing request for prediction and debate" i.e. the part about "when the West will get serious about boycotting "rampant" third world polluters". If μηδείς isn't able to ignore such requests and get past such soapboxing and only answer the parts of questions which are suitable for the RD, that's not a reason to hat. That's a reason for μηδείς to either ignore such questions completely themselves OR to leave the RD if they really can't deal with it.

I myself objected to some silly soapboxing a few weeks ago, but I did it in smalltext and left the question alone after that until it had long been archived (I only really responded again because I came across it again when checking something). I definitely didn't try to hat the question multiple times.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the bee-ess excuse was made, totally false, that there were good referenced answers posted to the "question" of when we will boycott rampant third world polluters, why in the world shouldn't I point out that none have in fact been provided, just rants about capitalism and entirely irrelevant talk about London and New York building see walls? All that is going on here is people's attachment to their own political POV, and a solicitous feeling of protective ownership of their off topic remarks. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to talk about protecting London and New York buildings (the OP specifically mentioned New York) from the possible effects of global warming (which as people have said, includes stuff beyond sea level rises) when the OP clearly asked about what was being done to protect Western country cities from the effects of global warming? ("So it's never too early to reasearch a way to protect our cities, is it? What is being done there?") Or are you going to make the ridiculous argument that the OP wasn't interested in practical measures but only in research?

And who ever said that that people tried to answer the question of 'when we will boycott rampant third world polluters'. As me and others have already said, this was only one part of the question, the only one which was really "soapboxing request for prediction and debate" and which people did rightfully largely ignore (although some people did try to cut to the heart of the issue namely how attempts were being made to come to agreement to take actions to reduce global warming).

In other words, so far, the only one who has made clearly offtopic remarks appear to be you as you've made accusations that don't seem to have any basis in reality instead of answering the question (your only useful contribution there seems to have been to point out that the examples given by SemanticMantis weren't really related to protecting against rising sea levels). Some other people did address issues which weren't really asked but which were raised by the OPs question (such as the OP's simplistic view on the problems coming to an agreement to combat global warming).

Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Venustar84

Perhaps I've been inattentive. What did Venustar84 do to provoke shutting down her question about origins of surnames? —Tamfang (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, are we even sure the IP is Venustar84? AFAIK Venustar has always claimed to be Canadian and this has been partially reflected in some of her questions, although I also recall some interest in LA which perhaps isn't surprising considering their interest in actors etc. Someone who appears to be them has even edited under Canadian IPs before [20] [21] [22]. In fact I get the feeling from the contribution history including [23] and [24] that the second IP remains primarily used on wikipedia by Venustar84. Even the first IP looks to have been used by Venustar84 for a while Special:Contributions/24.87.72.146 and I seem to recall other IPs.

While this doesn't preclude the possibility they are studying at Ohio State University and also regularly using their Canadian internet connection (whether distance learning with some sort of proxy or whatever or travelling between the two), it does make it a little odd.

More the the point, it seems clear from both the questions [25] and WHOIS data the OSU IP is the same editor who has been asking questions about the Catholic church or sometimes other Christian related stuff for at least a year [26], [27], [28], [29] (also [30] & probably [31] from same IP) sometimes with weird misconceptions [32], [33].

I've never seen any similar interest of Catholic or Christian related stuff from Venustar84 under any of their multiple identities that I recall. And while they have had multiple identities, they don't seem to have made any real effort to hide it's them before.

I got the feeling that the IP is a foreign student, possibly Chinese [34] (a number of other contributions from the IP BTW), which could perhaps explain some of their questions. I think [35] is probably the same OSU editor and IIRC they have asked a bunch of other stuff mostly unrelated to Christianity (some of it linked to above). But I don't remember any of it being similar to the stuff Venustar84 asks, except perhaps the sexuality ones.

In fact, there something about the phrasing and language usage of the OSU questions including the surname one that sounds different to Venustar84 to me. While the surname questions are otherwise suspiciously similar, we can't rule out the possibility the IP was simply inspired by Venustar84's question or something similar. μηδείς has commented on an IP from Ohio several times here and in the RD proper so I guess they're at least partially aware of the history so if they have some good evidence linking the OSU and Venustar84 they're welcome to present it.

