Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 99

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 95

←

Archive 97

→

Advice request removed

I've removed this request for both medical and legal advice. Far enough over the line not to be controversial, I hope. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you probably should leave such cases to me, but the disclaimer is good enough in case the OP wants to ask for legal advice about medical treatment here. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

horatio snickers requests an SPI

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=554679538&oldid=554671400 μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So it seems you are talkng about me behind my back. I consider this to be rude. Plus I think you are reading too much into things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a question about murderers is just that? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Medeis means she has hatted a question by Horatio Snickers, to which she had responded "This user has been mentioned before as an SPI candidate". If anyone has actually requested an SPI, please link to it. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

off-topic discussion of username referencing - best taken to user space if it is to continue

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Medeis, what's wrong with me linking your name to your talkpage? Everyone's name links like that. You edited my posting to change it. Please explain? Thanks 184.147.137.171 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem was that you copied the user's signature code. To avoid authorship confusion, it may be better to use a simple link: [[User:Scray|Scray]] (produces Scray) or one of the templates designed for this purpose: {{user|Scray}} (produces Scray (talk · contribs)) rather than a signature (which follows, of course). -- Scray (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! I thought that was her name and it was polite to spell correctly. I will modify my post again to use the formula you have provided. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing...

In this exchange? Is this IP known for asking questions on how to make bombs or something? The section reads like someone asking a question on how to grow tomatoes and being told how to extract the poison from the leaves to kill his wife with. Matt Deres (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a tad over the top too, Matt. Maybe it's to compensate for no longer being able to make terrorist jokes at airports. Wikipedia Reference Desk, your flight is ready for boarding. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably somebody saw the word "toluene" and made an automatic association with trinitrotoluene, aka TNT. Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a strange exchange. It'd be like someone asking for a place to buy a baseball bat, and getting responses telling him the proper way to club someone with it to inflict maximum damage. Sure, toluene and TNT have a chemical relationship, but there's nothing particularly different from, say the relationship between glycerin (a soapmaking byproduct and common additive in many cosmetics) and nitroglycerin (an explosive). We could have, you know, answered the OP's question instead of gone off on a tangent on how to make explosives. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced question

Can't find a travel question that I asked here. Was it deleted because I did something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.56.197 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you click on your IP address, you'll see all the edits it has ever made to Wikipedia, and the grand total of 2 does not include any question about travel. If you can identify it for us in a more helpful way, we'll tell you what happened to it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Go to thge top of one of the reference desks, the miscellaneous one will do, and put in any relevant key words from your question. Then look under dates in the responses that are close to when you asked it. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious question, are you sure you asked it here? For about 2 months, the main RD page but not the side bars have linked to the sister project desk Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office. Did you look there for your question? Note that contribs there will not show up in your history although I looked and there doesn't seem to be any at all to your current IP there so I guess you probably used a different IP presuming you did post them either here or there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Hatnote, please?

Can someone please do me a favor and add this code to the top of the 'Reference Desk' page?

{{Redirect|Help:Reference|how to add references to articles|Help:Wiki markup#References and citing sources}}

It'll produce this:

— 12.218.76.10 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

¡Muchos gracias y muchos mas gracias! [Many thanks and many more thanks!] — 12.218.76.10 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

De nada. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack (roaming IP editor) comments on RD/S

An editor who has a roaming IP and signs posts as "Wickwack" is disrupting the RD/S page with poorly-informed critical comments about others' answers (in this edit I hatted one such rant). If they had a Talk page I'd go there to ask them to tone it down, but I cannot. I don't think any action (beyond discussion) needs to be taken, but I do think that (if I'm not alone in finding this behavior disruptive) Wickwack might take constructive suggestions to heart. My suggestion is that they try harder to restrict their comments on RD/S to answering questions, and bring any constructive commentary here. -- Scray (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You've made your self look silly by getting your facts horibly wrong, Scray. While PUBMED is a service sourced from the US National Library of Medicine, if you try as an ordinary internet user to access articles, you'll find that access is managed by Elsevier Science Direct, and articles have to be paid for. In particular, the article you cited on Ref Desk is priced at $31.50 USD. Log into the internet as an ordinary user, go to Ref Desk, click on the link you provided, and see. Don't log in using your student or university/research institute/employer ID if you have one - such organisations often pay a subscription and you get automatically vectored to articles with out seeing the request for payment. Wickwack 124.182.156.152 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you're saying were true, then this PMID 23652774 would also link to Elsevier, but it doesn't. Pubmed is not part of the Elsevier "empire" (as you've comically asserted); rather it is a publicly-funded and -managed database that provides links to a variety of sources, depending on what is currently available for an article. It's a very useful database and I won't apologize for providing links there. -- Scray (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that specific article is tagged for free access in PUBMED, so Elsevier doesn't come into it. There can be no objection to citing free articles, but citing articles requiring payment as you did before, and as many others do, is not good etiquette. Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ref Desk doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we don't have to always provide instant, free, full-text access in order to provide a useful service or fulfil our mission. Even when we can't offer the free full-text of a source, sometimes a references is enough for independent-minded individuals to find what they're looking for on their own. Or they can ask us for help in locating the full text. Or they can ask us if we know of any free alternative sources with similar information. (And Ref Desk volunteers who can access the paywalled source may well find it useful in answering that follow-up.) Or they can take the reference to their own (school or city) librarian, and ask for help in retrieving the article.

In short, we shouldn't be secretly hiding and discarding otherwise-reasonable sources because we've pre-judged the OP incapable of locating/affording them; that would be a genuine breach of etiquette. I mean, we sometimes even – shockingly! – mention information that only appears in print. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate from the facts of the matter, I am appealing to you to keep color commentary about answers off the RefDesk - bring it here or to the answerer's Talk page. The RefDesk is for answers, not your opinions about other peoples' answers. -- Scray (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said to a certain other chap who objected to me recently, I only refute/critise other responses on Ref Desk if certain citeria are met: Either bad practice is repeated (as was the case with citing expensive PUBMED articles that are probably over the OP's head anyway - no offence meant toward the OP), or I think the OP is being misled. There are many posts I think are wrong, but I don't respond, as I assess that probably neither the OP nor other readers with similar interests will be misled. Most are in this category. Sometimes I will respond if the erroneous posts are very very wrong, but is a common misconception, as in SteveBaker's assertion that the SI unit Hertz is a reciprocal unit of the Second. The rapid reinforcement of plausible misconceptions is a dissadvantage of internet forums. (Of course if the topic is not one that I am familiar with, I generally will not post at all - it's a pity certain others who post on just about anything don't follow the same reasoning).

As for colourful language, I make no appology. Check and you'll find that in every case it was the other chap who turned a friendly and factual comment into abuse first. Or, as did you above, made an unjustified and unfactual accusation ("disruption" etc) in colourful terms!

Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask, but what's this about Hertz not being inverse seconds? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look on Science Ref Desk, under question What do you call the inverse of speed? Steve said it is, but it is not, which I explained under that question. Wickwack 120.145.81.185 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack - why don't you make life easier for yourself by registering? It makes it so much easier for others to talk with you, especially when your IP address currently varies so much. Since you have no fixed address (deliberate pun) there's no space that's just yours where you can be easily reached. You've obviously already got a chosen name. There is no risk in registering. In fact, it gives you more privacy. IP addresses here are public and can be easily traced. With only 3 clicks I can see you're a Telstra Internet customer in Perth, Australia. Once you use your own user name, the IP address becomes invisible. I believe you have a lot to contribute here, but also a bit to learn. Make it easier for all of us. Please register. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Telstra IP range you tested actually appears to cover at least 200,000 square kilometers and well over 1 million people, so I'm not too worried. Sometimes I get an IP address nominally for another State. If you have search on "not registering", "why not register" and the like terms, you'll find in the archives of the Admin talk page and the Jimbo Wales usertalk page that the subject of registering versus not registering subject has been done to death, with contributions for and against from me and others. So I don't want to write it all out again and trigger another discussion here - it doesn't belong here anyway. Suffice it to say I see no benefit in registering, and others appear to agree. Many obviously don't. Wikipedia policy does not require registering.

If you want to have a chat with me off the Ref Desk as a result of anything I've posted, you can always invite me to your talk page, perhaps using small text. After I have posted on your talk page, the invite on Ref Desk can be deleted. Another chap did invite me to his talk page after I refuted a post of his, and we had a lengthy and surpisingly usefull discussion, where we both learnt things!

Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, why not be like almost everybody else who wants to contribute seriously and long term here? Your case, where the IP address changes so often, is quite problematic. Most peoples' IP addresses don't change that often. And you're asking people to follow your own special process to have a decent chat with you. No, not practical. Don't make it harder for others, and yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever this users failings may be (if any, I haven't read the whole situation), not using an account isn't one of them. It does not violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline whatsoever. Editing without an account is in fact one of the founding principles of Wikimedia. If you disagree with that stance, there are places to discuss it on the village pump and meta sites. Berating a user for following the rules is not constructive 77.101.52.130 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I know the policy. I've told this user quite politely why I think he should get account. No berating has occurred. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And, nor did I feel berated by HiLo48. He has merely expressed a common view, which I am sympathetic to, but not convinced of. Wickwack 124.182.145.54 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Having an account would be to your advantage in various ways. But I have to give you good marks for at least identifying yourself. Typically IP's make no such effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And neither are they required to. Given that the name "Wickwack" is not linked to any Wikipedia account, it could be different people assuming the same name. I don't believe that that is the case, but all we really have is the user's word that Wickwack is the same person each time. In fact, it's not even their word; it's just an inference we make by reading the name supplied at the end of their posts. That represents a somewhat lower level of integrity/security than we get with sockpuppets, for example. So, if that's what you're giving good marks for, maybe think again. There are very good reasons for registering an account here, but many people have what they consider even better reasons for not doing so. That is their choice, Bugs; the system was created to allow registered as well as unregistered users alike; and we can do without your traditional, tiresome anti-IP polemics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What gets tiresome is IP's with like 3 edits talking in the voice of someone who obviously has a long history, and getting indignant when asked about it - like we're supposed to be mind-readers and just somehow know who they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The content of what is written is supposed to be more important than the identity of the person who wrote it. In any case, we do not have anyone's "identity" here, all we have is a list of their previous contributions + whatever they've chosen to reveal about themselves, if anything. What people do is a different thing from who they are, and we are virtually entirely focussed on the former here. Please encourage IPs to register, but please stop attacking them as if they have some case to answer or they've committed some crime. That is inimical to the welcoming atmosphere we promote here, and is sure to be very off-putting to many. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with IP's who behave in an honest and sincere way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that Wickwack's IP address changes quite frequently. (One of those wonderful features from Australia's Telstra.) Without the "guess" that Wickwack is always the same person, it's difficult to find "a list of their previous contributions", and even then it ain't easy. Talk pages contain conversations. Conversations work because we build an image in our mind of the person with whom we're conversing. We all know that it's already harder on the web than face-to-face because we don't have body language to work with. A changing IP address reduces that image building to almost nothing. The other thing I don't get is why people don't register. I've seen several statements to the effect that "people have all sorts of reasons for not registering". Well, I can't think of any. I'm a seeker of knowledge. Educate me. (Actually, I can think of one reason, a fear that registering will somehow spread personal details to unwansted places, and Wikipedia and other bodies Wikipedia sells my details to will fill my mailbox with spam. We all know it doesn't happen and can only be good ambassadors for that truth. What else?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you just want reasons, or do you insist on good reasons?

There are people who just don't register with websites, on principle.
There are people who want to be completely anonymous.
There are people who actively do not want you to "build an image in your mind of the person with whom you're conversing".
There are people who want to force you to evaluate everything they write based solely on the words they write, uncolored by anything you might think you know about their identity.

But let's not debate this here; open a new thread if you'd like to discuss the subject further; this is an old and rather tired subject. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And that's an insulting post. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- how so? (It wasn't meant to be.) —Steve Summit (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I read it sa a suggestion that you thought I was flogging some sort of dead horse. To me it's a very alive and violently threshing horse. One recent example is described in my post at 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)in the thread below. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I'm sorry, personally I do think it's a dead horse.

But in any case, if you (or anyone) wants to discuss it, I really thought it deserved a thread of its own, not buried in this one. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite the IP-hopping in this case, a registered user is more "anonymous" than a so-called "anonymous" IP address is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, it's the very simple relief of not having to remember yet another password and go through login procedure. Contributing is one-click easy and I'm grateful for that. Maybe password stuff is easy for others but I find it a real chore. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the history of all my posts, all you have to do is key in the word Wickwack in the Ref Desk search field. I do not edit or create Wikipedia articles - I only contribute on Science Desk. As for building an image of Wickwack, it's clear from the various pro and con posts about me that many of you have done exactly that. Wickwack 120.145.81.185 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Though $31.50 is very high for a single article, most people who have an interest in looking things up have many alternatives. Wickwack has suggested textbooks as references, and I agree that is also a good practice. How much do these texbooks cost? Some are over $300. Nobody would say "we should not cite text books, because they are too expensive." What do people do if they want to get information from such a book? They go to a library! Maybe the situation is different in AU or UK, but in USA, many large public libraries can give electronic access to many, many journals. Smaller suburban libraries often don't give such acess, but then, they also don't usually have many university-level textbooks. Almost every public university in the USA will give library cards to the public, and this will give access to virtually anything in the world, if you include inter-library loan. So, while freely accessible, highly reliable, online references are preferred on these desks, sometimes people will have to move around in the real world: to gain access gain an expensive textbook, or to gain access to electronic databases. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that many countries are similar to how it works in Australia. While local libraries (operated by local government here) don't have much at all, the Universities have virtually every English language textbook either in print or accessible in digital form via computers on campus. University libraries are open to the public, not just staff and students. However, members of the public must physically go to campus to view printed books or use library computers to access online stuff. You cannot borrow direct, but if you go to your local library, you can request an inter-library loan. The Australian National Library (equivalent roughly to the US Library of Congress) pretty much has one copy of any thing - I've even found quite obscure Russian texts. And they will do interlibary loans and scan pages on request and email them. So, effectively, just about anything is available to everyone. But online references, if authoritive, are obviously a lot more convenient. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack suggested that "Citing a source that the OP, and the rest of us, cannot access [...] is not just as bad as not citing any source, it is worse. It is worse because it gives sense of authority which the source may or may not support." This is wrong on several levels. As a general rule, I think I can safely say that citing a source (any source, no matter how obscure) is always better than not citing a source. Furthermore, even though the reference in question did eventually link to an expensive copyrighted Elsevier-owned article, the abstract was still available for free. So this wasn't an unavailable, falsely authoritative reference; it was both available and authoritative. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

rant attributed without proof to wickwack closed

Speaking of which, I have no idea whether this bigoted anti-American rant is or is not actually written by the person pretending to be wickwack, or someone pretending to be the person who pretends to be wickwack. But it is unhelpful, insulting, unreferenced, and I have closed it. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I actually laughed when I read it, and I'm a teacher, one of the other targets. Wasn't terribly flattering about journalists and the media either. Medeis, why was it only the anti-American parts that concerned you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is bigoted or anti American or insulting (to be critical of some things American is not necessarily to be bigoted or anti-American or insulting, even if you are wrong) or even much of a rant. It is, however, unhelpful in the context and unreferenced. If these are to be taken as the rationales for hatting on the Ref Desk, most of what currently appears there needs a hat. (Please don't take this as permission to hat, Medeis; I don't agree with you.) As to the source, we have to assume that it is Wickwack as this is his/her manner of taking credit. It he/she wants to change this, Wickwack knows how to do it. Bielle (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you all that the post referring to the USA, journalists, and school teachers was indeed me. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

While this should not necessarily be a reason to force someone to register an account, it should be noted that the above post cannot be positively connected to one person, to the exclusion of someone who may be impersonating said person, any more than any of the other posts attributed to Wickwack. This is not a trivial problem. Any person from the same IP range, which covers some several million people, could be impersonating Wickwack in the above post, or indeed any post, that purports to be Wickwack. If Wickwack is OK with that, and is fine not registerring an account in light of that, I am in no position to enforce any sort of opinion other than theirs, but this is a real, non-trivial problem with editing from a dynamic IP system, and would be instantly solved by registerring an account; a procedure that has, as far as I can tell, zero downside. --Jayron32 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This morning I spent around an hour sorting out an article that had been stuffed up by a novice editor whose IP address changed every time they appeared here. There were repeated problems. Writing on their Talk page was pointless. they didn't have one. It changed every day. I tried to point out the problems in Edit summaries, but seemingly, being a novice, they either weren't read or they were ignored. There was absolutely no way at all of communicating with this person, and they kept repeating the same mistakes. A lot of stuffing around occurred over a quite a number of days. I eventually decided to try to work out for myself what the editor was trying to achieve, made some changes myself, with sources, avoiding copyvio, and all the other problems we had. The editor hasn't been back yet, so I don't know if this will solve the problem. But I know what would. Forcing IPs to register before they can edit articles. I have no sympathy. It's a disaster area for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. But you needn't worry about me - I simply never have, and will not, edit or create articles - I only post on Science Ref Desk. I've had several Wikipedians, including an Admin, request me to clean up certain articles that are in poor shape. And the ones they wanted me to work on are indeed in very poor shape full of common misconceptions. But what I will NOT do is spend the necessary long hours making a good solid article with good references cited, when any unidentified twit can come along after and stuff it all up again, regardles of whether they are an intentional vandal, or acting in good faith but do not undertsand the subject. If Wikipedia had a policy of only allowing registered users to edit articles, that would be a good start. A lot of people don't see any policy difference between Ref Desk and the Wikipedia articles. I do - policy for articles should be steered more towards quality and away from letting just any unkown twit in. However, on Ref Desk they should be let in.

I sometimes ask people I meet through work or socially whether they are aware of Wikipedia. Invariably they say "Yes", because Wiki articles often appear near the top of Google searches. If I ask "do you use it?" or "do you think it is a good resource?" the answer is mostly "No, and it is getting worse". The reason is because anybody can edit an article, whether they know the subject or not.

Wickwack 121.221.228.142 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, IP's can't create articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, anyone, registerd or not, dynamic IP or not, can edit articles. If you search the articles, you'll find that a few years ago a policy change got proposed to require registration, but it has not been implemented. I coudn't believe just anyone could edit, so I did once make an inconsequential change to an article, left it for a month to see if got reverted (it didn't), then I reverted it myself, all under dymamic IP. Wickwack 121.215.70.116 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But Bugs didn't say "IP's can't edit articles", now, did he? —Steve Summit (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, everyone can edit, but not everyone can create an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack, without that policy of "all are welcome", Wikipedia would never have become what it is today. More than that, it would have fallen by the wayside and would probably now be defunct. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we should just accept the sort of thing I described in my 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) post above as one of the costs of encouraging new editors? We can perhaps narrow the problem down to editors with frequently changing IP addresses. With a fixed address at least we can communicate with a new editor on their default Talk page. If the IP address changes all the time, they have no fixed Talk page for us to even give advice. It's (usually) not an editor's fault if their IP address changes all the time, but it can be a real pain to us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid we do have to accept that sort of thing, despite how annoying (I agree!) it can be.

There are plenty of good reasons for desiring editors to have to register before editing, so you're not alone, but me, I don't see that change happening, I hope it doesn't happen, and I'd vote against it if it came up. (But as I mentioned above, if you want to debate this, let's do it in a new thread.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Unsourced attacks on various ethnicities are not helpful." Really? I wasn't aware that "people who use temperature units incorrectly" constitute an ethnicity. Is the concept of maintaining international standards of scientific measure now considered radical and/or inflammatory? (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In arguing out of context about comments here you don't seem to have read the original rant. The Unidentified OP went on about how America is notorious and her sources shouldn't be taken as reliable no matter what they say--not that the source quoted by Bugs or Jayron was inaccurate. It was an unreferenced rant by an unidentified ranter with no relevance to the matter at hand and was hatworthy as off topic, end of story. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And you still don't care about teachers? :-( HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the main source I cited was the General Conference on Weights and Measures which is not an American source. It's an international body based in the suburbs of Paris, France. --Jayron32 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that I'm arguing out of context (assuming that comment was in fact directed at me?). The "rant" that you removed, while marginally off topic, addressed the original question pretty directly. I can't imagine what this has to do with bigotry and/or "attacks on various ethnicities" (the given reasons for your removal of the original content). It's late and I'm not really interested in having this degenerate into an argument, so I'll let it drop. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the USA's attitude to international standards is very well known (and detested) outside of the USA. Even the USA's diplomats occaisionally try to push the nonsense that international standards are a trade barrier aimed at reducing the competitiveness of USA business. The attitude of the USA manifests it self in many forms. It ranges from making and specifying everything in what Americans call "customary units" (essentially the Foot-Pound-Second system, with a non-standard pound) instead of SI metric; to having an ANSI or other US Standard that overlaps but just about never is compatible with the appropriate ISO, IEC etc standard; to refusing to comply with international standards with manufactured goods. The later part of my career involved working for dealer who sold marine deisel propulsion engines for ocean going large fishing boats and medium size freighters. These engines are made by a well known large American manufacturer whose corporate colours are yellow and black. They would only deliver engines (worth from $150,000 to $2,000,000) built and rated to US standards. At the dealership we had strip every new engine down and rebuild it to comply with international standards, doing things as silly as throwing away perfectly good fanbelts and replacing them with new belts certified for compliance with relevant safety standards. All up it added another 10% cost to each engine. All because the American management is just too stuck in American parochialism to do it right in the factory, which would cost them almost nothing. And they wonder why Asia is beating them! Buy a US-made engine-generator set rated as (say) 100 kW at 0.8 PF, measure it in accordance with international standards, and you'll typcally only get 83 kW out of it. Buy a 100 kW rated genset made by a German, Japanese, Taiwanese, or Chinese etc manufacturer, and 100 kW is what you'll get. Drives us all nuts. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually figure that anti-US rants are driven by jealousy and envy. As regards international units, we use them when it makes sense to. Which isn't often. We're like the UK that way, which still uses "miles per hour". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"We use them when it makes sense to. Which isn't often" is a just plain silly attitude, when you consider the process used to produce Internations Standards - expert committees, reviews, and a requirement for consensus. And in many if not most cases, the various Internation Standards are copies or modified versions of a national standard that has seen several years of use and has been shown to meet a need very well. The UK is pretty much an SI country and does follow BS reprints of International Standards very very well. "Mile per hour" is just one example from street use. It is like Australia, which has been fully metric for decades, and that's all you'll see in science and industry, but if you ask an Australian "How tall are you?", more than likely he'll say 5 foot 8 or whatever. And none of this is an anti-US rant. It's just a factual observation that the USA does things it's own way. Wickwack 121.215.70.116 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The USA does not feel the need to conform to what other countries do, except when it's to our benefit also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived benefit". Not that that is much different in other countries, but some seem to have better perception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As they are entitled to do, but it's their funeral I think. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, Europeans are conformists, so getting them to abandon human-based measurements and using clunky stuff like meters is an easier sell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So conformists accept change more easily. Amazing. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They're told to change, so they change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, your response doesn't really make any sense. The question was asked on the science desk, not the humanities desk. Speaking as an American Scientist (ie. someone who seems to qualify as "Anti-American" by your definition) it's just plain absurd to call standardized units "conformist". For example, if you want to go out and start a weather channel and report temperatures in coffeecups-per-square oz. Go for it, IUPAC isn't going to show up and criticize your business model. Now if you want to submit a paper to an ACS journal (The American Chemical Society apparently being a bastion of Anti-Americanism?) you probably should use units other people actually understand (ie. degrees Celsius, degrees Fahrenheit, or Kelvin). You're certainly entitled to the opinions that units are some form of tyranny that only conformists yield to, but I think on the science desk we can probably agree (fairly un-cotroversially) that you can't just make up your own units if you want people to understand you. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In our science classes, way back when, we used metric units for everything. No problem. As for "making up units", the acre, for example, was around long before the hectare was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be pointless to suggest that these petty displays of nationalism and mudslinging are about as inappropriate here as they were on the Science desk? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointless? Clearly not. Durable? Clearly not. -- Scray (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time they've commented on things like this so I don't see any reason to doubt it's them even before Wickwack gave their assurances above. 12:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So what do we have now, about 80% of the people above (I am not going to count) of the opinion that posting OR criticism of the US based on a certain POV is perfectly acceptible, given how evul/backwards/effing annoying the US is? This is a joke. Either policy always applies or it doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