But in the mean time, I question the closing of the surname one and have reverted it. I'm not even sure about closing the latest Catholic one as it seems to me the sort of thing which is discussed widely enough that it's easy to answer with quality references rather than debate but I've left the closure for now.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fish gotta swim, Medeis gotta hat. No matter how much consensus says "please don't do that" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And double-standard bearers gotta attack established editors while giving trolls a free pass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well there's little evidence Venustar84 is a troll, even if some of their behaviour is unwelcome (of course so is some of μηδείς's). And they are clearly an established editor even if they've done so under multiple identities (although IIRC without a clear cut WP:Sock violation). In fact I think, Venustar84 has been around for longer under one of their previous identities than μηδείς on the RD. So if μηδείς is correct (I still don't believe they are), then your comment can be just as much said to apply to μηδείς as it does Venustar84. If I'm correct, then while I'm less certain the OSU IP is not a troll, it still doesn't justify μηδείς randomly lumping together different editors and making the 'sins' of one justification to hat the other, not to mention the unnecessary confusion it causes. Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing discussions

I know the RD has an enthusiastic hobby of closing inappropriate questions and bickering about the rules for doing so, but sometimes it gets a bit circular:

• A posts inappropriate question
• B replies, saying "not appropriate", and closes it
• A reads this, clearly gets the idea, and deletes the section
• B restores as "you can't delete questions which have been answered".

There's clearly no answer here beyond an admonition not to do it again; the user has seen the message and got the idea; and there is no value in archiving it and leaving it hanging around. I really don't think we need to revert things like this back into the live page, and I've removed it. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would generally agree it's unnecessary to keep the question around in a case like this with no answers. Even more so since hatting is often controversial so if the editor is fine with removing the question, it reduces the chance of such controversy. And of course the edits are still in the edit history if they need to be found for a future case.

The only exception I can see is if the editor frequently reposts the question without any real modification. In that case, I think the benefit of easily finding the previous question (since a person may search rather than check the edit history) outweighs anything else. I think we had a case like that before (BWH?) but this doesn't seem to be the case with the particular OP.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to leave that deletion stand, and would have were it a long standing user with a good record. But I restored it for just the reason Nil mentioned, that it is good to have evidence of such behavior stand when you think it might then be immediately reposted, or is part of a problematic editor's habit of erasing his own tracks. See the recently blocked IP 78 above for this behavior. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Her eyes bogging, she decided to get bold

Please correct me if I'm out of line objecting to this sort of query with which the Language desk has been getting peppered in recent days. Take a look at contributions from assorted IPs beginning with 222.128... I believe queries on grammar rules and idiomatic usage are helpful and of interest to lurkers, but soliciting a rewrite for this sort of peculiar wording is, how do we say, getting up my nose? My suggestion of CE-L, by the way, is sincere and genuine.-- Deborahjay (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of when I read that user's question was that it sounded hackneyed, like the famous "It was a dark and stormy night." But while some of the user's question might be sourceable, it would indeed seem better to send them to some type of literary forum site, where presumed experts in prose and poetry might be able to weigh in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that recommending some other forum to the user might be a good idea. I don't think they are technically doing anything "wrong" here, but now that this is obviously a long-term pattern, it does start to feel less and less within the scope of a reference desk. (I approach most of these cases based on my experience with real-life RD. There, a few such questions would be happily answered, but after coming in every day for weeks, the asker would be gently directed to some other resources.)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Even forgetting the question of the scope of the ref desk, it seems that the user is writing a story, and this approach is painstaking. Better he should run it by folks who actually do writing for a living or as a hobby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't sort out all the IP posts at RD/L right now, so I just added a bunch of links to writing and ESL resources to the current most recent similar question. Hopefully the OP will find them useful. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• The user at hand geolocates to Beijing, so I am tempted to AgF here. The problem is the sheer number of posts. The user does occasionally follow up on questions, so we know he reads our responses. But he resolutely ignores any suggestion that he sign his posts, or combine them as a single post per day, rather than load the page up with headers. I don't see any problem letting him continue if he will moderate his behavior and sign his posts rather than basically just making demands. I fear the only way to enforce that might be a short block to get him to pay attention to our suggestions. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why_would_a_human_brand_a_human...