the reference desks are not for the serving up of opinions or debate, and neither is this talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- They're jealous of us. Don't pay them no never-mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  - The issue is not the Anti-Americanism as such. That's just the normal un-self-reflective and juvenile anti-daddy resentment one can expect from a certain crowd. The issue is the pretense at standards which apply when someone says something that makes such editors uncomfortable, but which is dropped as soon as they want to push their own POV. (Obviously I am not just talking about the present crop of ressenteurs, as Nietzsche would call them.) No one would tolerate the things that are said about America (as if it were a supernatural entity) or about Americans if such things were said about any other nationality or so-called minority group, especially not unreferenced bullshit such as this. Yet characterize anti-Americanism as racism, when it is aimed at native born US citizens, and you will hear squealing like a stuck pig. One can't necessarily defeat such lilliputian bigotry in a collective exercise like this one, but pointing it out rather than remaining silent is the least one can do. That people have a POV is one thing. That they cannot step away from and above it is another. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    - When you're the leader, you get targeted by those who wish they were the leader. That's how things go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      - Oh ferchrissakes, get a room, you two. Are you really so insecure in your national pride that you have to throw a hissy fit every time someone says something that maybe, somehow, when viewed under a certain light, might contain a statement that might contain some form of criticism of something related to the US? I mean, seriously, what happens when you see the latest propaganda movie from North Korea on the news? Do you just spontaneously combust? -- Ferkelparade π 02:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        Do all Americans think all their fellow countrymen (and women, and children, so as not to appear too narrow here), and all their country's practices, are perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 May 2013
        As usual, you have missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter what country you are saying fucked up bigoted bullshit about without references. It doesn't have to do with America being the subject of the comments. It has to do with the comments being fucked up, bigoted, unreferenced bullshit. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        Righto. It's all clear now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        
        It is not bigotry to suggest that the US fails to follow international standards with regards to weights and measures. More importantly, Wickwack's comment is relevant to the discussion at hand, which was why I removed the hat. I think Baseball Bugs sums up his objections perfectly: "I usually figure that anti-US rants are driven by jealousy and envy". In other words, the truth doesn't matter and criticism isn't even worth considering; it's axiomatic for him that criticism of the US must always be wrong, and that praise of the US must always be right.
        
        As for "fucked up bigoted bullshit without references", why did you not complain about Market St's comment on the Humanities desk, where he said "As Margaret Thatcher said 'The problem with socialism [or for that matter communism] is that you eventually run out of other peoples money' The example that is most telling to me is that of Cuba..."? (Don't get me wrong, I agree with him; I just think this type of editorializing doesn't belong on the Reference Desk.) How about StuRat's comments claiming North Korea wants to destroy South Korea? Under your criteria, they'd be the epitome of bigoted, unreferenced bullshit. Under my criteria, they're incorrect but not bigoted against North Koreans. Why did you not complain about Baseball Bugs' racist and unhelpful comments on this thread, and again earlier on this talk page? In fact, can you point out a single example where you objected to criticism of a non-Western country's foreign or domestic policies? Is it possible that you're engaging in the very same type of favoritism you accuse other editors of doing? --Bowlhover (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        "The USA is notorious for either ignoring international standards, or claiming that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competitiveness" is not "criticism", it's an anti-American rant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The USA ignoring international standards is a fact of life. It has not metricated its' industry. It has a myriad of its own tecnical standards that are different to and often incompatible with applicable international standards. The USA objecting to international standards by claiming that they are a barrier to trade is fact. I saying so, I did not make an anti-American rant, I stated a fact, well known in indutry outside of the USA. The claim that it is about being jealous of the USA is laughable, simply because in going their own way with standards, the USA is not just a nuisance in international trade and industry, the USA severely penalises itself. As in the example I gave above - by forcing importers to modify USA-made products in order to obtain internationally applicable standards compliance, the USA imposes an unnecessary cost penalty compared to the rest of the World that builds products right in the first place. Here's another example: The USA manufactures large packaged diesel generators. There's no question that they are well built and built to give a long trouble free service. But they are built to US electrical wiring standards, which violate international standards for colours and earthing. So importers are forced, for safety reasons, to re-wire them. Again, an unnecessary cost burden that reduces US competiveness. It would cost US factories NOTHING to wire their products correctly.

The USA policy on participation in international standards is set out in the ANSI document of that name, as says in clause B6.2-3 (2008 version - I believe this is current) If no national standard to a proposed international standard exists, if the international document ... creates a trade barrier ... vote negative (ie vote against it). The determination of the view of whether there is a trade barrier is the sole discretion of the USA. No other country has a policy like that, and it is a little bizare in view of the fact that the prime purpose of international standards is to facilitate trade - international and local. The objections made by USA at both indutry and diplomatic level to the important quality management standard ISO900x is well known. The USA was outraged when Japan started applying ISO900x to to computer software and electronics - and their objection was that it was a barrier to free trade. The USA exerts at lot of leverage over Japan, as Japan lost the war and is in consequence reliant on the USA for defence, and as a market for its products, so the USA managed to get Japan to officially withdraw from implementing ISO900x in the electronics industry and software industry. However other countries have done it anyway. The USA's attitude in this is hard to understand, as not only does ISO900x facilitate trade, like any ISO standrd is designed to do, it is the experience World-wide (and even of US firms that have implemented ISO900x quality management systems, and similar systems such as Ford Motor Co's QMS) that while expensive, it does reduce manufacturing costs vis-a-vis other methods.

Why American industry is not using the SI metric system is also very hard to understand. I have experienced working in industry before Australia adopted SI, and after. SI metric sure makes things a hell of a lot easier and far far less error prone. In SI, pretty much all math formulas you may need to derive have constants of 1, 2, pi, or a handful of well known fundmental constants. This means that you can easily spot an error, and you can guess a formula with the aid of dimensional analysis. None of this works wth the US Customary Units system, because formulae are riddled with all sorts of odd constants. Perhaps it is because in school science classes, I was taught according to the MKS system, for which SI is a small adjustment - I wasn't stuck in my ways in the Foot-Pound-Second system (not forgetting that the USA has an unstandrd pound to boot!).

Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

120.145.81.185 (talk · contribs) = 60.228.233.13 (talk · contribs)? Wow. Well, since the voluntary approach in the 1970s went over like a lead balloon, I guess we could force conversion to metric. Which government programs should we sacrifice in tradeoff, in order to accomplish that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No government program needs to be, or should be, sacrificed. Metric conversion is an investement with a positive net return. Australia converted from British units to SI several decades ago. The cost to the government was negligible. They passed a law that required, primarily, that:-

The SI system shall be the system used in commerce, trade, and industry
Goods sold at retail shall be marked and measured in metric dimensions, and where sold by weight or other dimension, shall be priced in metric dimensions.
A Metric Conversion Board was establised as a limited life government agency - their task was to initiate and manage advertising campaigns explaining the metric/SI system to the public at large, and advise the govt as to the success of conversion, and of any issues requiring govt intervention.

The cost of conversion was thus borne by indivuals, business, and industry. The engineering company I worked for estimated the cost as being paid for in a matter of weeks or less through increases in efficiency.

In commerce and industry, the change proved easy. However, some folk of pensioner age took a while to get used to buying their food in kg instead of Lbs. People still quote their height in feet and inches.

If the USA was to make up its' mind to change, doing what Australia did is recommended - that is begin teaching with the metric system from Year 1 primary school, then legislate make the metric system the legal system for trade 12 years later when those kids graduate from high school. However, as far as remaining competitive in international trade is concerned, the USA's attitude to international technical standards is the bigger problem. It matters less whether, for example, the diameter of an engine's bearings is 4.2100 inches or 106.934 mm. What matters is whether I get 400 kW (536 HP) out of an engine rated at 536 HP. As it stands, for a US engine I will not.

Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Metrics have been taught in US schools for decades now, and metrics have crept into all kinds of places, at least where it seems appropriate. As an example, there's no reason on god's green earth for American farmers to switch from acreage to "hectarage". But you often hear of a car engine being defined as so many CC's. And many products now contain both traditional and metric units.