I think this is in very poor taste. I think there is an inbuilt offense in looking past the torture aspect of the burning of the flesh of human beings to wonder aloud about the implications or symbolism of the "heart" shape of a branding iron. Unsurprisingly no one is providing any sourced information on the specific question asked. A warning should be placed at the top of the section saying that only reliably sourced, relevant material should be considered acceptable in response to this question due to its sensitive nature. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Taste is not typically a reason for action on Wikipedia (WP:NOTCENSORED). It seems like a perfectly well-intentioned question. If WP:NOR applied to the refdesk as stringently as it does to the rest of WP, 75% of edits would have to be reverted. I've rarely seen a thread that didn't contain some speculation/synthesis/judgment. Not to say speculation is ideal, but I don't see why it would be a problem here if not elsewhere. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the question. It's not our job to censor topics like this, just give a factual answer. If we don't have facts to give, we just do the best we can. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We should try and clearly delineate where what we say is surmise rather than from reliable sources, but it is only in cases where real damage might be caused that I would want conjecture to be totally eliminated. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the question, and it definitely piqued my curiosity as well. Matt Deres (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Return of User:Timothyhere

I have closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Correspondence_with_Japanese_death-row_inmates.3F See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timothyhere/Archive This is a known blocked user with dozens, if not hundreds of aliases, known to use Argentinian IP addresses and to obsess on Japan and serial killers. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's undoutedly Timothyhere and therefore concur with any closure. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

54 troll

Admin has advised me to delete 54 troll's garbage on-sight. It doesn't matter who he's talking to. I've also asked for temporary semi-protection of this page to keep that troll away from here. P.S. The troll has also violated the 3 revert rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And Baseball Bugs is interfering with my interaction with The Rambling Man. Possibly BB should not be doing this. 54.213.95.118 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Which admin and where did he/she say this? I'm not necessarily defending Mr. or Mrs. 54, but "someone said I can delete everything written by one billion different possible IP addresses" raises some questions :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Read Bishonen's comments a few paragraphs above. Not only are 54's attacks subject to delete on-sight, the troll is using an illegitimate method of accessing this website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not in an interaction ban with any IP addresses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that an admin has now blocked the most recent 54 troll. He's on several admins' radar now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just ignore 54, he's just trying to get under your skin by playing this "try to delete my insults to you if you can" game with you. His objective is to escalate things, you should not allow that to happen. Simply don't monitor what he does, his postings will be deleted as part of maintaining Wikipedia, but we shouldn't spend a lot of extra effort for 54. Count Iblis (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

They aren't getting deleted, unless you mean getting archived once in a blue moon; and he's only being blocked sporadically. And he's not "getting under my skin" nearly as much you'd like to think he is. It is pretty obvious that he's trying to get someone (and he doesn't care who specifically) to violate an interaction ban, which is the kind of thing trolls often do for sport. But now that his visibility has been elevated significantly among some trustworthy admins, I think he will soon be a gone goose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Completely independent note, before getting too enthusiastic, IP addresses beginning with 54 account for over 16 million possible individual IP addresses, which doesn't account for those with dynamic IPs (which applies to most casual internet users). To simply (delete edits from/block editors using) IPs in this MASSIVE range is misguided at best, delusional (if you think it'll help) and a dereliction of duty considering the fact that around 0.5% of the world's internet traffic would start with that IP address on average. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Expertise in answering questions