It would be interesting to see whether the Congressmen and Senators fear losing their jobs if they were to promote such a bill. "The cost of conversion was thus borne by individuals, business, and industry" is liable to be a red flag. In any case, there's been no noise about it since the 1970s. So at this point it's a non-issue here. If it comes, it will be at a time when no one will care because they're already using metrics anyway, at least in combination with traditionals as I mentioned above. But forced conversion is unlikely anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So at this point it's a non-issue here - I think that's Wickwack's point. The rest of the world is seriously hampered in its dealings with the USA, but the USA considers it not to be an issue. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do primary schools in America teach using the metric system - that is use it in teaching any subject, right from the start with children age 5 or 6 (whatever the starting age is in the USA)? Or is the use of the metric system just confined to science subjects, and US customary units used in other subjects? In Western Australia, prior to 1966, schools used British units in all subjects except what was known as "Science B" (chemistry and physics). This meant that students didn't get exposed to the metric system (CGS units) until age 13, and came to regard it as just a funny odd sytem used only for science. In 1966 they changed to using the MKS system for everything, resulting in a better attitude by students. I doubt if you'll find many Australians who remember CGS metric or can use it, but virtually everyone who got exposed to MKS or SI became comfortable with it throughout life. I can work with CGS, but only because I have a standard 1950's textbook on electromagnetics that is written with CGS. Is America making the same mistake Australian made in the 1960's? Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT the place to discuss the metric system. It just has to stop right now. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It can stop when wickwack recants his anti-American comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

For the love of Mike, Bugs, saying that the USA tends to ignore international standards is not ant-American. Can't you see that Wickwack just enjoys tweaking people, and while you continue to over-react he will continue to tweak you. It's kind of fun to watch, but as Itsmejudith said, this really isn't the right venue. Why not take this thread to your talk page ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"The USA is notorious for either ignoring international standards, or claiming that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competitiveness" is not the same characterization as what you're saying. If you find this discussion annoying, you're free to stop reading it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all annoyed - I think this thread is hilarious ! But it really is in the wrong place. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The USA IS notorious for ignoring international standards. The USA DOES try to claim that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competiveness. Let's be clear about this: these are facts, as I have demonstrated. I cannot recant what is true. Nor is my statement anti-American. Much about the USA is to be admired (eg their ability to innovate in technology), but not their attitude to standards. Appologies to ItsMeJudith, but this did start off as a discussion as to whether my statement was or was not a "bigoted anti-American rant". Wickwack 124.182.139.233 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even the place to discuss whether your comment was anti-American or a rant. Try a user talk page (have to be yours, Bugs) or consider mediation or some such. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Or Scray's talk page, as he made the initial complaint about wikwack paddywack give a dog a bone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dahmer relative

I have closed this question and removed the party's name from the heading. Wikipedia doesn't normally comment on people whose notablility exists only in relation to the crimes of others. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I'm with you there, Medeis. Nobody was suggesting grandma became notable just because her grandson who lived in her house turned out to be a murderer. Under the circs, the police would have been derelict if they hadn't questioned her, and I think it's a reasonable ref desk question to seek details of that questioning and its outcome. We can just ignore the OP's comment on her assumed inside knowledge. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that we don't assume or speculate about things, and per WP:CRIME we don't comment on third parties just because they are related to criminals. The exact point is this person is not notable. The OP is free to make what assumptions and speculations he wants elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I already said we should ignore the speculation/assumption part of the question, and focus on the details of her questioning by the police. There's no rule that says OPs may only ever ask questions about people who are notable. There was a great deal of coverage of the whole Dahmer thing, and it's not unreasonable or inappropriate for an OP to seek some detail that they missed at the time, or maybe they weren't even old enough to know about at the time, or maybe they weren't even alive at the time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The person in question is not named in the relevant article. The Ref Desk is to be treated like article space in regard to subject matter, not as a free-for all--medical and legal advice is the default least restriction, not the limit of restriction. The user obviously knows we have an article on the criminal, and can read that. It is not our place to go speculating on third parties. We ourselves do not know this person's name or relation to the criminal to be referring to it as fact or relevant. If anyone wants to advise the OP that X is the best reference on the criminal himself, go read it, they should feel free to do so without reference to the name of any relative. But anything else is outside our purview. We are not a private investigative service or a tabloid magazine. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We say, inter alia, "In summer 1988, Dahmer's grandmother asked him to move out because of his late nights, his strange behavior, and the foul smells from the basement". Later he moved back in with her, before moving out to his own apartment. Given what the police eventually discovered in his apartment, wouldn't it cross your mind if you were the police to maybe see what had gone on in his grandmother's place while he was there. That's obviously what the OP is thinking. Nobody is asking anybody to speculate here. The OP simply wants to know whether the grandmother was questioned, presumably whether her house was searched, and what the results of those lines of enquiry were. He's asking for information, assuming it's on the public record. That's what we do here: find publicly available information and make it known to the OPs, with links to where we found it. That's why were called a Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

But we are the reference desk, and only the reference desk, not the information desk. Could I ask about who some random person's ex might be, mentioning their name, given the clues I have, because it's information? We do provide references, but we certainly don't provide comments on non-notable people because it is asserted they are related to criminals. Yes, we mention the criminal's in his article grandmother as his grandmother. We don't mention her by name, as the OP did, or do criminal background checks on a name someone gives us, or speculate what the police should have done and why. By all means, point the OP to our article without mentioning her. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be just ignoring whatever I write, and talking about whatever's in your own head. I have now twice explicitly denied that this has anything to do with speculation, but you keep on bringing that red herring up. It also has absolutely nothing to do with commenting on anyone, or with doing criminal background checks on anyone. It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether the grandmother's name appears in our article or not. She must have had a name, and I have no doubt it was revealed as part of the public exposition of this grotesque affair.

It's like this: (a) Was the grandmother questioned, Yes or No? (b) If Yes: What was the result of that questioning? That's it. This information is either on the public historical record, or it isn't. If it is, we can track it down and give references to the OP. We would be providing verbatim and comment-free reports of what reliable sources had to say about this when it all happened in 1988. If it isn't available, tough titties for the OP. Why make it any more complicated than this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the hatting. Jack of Oz is correct - this is a question that could be answered by references (if they exist) - speculation is not required here. Someone versed in searching online newspaper databases like NYTimes or something could bring something up if they wished. Medeis' comment "Wikipedia doesn't normally comment on people whose notablility exists only in relation to the crimes of others." is frankly baffling within the context of the RefDesk; notability has little or nothing to do with questions raised here. I would also like to join the chorus imploring Medeis to knock it off with the hasty hatting. Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt, and you can add my name to the chorus (much and all as I generally avoid joining groups). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hasty hatting will be the name of my next band, FWIW. --Jayron32 04:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am about to close this again. We've got a questioner saying he's not accusing a non-notable third arty of a crime, just asking if she was questioned regarding it, then speculation and irrelevant commentary on an unrelated case. We need to stick to providing actual references on real people and sticking to policy regarding non-notable bystanders. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, Medeis, knock it off! You appoint yourself the resident policy Nazi, yet when it comes to your own actions you're a law unto yourself. You've been asked time and time again to quit it with the constant hattings and closings and removals, but the opinions and requests of others don't seem to mean a damn to you. Reminder: One of our most cherished policies is consensus. The consensus is unanimously against your modus operandi. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't override WP policy. Per BLP removals of violations are justified, and they can be reverted. Closures are not removals. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not extend to dead people. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The question wasn't removed or removed in relation to BLP--Jack brought up removals and I have removed a few past questions (usually had them removed) on BLP basis. Here the violation is WP:CRIME, and as far as I am concerned the relevant issues have been addressed, except for the fact that we continued to have unreferenced speculation about what we must assume is an innocent third party. The Ref Desk is not the place for opinion and unsupported speculation on the crimes of non-notable persons. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(a) WP:CRIME is about the creation, or not, of new Wikipedia articles. It has nothing to say about mentions in talk pages of people connected to crimes. (b) The OP was somewhat discursive in his wording. We have totally ignored the speculation about what the grandmother "must have known" (my paraphrase), and have been talking solely about the question of whether or not she was questioned and if so, to what result. That is a factual matter. (c) One possibly inappropriate element of a question does not warrant the entire thread being closed. We answer the bit(s) we can. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, while BLP does not apply to dead people, ~~it likely applies~~I haven't see anything to suggest we shouldn't be applying it to the grandmother. I had a quick search and can't find any mention of her being dead and in any case, the general assumption is that BLP applies until we either have RS that they are dead or it is improbable they are alive. Per BLP, improbable they are alive means they are older than 115 but not listed as an 'oldest person'. Dahmer was born in 1960 and one source claims the father who is evidently the child of the grandmother in 1936 so it's still easily possible the grandmother iswould be under 115 unless someone can find an actual date of birth for the grandmother before 1898. So in the absence of either reason it doesn't, BLP can be presumed to apply.

A second comment is it's a mistake to assume that being covered in RS automatically means it's okay to discuss it on the encyclopaedia. The general interpretation this is discouraged per BLP. In talk pages, discussions particularly about highly negative claims even if reliably sources are often deleted if they do not appear to be about improving the article (in other words discussions of the subject rather then whether to include the claim in the article). Of course such discussions inherently don't belong in talk pages anyway but we're far stricter with BLPs. Similarly discussions or comments on user pages and user pages about living people, even if reliably sourced can be an issue and may sometimes be deleted.

Now I'm not suggesting that we go deleting all comments on living people in the RD. However the interaction between the RD and BLP has never been well defined, the RD has the problem that it's intended for providing sources (and therefore likely some explanation of what those sources say) to stuff rather then hosting stuff that relate to improving the encyclopaedia but we should not presume that people would be favourable to stuff that would be taken to violate BLP elsewhere. So I suggest caution in any highly contentious areas, particularly when involving fairly non notable people. I suspect that if we fail to do so, we'd find things even worse for us when we do get the attention of others concerned about BLP.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this woman is still alive, in what way was the question a concern? Matt Deres (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, the reply was primarily intended as a general response rather then specifically targeted at the actual question (which I had briefly read but not looked carefully at) with the only specifics I mention was about the likelihood of BLP applying. But anyway if you want to get in to specifics, now that it appears it's not really a BLP case, the question basically accused the grandmother of possible involvement in the murders going as far as to say 'impossible for a person to not notice three murders being committed in her own house and have no idea on what was going on'. Saying that you you're not accusing someone when you basically did doesn't help on wikipedia. And while I'm sure there are other discussions perhaps even some appearing in something which could be consider RS saying the grandmother should have noticed something (one of the sources below mentions harassment), it doesn't mean it's a good idea for us to host such highly negative commentary on someone who as I said is a fairly non notable person and as far as we actually know did little wrong (and was always of course fairly old already at the time). I would note that while mentioning the name is covered in RS as I mentioned below, it's not something that appears to be in most of our articles and unlike with the father appears to be much less well covered so in a BLP case there should also be concerns about mentioning the name. Note while the actual question of whether the police investigated the grandmother and what the found may not be that bad, it doesn't mean we should ignore how the question itself was actually worded in a putative BLP case. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As quick note, I was checking the contrib history of the question asker (as they are back and I had concerns apparently shared by others that they are a sockpuppet) and I noticed that they named the grandmother in the subject. When replying above I had quick search but couldn't find any name or mentioned death. Now that I have it I can confirm the name via RS [1] [2], and is actually hinted at in our article Raising Jeffrey Dahmer. Now I wouldn't mention this except from the name I'm also easily able to find sources [3] [4] [5] including [6] which would likely qualify as RS confirming she died in 1992 before even her infamous grandson, so BLP can be said to no longer apply to her (but not the other living relatives). These sources and one of the earlier ones also confirm the age is one in which we should presume BLP applies were it not for the sources confirming she died. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Side note

Given the M.O. of Monteithh (talk · contribs), it's a good bet that the above is yet another sock of Timothyhere (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Above moved from Humanities desk to keep discussion on the talk page. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting it there, I thought it would be more obvious that we're onto him (yet again). Kind of like "notification". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

However, he's now been indef'd, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

hat discussion on Humanities desk

I've hatted all the exchange about the value of Jayron32 and Medeis's answers as off topic. I included Medis's first comment under the hat, because The Rambling Man pointed out it was a link to google search result not an answer to the question. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You should be aware that Rambling Man's advice may be tainted by his recent active hostility towards me, and that Jayron linked to two villages founded in the Middle Ages (11th and 13th centuries) and compared theirs to the "culture" (I assume nightlife) of modern-day Ronaldsway, whereas I linked to multiple results that pointed the OP to what he actually asked about, the neolithic Ronaldsway Culture. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since no one else said it I guess I might as well. I think it was useful to point out to Jayron that they likely misunderstood the question and give some hint as to what the question asker actually meant. The problem was instead of just pointing it out, you felt the need to try and make some what looks to be rather WP:POINTY joke, which most people feel is not only not funny, but doesn't even make much sense. (While your responses are sometimes criticised, it's unlikely it would have happened in a case where you genuinely misunderstood the question and attempted to some extent to be helpful without being unduly critical or harsh. Of course if you response had been less like Jayron's and more likely your later response, then you may have had problem.) Now that you've changed you response to separate the two, it's fine to only hat the part which had no place. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Another rant by "Wickwack"

This: "So who is being an idiot then? First you posted "I dissagree entirely with Wickwack." Now, after more than one person said you are wrong, you have again asserted what is clearly ridiculous. You have made several silly posts recently, resulting in several people attacking you. Are you on drugs or something?" [7] is Wickwack's newest post. I suspect the skullduggery with the name/IP addresses suggests an underlying historical problem. Can any Admins here look into this? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers won't own up to anything about IP's, unless they discover it's from a proxy server. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair on this one, you did call him an idiot first. Not to say he's not been particularly acerbic of late, but that's not the best example if you wan't to start a discussion on his behavior, as you brought that particular word into the discourse. --Jayron32 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He said I was silly, and then I asked him rhetorically in response if I should call him an idiot, to which I responded no, that personal comments were inappropriate. So he started it, and he escalated it, and is now up to accusing me of drug use. This is simply disruptive, as has been his other behavior, regardless of my potential hurt feelings. It seemed appropriate to bring this up in the context the above discussion, his current incivility, and the fact that we have no way of knowing he isn't multiple trolls. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1) "But he started it" doesn't work for my seven year old. I'm not sure why it works here. 2) People aren't going to diagram the sentence to figure out exactly the context you use a word like that. If you use words like that, it should not be unexpected when people respond emotionally and return fire, just as you did when he called you silly. The best thing is for everyone to return to a neutral corner, and forget the whole thing. There is no satisfactory way, other than everyone just walking away and forgetting about it and leaving each other alone for a good long while, that will end this. --Jayron32 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a special talk page where Medeis, Wickwack, and Baseball Bugs could all troll each other back and forth to their hearts' content, without making nuisances of themselves for the rest of us who watchlist WT:RD? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to include Scray on that list, as he's the one who brought it up here. Alternatively, you could hat the entire megillah here, as it's obvious nothing's going to come of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd watch that page :) Also, I'm pretty sure Medeis knows all about Apophasis, so let's just give them both a WP:TROUT and be done with it. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This trio of editors show up FAR too often in complaints and other objections. Far, far more than all other ref desk regulars put together! This is disruptive to the otherwise friendly and harmonious nature of the Ref Desk and reduces the quality of our service here. While each does produce some decent answers, the negatives produced by their disruptions by far outweighs the benefits of their presence here. I for one would like it to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Steve. The problem is that we've been there so often that it's most probably too late - there have been pages and pages of discussions about our beloved infernal trio's behavior (you probably know that, as does everyone else who has WT:RD watchlisted), the users in question have shown themselves to be perfectly immune to any sort of criticism of their behavior, and the sanction/ban discussions we frequently have usually go nowhere because most people seem to agree that things aren't bad enough for any form of sanctions to stick - I, for one, have pretty much given up at this point. Judging from previous discussions, the consensus seems to be to let them continue their eternal trollfests and just ignore them as best you can (and be happy when/if they occasionally post something relevant) -- Ferkelparade π 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If discussion causes you "pain", your course is obvious: Stay away from here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't cause me "pain" (hint: read Figure of speech. It might be enlightening. Or more probably not). What causes me "pain" is certain editors (not naming any names) being completely oblivious to any sort of feedback on their behavior whatsoever. As I said, we've been here before countless times, and at this point I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse. Let's just leave it at that. -- Ferkelparade π 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite willing to accept and apply valid criticism. Which precludes the above, as what it really is, is whining about regulars while giving true trolls a pass - a typical double-standard often practiced here. That, along with the grade school level argument, "I don't like you, therefore you should leave." To which the right response is, "Once you become my mother, you can start giving me orders. Until then, you can fix the problem yourself, by leaving." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, Bugs. Is that the best you can come up with in response? Everyone who ever disagrees with you is using double standards and making grade-school level arguments? I rest my case. -- Ferkelparade π 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I call 'em as I see 'em.. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(side note: I already left, more or less - or at least post on the refdesk much less frequently than I used to do before - as I notice a number of other editors have been doing. This used to be a place for, you know, posting references, helping people with their questions, and having fun while doing so. Certain people's antics have driven a lot of other people away, but here I am flogging dead horses again. Sorry about that.) -- Ferkelparade π 23:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So what's keeping you here at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The hope that the refedesk mighty one day becoem a real refdesk again, instead of a Bugs-and-Medeis-Trolldesk? I don't know...maybe it's a vain hope... -- Ferkelparade π 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your continual defense of your double-standard does not speak well of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I just have to ask. What "double standard" are you talking of? Diffs, please. I am perfectly aware that "double standards" is your knee-jerk reaction to everythign, so please explain what exactly you mean by that in this case -- Ferkelparade π 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been a couple of complaints issued here about the user calling itself Wickwack. Show me where you addressed those complaints, in addition to merely coming here to attack those who brought those complaints. I must have missed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed the "trinity" phrasing in my intiial post in this thread, or you may not be able to count to three. Whatever. I'm out of here for today -- Ferkelparade π 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(correction: I said "trio", not "trinity", in my initial post. But anyway. Being able to count to three should be a requirement of any editor before commentig here. Sorry, I'm probably being offensive. Feel free to hat. But it's been called for re: so-called double standards) --Ferkelparade π 23:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