Pardon, but is there any minimum requirement needed to answer questions that are on the various Reference Desks? I ask this because it seems that there are a couple of editors that are providing answers that do not seem well thought out. They editor answers as if they are experts, but then later down the thread, it becomes apparent that they probably didn't even understand the question. I am not sure if anyone else feels this way, but it seems that it would be much better if answers were delivered by those that actually had a firm grasp on the subject matter. For example, there are questions on the science desk, that are answered by someone that signs with greek letters (I think). They clearly are not informed in the subjects that they are trying to answer. This is very distracting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.115.146 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your pertinent observations. No, there is no minimum requirement. The particular editor of whom you speak is a known problem and his behaviour on these desks has been the subject of discussion in the past, unfortunately without any sanction having been brought. There are other editors who may be well qualified to answer a question on American sport, for example, but little else. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of this could be helped by guidelines, or better application of guidelines, about how and when is appropriate to answer. For example, the ref desks often have an air of a chatroom about them, where discussions stray far off topic, which in itself is distracting (and I consider myself guilty under both this and the OP's point). Perhaps there is merit in tightening up on both, perhaps in wording addressed to those who answer, as well as us applying the principle better? —Quondum 14:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing any of the OP's own expert contributions - under his actual user ID, not a throwaway IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah you always try and turn this around don't you. No matter how many times people call you on your dislike of IP editors, you persist in regarding them as second-class citizens. FYI: there is no difference between an editor with a registered user ID and hundreds of edits to his name, and an anonymous editor with one edit made. They're equally important, equally deserving of a voice and their views carry just as much weight around here. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Look who's talking. The OP's first sentence is a theoretically valid question, and Quondum gave a sincere answer to it. But it was not a sincere question - its only purpose is to serve as a lead-in to personal attacks, which you of course eagerly joined in on, as per your usual M.O. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To be brief, no- there are no minimum requirements. To be long: Part of what makes WP great is that we get all kinds. If you want an "experts only", check out quora. If you want real riff-raff, see yahoo answers. I think that all respondents should only answer detailed scientific questions if they have some experience, but we can't always apply (let alone enforce) that; there are exceptions. E.g I sometimes offer links that I find by a little googling, if I think they will be helpful. Just now I posted some refs about pocket watches [36]. I am no expert on watches, but I looked it up and read, and hope the refs will be useful to the OP. On the other hand, I also just posted some links about agriculture [37]. I'm not a farmer, but I have extensive academic and personal experience with horticulture and plant ecology. So, just within myself, I think I can post good answers where I am an expert, and also (sometimes, with consideration), in topics where I am not an expert. Part of the WP spirit is that the cream rises to the top. Sure, there are some wrong/bad answers given. Hopefully they will be corrected in a civil manner by other users. In circumstances of true controversy even among experts, then the reader can decide for themselves which evidence, reasoning, and references are more persuasive. Finally, our real modus operandi should be to give references. If you go to a real-life ref desk and ask about ancient Greece, the librarian is not an expert about ancient Greece, but he is an expert on directing people to further resources. I personally try to (almost) never post an answer if I can't provide at least a few wikilinks, but that's just my personal philosophy, not a rule of the desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(NB I unhatted this thread. No explanation for closing was given, and whoever hatted it didn't sign their hat as we have agreed should be done. In my opinion, this is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. If you don't want to discuss, then don't.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP's purpose was solely to attack other editors. You're giving a sincere answer to an insincere question. In short, you're feeding that troll. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not an insincere question. --Viennese Waltz 18:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a personal attack leveled by a cowardly drive-by IP. I guess that qualifies as "sincere" in your world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think from this IP's tone that they were trying to attack the editor you're talking about; they seem geniunely concerned. Your tone, however, assumes that the IP is a bully sockpuppeting from an IP address when they have a real account or something, and you've brought no proof to this assumption. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP's second edit, ever, is an attack against other editors. If you had experience dealing with IP trolls, you wouldn't say what you just said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how IP addresses work, Bugs? The idea of a static, desk-top computer with a static, assigned IP address is almost as outdated as landline telephones, and for largely the same reason. Many, if not most, people access the internet today from dynamic connections; mobile devices, wi-fi enabled laptops, etc, and their IP address will vary day to day without any nefarious deeds on their part. Its just the way the internet works. Even if they have a static physical location, many if not most ISPs assign addresses dynamically, so every time you power on your computer, it has a different IP address. An IP address with a single edit means nothing anymore; the person could be an experienced editor, and having one edit doesn't mean they are covering their tracks. It just means they are a regular editor which doesn't have an account, and works on Wikipedia from a coffee shop or a McDonalds or a library or on their 4G device or... really any of a number of options. Don't assume everyone who edits from an IP address has something to hide, even if it is their first edit. --Jayron32 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the non-registered users who want to attack registered editors (as in this case) use that fact to their advantage. If the OP had stopped after the first sentence, it would have been a legitimate question. Instead, it was simply a lead-in to attack other editors. And, as usual, certain editors were all too eager to join in the attack while kissing up to a drive-by. The old double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bugs is spot on here. There's no complaint by this anonymous "user" whose second ever edit to wikipedia is a well-formatted provocation at the ref desk talk page about the moon question being a silly request for speculation and prediction. What he's "really" worried about is that I used an identified source and a number stipulated by another user to give a mathematically transparent cocktail napkin estimate, an estimate which I then suggested would be troubling even if it were off by a factor of ten.