As I suggested to others, so shall I try: anyone want to take a look at my recent answers and let me know how I'm doing? Thanks for any constructive criticism. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I find your answers well-constructed and sourced. You're an excellent contributor to RD/S in my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a little difficult given the way our search functions work to find good samples of your answers to criticise. But it's quite obvious that while you sometimes give what I might view as "the wrong* answer", you don't give bad (in the WP sense) or bad faith answers. *(To clarify, when I say that some of your answers have been "wrong", I mean that you have reported some sort of consensus with which I myself, always being right, disagree. That's no sin on your part.) μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a section that was answered

User:Looie496 has deleted a section that was answered satisfactorily, albeit on the German Wikipedia. I don't agree that this was an appropriate course of action. I went looking for it in the archives and could only find it in the edit history. --Viennese Waltz 11:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. If there had been a pointer to the item in the German Wikipedia it would be one thing, but how could this possibly have any value for anybody? Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have value if the OP could be persuaded to add the appropriate link, or if someone here who speaks German could find it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The link is [8], but I don't think it's necessary to add the link in order for the section to survive. I just don't get why it was deleted, is all. There are many questions which get no replies but which are not deleted. The value of keeping it is, of course, that someone might look for it and find it in the archive. --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is harmless, and should be restored along with the link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored it. I couldn't make out the inscription on that small image, and I was wondering about it myself. Deor (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What's the value of finding a question in the archive if it has no answer? That's just a waste of the time spent searching, isn't it? Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously now it has the link to the German Wikipedia, so if anyone is interested they can follow that link. Even without the link it's still useful, as it tells people where to go to find the answer. More to the point, there are many questions on the RD with no answers at all. Are you going to go back and start deleting all of them? What would be achieved by deleting this one? --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The only situation where I delete questions (other than trolling, vandalism, banned editors, etc.) is where they have no answers and have been withdrawn by the OP -- e.g., a question followed shortly by "never mind, figured it out". What is achieved is a reduction of clutter. Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a shortage of disk space? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If an OP withdraws a question in that way then it's OK for them to delete it. Otherwise, I don't think it's our business deleting such threads. --Viennese Waltz 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. If someone searches the archive, finds a similar question and the OP says "Nevermind, I already have the answer" - then the person who does that search can contact the original questioner and ask them what they figured out. Even questions with no answers are useful in that they tell the new questioner that this is a difficult question that we were unable to answer. It's perfectly possible that someone asks a question and comes back after a week or more to see what we said - discovering that their question has somehow "vanished" is not a good thing! Wikipedia isn't short of disk space - and on a searchable archive on a digital medium, there is no real "clutter" problem. Deleting other people's posts is strongly deprecated. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I repeat that I have only done this in cases where no answer has appeared, and the OP has explicitly stated that no answer is needed or wanted. Anyway, I still really don't get it. When I try to answer questions myself, often the first thing I do is to search the internet, and often I find forum posts where somebody has asked a similar question. In many cases the question is unanswered. I have never seen this as anything except a waste of my time. It seems to me that the philosophy being expressed here puts essentially zero value on the time of our readers and editors. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How did your deleting it subtract from the amount of time you spent on it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It subtracted from the time a few thousand other ref desk viewers would have wasted reading it -- not to mention the time that would be wasted in the future by anybody who searches the archives for that topic. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it actually has an answer, I don't understand your logic about what "a few thousand" other editors might have done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter. You clearly don't have consensus to do this - and it's a dramatic change from normal RefDesk (and Wikipedia) practices to go around deleting other people's posts when they are not abusive or otherwise in violation of policy, so please don't do it anymore. SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

People who ask questions are not doing so for their personal benefit only; they are contributing to an archived database of questions which we or some successor institution will eventually figure out how to use effectively. Besides, there is nothing that seems to increase the odds of a wrongly or incompletely answered question more than a "resolved" tag. ;) Wnt (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for medical advice

I am asking a hypothetical, the other thing is that my actions (merely my knowledge) with regards to my treatment won't be influenced by any answers because I won't self-medicate, just ask my doctor more informed questions. Can't someone just ask about androgen insensitivity syndrome out of curiosity? 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the topic. Many editors have removed your questions because of the way you asked them. The way you have asked your question implies one of three possible scenarios; you are asking for medical advice; you are asking for someone to do your homework; or you are just trying to waste time. None of these scenarios bodes in your favor. Nimur (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wasting anybody's time. I'm not asking anyone to do my homework. I've asked homework questions on this board all the time, AFAIK if you put thought into your question and are stuck your question is valid. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, so far all you have done is vandalize a Holocaust article, create a hassle for other editors and administrators, and post nonsense on the reference desk. It is not a very stunning contribution history. Nimur (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm editing from the Holiday Inn wireless network. Please don't make baseless accusations. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP is asking a very detailed homework question, which he needs to do the research on. Whatever the article has to say about it, is all Wikipedia has to say about it. There should be references, and the OP could follow those references and see what additional info he can find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not male. I don't even look male atm, at worst androgynous. Also, I've asked very detailed chemistry questions here before, and gotten informed responses. What I hope to get responses is from informed medical students. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't even know what my homework question is. For all you know I have to write a 3000-word essay on the topic. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are asking for medical advice, but normally when we talk about putting thought into a homework question, we mean showing that you have put thought into the question, not just saying so. (Disclaimer: I wouldn't have any idea how to answer the question in any case.) Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't know what my question is. Hence I am asking about some info necessary for me to process to answer the question. My homework is to take the steps necessary SRS. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How many of your previous chemistry questions were in the realm of medicine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty. Also according to my insurance company my problem isn't even a medical problem, it's a "cosmetic procedure" that they won't cover. So legally, it is a cosmetic problem. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to see a professional. Which ain't us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed the memo, I already am being treated by an endocrinologist hence this is not a request for medical advice. Medical professionals do not answer questions out of scientific curiosity, they only answer questions that are medically necessary. Hence, endocrinologist for my treatment, Ref Desk for my scientific curiosity. Please restore my question. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My endocrinologist doesn't consider a genetic / protein sequencing test for AIS necessary and ended the discussion. Thus, I can only speculate. Please tell me how AIS would affect MTF HRT. Thanks. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You've been told multiple times by multiple users that your question is inappropriate for the ref desk. If your doctor is not giving you satisfactory answers, find a doctor who will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

One major part of the OP's question is simply "how likely is it that a person at random will have mild androgen insensitivity syndrome", which is a perfectly valid thing for us to answer, and should be in the article. Unfortunately, I have not really gotten a solid number for this as arbitrarily defined, but that didn't stop me from finding some even more fascinating information on the topic - namely, that what I'd always assumed was a purely personal and subjective perception of two equally prevalent subsexes of men might actually have some physiological basis. It turns out that the androgen receptor contains a CAG trinucleotide repeat which can readily expand or contract over generations, and the length of the repeat actually does have real phenotypic effect on development [9]... and the number of repeats is about evenly split in a bimodal distribution ([10] figure 1). Now how cool is that! True, I don't know if anyone has done a study to see if you can tell by looking how many CAG repeats somebody has, but I'd put a bet on finding a minorly significant predictive effect. :) There is additional commentary which I will mostly avoid at the moment, save to say that I am not impressed with the "ethics" of doctors freely passing out as many pills to raise and lower testosterone as they can sell while not figuring out the patient's internal state or even being willing to answer questions - I don't think we on the refdesk have anything to be ashamed of by comparison no matter how much we answer. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Underutilized

In agreement with comments by Phoenixia1177 above, it does seem true that the Ref Desk is underutilized, and that it would benefit both contributers/the project, and the world at large, if its existence were more widely known.