Of all the fucking bullshit present on the ref desk, this person whom we are to presume is a "new user" focuses in on how my lack of credentials has somehow threatened the project? That's incredible enough. But then Viennese Waltzes in and suggests I have long been a problem editor. Of course no one has ever complained I have been a problem for giving calculations based on stipulated numbers and published references. They just don't like that I hat things that violate BLP. But no reason to be honest or provide diffs when a grudge is involved. It's almost like some people like being trolled. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On the "only second edit ever" thing: We (Wikipedia in general and the Ref Desks in particular) have many readers, probably far more than the number of editors. Many readers will always be readers and never edit anything here. Some might edit only very infrequently indeed. Most people who write letters to editors of newspapers are doing it for the first and possibly only time in their lives, because some issue has affected them to the extent that they feel such unusual (for them) action is called for. They might have been loyal readers for 30 years before ever putting pen to paper. Same deal here. Yes, an early edit that is some form of complaint about editorial behaviour CAN be part of a campaign of trollery or personal attack. But that ALONE, and that's what we have here, is not evidence of anything. It offends WP:AGF to assume the worst possible motives in the absence of any evidence; we are enjoined to assume the best possible motives unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Why do you find it so hard to adhere to this rule, when you constantly wave rules in the faces of others?

You've been asked this many times before, so I can only once again plead with you to clean up your own act before passing judgment on the acts of others. A case in point is this game. What is it called, and how do you know when you've won? Outrageous, is what I call it. "Fucking bullshit", indeed. People can't even ask legitimate subject-matter questions now, if the only reason they edit WP is to ask questions rather than add content? If we don't foster and nurture inquiring minds, what the hell good are we?

Back to the main topic. I didn't read the OP's post as any sort of attack. Not all negative comments are attacks. We are not allowed to attack editors personally, but we are certainly permitted to engage in dialogue about their behaviour, otherwise nothing would ever change. Change occurs when a need for change is identified, and accepted. The acceptance part is the tricky bit for you and B Bugs. When others provide feedback about your behaviour, you take it very personally and get super-defensive. And nothing ever changes. That's actually against the rules, because you are either explicitly or implicitly accusing the other of a lack of good faith. A better way would be to say "I disagree with your premise, and here are some links that support me. Can you show me any examples of where I've done what you claimed?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dialog about what behavior Jack? Provide a diff. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you felt the "someone that signs with greek letters (I think)" cap fitted you, and to be honest I can't think of anyone else that that would apply to around here, you could have asked the OP for an/some examples of what he was talking about, and then gone from there. That's the beginning of dialogue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I so automatically ignore attacks that I barely notice them, so quickly forgot what sounds like a veiled attack by the OP on an individual. I do not condone such attacks. I would have hoped that everyone else would have had the same approach, and that only the constructive potential of the comment would have been followed up on. However, if trolling was the OP's intent, they've certainly succeeded. The OP did not raise any specific examples of anything. I agree with Medeis that this thread has degenerated to the point where it should be hatted. —Quondum 23:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack of Oz—you say "We are not allowed to attack editors personally, but we are certainly permitted to engage in dialogue about their behaviour, otherwise nothing would ever change." I am in agreement. But how do we know that we are "permitted to engage in dialogue about their behaviour"? Is this found in policy or guidelines? If somebody challenged you on that notion, how would you defend it? This is off-topic, but I am wondering about the distinction you are making between personal attack, which is strongly frowned upon and articulated in our policy of WP:AGF, and dialogue about behaviour. I am in agreement that a distinction exists. But where, if anywhere, in our policies and guidelines (and essays) is such a distinction given voice? Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

AN/I and our entire dispute resolution framework depend on people being allowed to talk about what other editors have posted and how that has detrimentally affected whatever. But while editors can say "That's a really weak argument in defence of this complaint", they cannot say "You are a really weak person". The former is a comment on what someone has written, i.e. their behaviour; the latter is personal commentary and clearly a personal attack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Jack of Oz. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed good faith with the OP until starting with his second sentence. Although it's worth pointing out that VW's followup, with his typical personal attacks, might have influenced my thinking on the level of faith assumed for the OP. If VW hadn't seen this as an opportunity for posting gratuitous insults, and if the first response had been the good-faith response by Quondum, maybe things would have turned out better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: we're allowed to voice concerns about certain acts but can never identify the editor who made them? Why does such identification suddenly remove all vestiges of good faith? Why is feedback about an editor's behaviour always interpreted as a personal attack? The OP wasn't saying the greek-letter editor is a horrible person or an axe-murderer or somebody without any sense of morals or ethics, or anything else personally. They do certain things, and this OP isn't impressed, that's all. Why make this something it's not? If you're being unnecessarily defensive, that usually means there's something to be defensive about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

...Wouldn't that make make WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:DRN, and a host of other places against policy? (I'm aware at least 1.5 of these have moved past AGF once they've been put there... but yeah). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I can recommend my personal proctological therapy:

Periodically, I print the user pages of the two editors referenced above on medium sized pieces of absorbent fluffy paper and retire to the smallest room of my apartment. Upon exiting the cubicle (having expressed my opinions upon said papers) I feel utterly refreshed and mentally prepared for the next load of crap. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep it classy, boid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't challenge Med or Bugs on the ref desk unless you want to make it an arbcom issue. There is no discussion, only accusation...and it will last forever. --Onorem (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like Groundhog Day, its the same problematic editors time and again. At some point, action will need to be taken. As far as what started this thread, I didn't think it was the "Moon" question, it looked to me like it was the uninformed attempt to answer the "Sail on an Airship" question. Either way, I agree that it is a distraction when editors insert dubious "answers". It kind of turns the response into a multiple choice, leaving the OP and others to sort out the facts from the distractors. 54.205.7.57 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The 54 troll strikes again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs) Dec 17, 2013 54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs) Dec 28-29, 2013 54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs) Dec 31, 2013 54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs) Jan 4, 2014 54.204.117.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 6, 2014 54.196.70.85 (talk · contribs) Jan 19, 2014 54.226.217.226 (talk · contribs) Jan 28, 2014 54.204.179.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 29, 2014 54.205.7.57 (talk · contribs) Feb 28, 2014 Speaking of Groundhog Day, the above is the Amazon-based troll yet again, whose sole purpose is attacking editors. He's back after taking most of February off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC) It occurs to me that 54 is no position to be criticizing anyone, as he has never contributed anything to Wikipedia himself - not under that pool of IP addresses, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) If the admins do their job and block the 54 troll, I'll hat the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC) On second thought, I'll hat it anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Explain why we should put up with personal attacks from trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How about: Explain why "54 is no position to be criticizing anyone, as he has never contributed anything to Wikipedia himself". Where does it say in the rules that one must earn the right to comment by first writing stuff? And please don't waste your breath accusing me of defending trolls. This is a question of fundamental principle. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you. You're usually more observant. The 54 sockfarm has never made a useful edit. Its sole purpose is harassment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What I'm observing is you trotting out various secret rules that you seem to have made up yourself. You didn't answer my query above about identifying editors who do things we don't like. How many more of these gems do you have in your armoury, just waiting to be sprung on us unsuspecting minions?

Let's get this straight: NOBODY is allowed to act inappropriately towards other editors, not even Jimmy Wales or someone who's made a trillion legitimate edits. If an editor does something that breaks the rules, it's fine to call them on that basis. But not having made edits to article space is not any sort of basis. Just looking at your own contributions, you operate 99% on the Ref Desks or on Wiki-topics, and hardly ever in article space. Does that mean your article edit bank is perilously low in funds and you'll be banned from the Ref Desks any day now, until you can build up some decent credit? Unfortunately, no. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bugs is too forgiving, Jack. Fundamental principle? How do anonymous users making unspecified accusations, and your expecting people to defend themselves against those unspecified smears, relate to any sort of decency or accepted moral or intellectual principles?

Provide a single diff to the science thread in question (a thread about how much it would cost to get rid of the moon, the first answers to which were, (1) go away, (2) build a death star, (3) well then the US government won't do it, (4) watch this video game) that needs defending on merit of credentials. This is not a kangaroo court, and it's indecent of you to imply anyone needs to join in a discussion based on the assumption he has done something wrong, without it being said what. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Para 1: Huh? Twice now I have suggested that you ask the OP for some examples of what he's talking about. There is no defence necessary until and unless specific links are provided. Nowhere have I ever suggested otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Para 2: Double huh? See above response. If you choose not to engage with the OP, that's entirely your call. Your inferences do not constitute my implications (if any). The OP never mentioned any specific question, btw. It was a general comment/complaint, still awaiting meat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack is on the money. Open a dialogue, take note, strive to improve. Getting on the defensive, lashing out and personally attacking the OP, might not be your best coarse of action.66.87.82.101 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to pass the WMF Ref Desk exams in the relevant subjects before you are allowed to answer questions. Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Who gets to be Chief Question Setter? And where would they go for their questions - the Wikipedia Reference desk is pretty popular, I hear.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, don't we need to block every IP edit starting 66 since this is "clearly a troll"?! Beginning to see a theme here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)