Perhaps there should be a link at the top of the front page, rather than at the bottom? A link on all article talk pages? Something else? μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions.—Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this thread should be posted to Signpost? (The reason I asked is that I followed your link, and I see no mention of the ref desk at all.) My assumption was that a discussion between regulars would make more sense first, given their familiarity with the subproject. I suspect some contributors might be more productive with a higher task load than currently exists. That should please everyone. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I am suggesting that The Signpost might discuss the Reference Desk and interview selected contributors, as it has done in the case of some WikiProjects. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/WikiProject report.) If it does so, then "its existence" would probably become "more widely known".

—Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving the link to the top of the front page should help to a certain extent. But I wouldn't expect too much. I often ask people I meet professionally and socially if they are aware of Wikipedia. Without exception, they always are, for one simple reason - if you google on something, if there is a Wikipedia article that matches the search phrase then it will be very near the top of the google list. And there most often is an article. They may click on it and look at the artcle, but they never get to see the front page. A banner on Reference Desk randomly appearing at the top of retreived articles would help a lot. However, I think that should not be done now, for a couple of reasons:-

The Reference Desk (the Science Desk at any rate, I don't much look at the other desks) is going down hill. Poor questions, silly topic questions, poor quality answers, and far too much going off topic, and far far too much debate, & personal attacks. And in one mouse click readers can go to talk pages etc and see them clogged up with debates on who should be blocked. That presents a very poor image. Wikipedians should work on making Reference Desk work better, by the right guidance (eg Sluzzelin's and Judith's Rules as discused in sections above - there may be other ways), creating an environment that encourages contributors to do the right thing, reduces sounding off, thereby reducing the need for debates on topics, going off topic, and debates about who should be blocked. THEN, when we have improved Reference Desk, go ahead and advertise and promote its existence. That's Marketing 101 - get the product right first, otherwise you just get all the consumers regarding it as crap.
A sudden increase in questions due to promotion/adverising now is the last thing we want. The pool of good answerers like Nimur and Jayron is just too small. Too many questions and they'll be swamped. That will lower Wikipedia's repution too. Fix the Reference Desk first, then the pool of answerers will naturally increase. Then, by all means promote it. I have sharply reduced my contributions. I am a university qualified professional (chartered) electrical engineer with decades of experience. Initially I supplied answers to (what to any electrical engineer are quite basic) questions on electrical theory and electrical safety provisions. Far too many times that has prompted refutations by people whose electrical education apparently stopped at junior high school science. And dickheads have posted personal attacks. So why should I bother - it's somewhat pointless. I bet other potential contributors feel much the same. Whatever good intentions may be, Reference Desk is not a place to ask good questions and get good answers - it is a place of debate.

Ratbone 121.215.41.49 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that this IP is using foul language, which really belongs only on bathroom walls. Its trolling to rouse hostilities for they are socking and attacking others (see new thread regarding this below). --Modocc (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd all be so much better off if we approached the next question as if we were new here and wanted to answer questions well. Would be great to have you contribute on those terms, and don't worry about the others. -- Scray (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying one point, Ratbone. You say people arrive at articles via google but never see the main page. But then, when they're at the Science ref desk, they're only one mouse click away from the talk pages with all their debates etc. Readers are never more than one mouse click away from the main page either. Its link is right up there under the Wikipedia globe thing (in my skin at any rate). I'm doubtful that most people fairly new to Wikipedia would be more interested in behind the scenes chatter than in the main page and what it has to offer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing two different types of people and/or people doing two diffrent types of activity with different goals. The most common type is those who use Google to find out things. That may land them on a relavent Wikipedia article. They'll read the article, maybe it will satisfy them, maybe it won't and they'll then go to the next likely site listed by Google. In neither case do they have a need to click "Main page" which is at the top on the list at left on each article page. But if they do, they'll find out a bit about Wikipedia and that's good - and on the main page there's a lot of good impressive stuff right there or immediately accessible - should their eye go there. The person who ends up on Reference Desk is a much more curious and exploring type of person, a lot less common that the first type. The first type is focussed on satisfying a specific need and the second is maybe finding things by accident that might be useful for some undefined problem later. If from the Reference Desk he/she then goes to the Reference Desk talk page (1 click on a prominent tab right at the top) he/she is likely to be further browned off if not already browned off by the poor quality questions and poor quality answers, sidetracking, and debate. Ratbone 121.215.10.7 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what Ratbone said above. What originally brought me to regularly reading through the questions here was that a lot of the answers were springboards into new ways of thinking about subjects I was interested in: the math and science desks had very interesting points being expressed, and the computer board didn't just have "how do I get technology X to work" questions, but computer science questions, which were also fascinating. As of now: most of the math questions (the few there are) seem to be more of a "help me solve this specific problem", but they end up just being difficult/tedious calculation; Ratbone has covered the science desk; the computer desk has, essentially, become tech support. The major difficulty is that until we are able to show that these desks can do more, there will not be occasion to do more; so, operating as is, will, essentially, keep us operating as is. What follows are a couple of disjointed points, remarks.

Someone mentioned above that the refdesk is seeing less visitors for the same reason that wiki is seeing less new articles, but I disagree with that. After a certain critical number of articles, the number of new articles will decline since the topics left will be those that are most difficult to write and those that are more obscure, hence less users can create them. Moreover, after a certain critical point, there will be enough articles that the number of users to monitor those and maintain them will be large enough that many creators will be come maintainers. In other words, I don't think we should treat the decline in article creation as linked to the decline in the refdesks; meaning, we may very well be able to rectify the issue/s here.
There are numerous places on the web where people ask questions, lots of questions; technical, deep, and otherwise. Thus, there is no lack of people with questions seeking quality answers; hence, since they are not asking here, there is some failure on the part of the refdesks. That failure may simply be lack of awareness that this place exists, peoples perception of wiki in general, bad past experiences, organization, anything else. But, I think it is hard to argue that there is a wider audience for these boards and that we can't do something to reach them.
It is a fact of life that people will ask medical questions that have no place here. Personally, the arguments over what constitutes unanswerable and the hatting of them, makes the science desk look less inviting (again, my opinion; I find it jarring when it happens.) This will be controversial, but since we know the issue is going to perpetually come up, why don't we have a closely watched medical science board. Then, all of these questions will end up in one place; they will not distract from questions on quite different subject matters; it will be easier to separate answerable medscience questions from unanswerable ones if they are all localized; and we can put a more emphasized version of our policy on that board specifically.
There are lots of people here who have skill sets that may be underutilized, but not because the lack of interest is out there. For example, I know a lot about foundational issues in mathematics, descriptive complexity, the theory of computation, and logic; however, I have little occasion to bring that knowledge here. I'm sure that the situation is the same for many others, even more so for others since there are people far more educated here than I. If we could find a platform to demonstrate that these deeper issues had a place here, I think it would draw people (there is no lack of people with vague thoughts on all sorts of things from quantum fields to Godel's theorems to what the Halting Problem says about knowledge.) The issue is how do we demonstrate that?
Could we have a separate area of discourse dealing with questions/issues that those educated on them would have liked answered when they first learned of the subject? Example: there are a lot of people who are interested in the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM (and other interpretations) except, most people lack the background to even ask a decent question on the matter. Could we have a page linking from here that approached common queries to that subject as if they were legit questions posted on the science board? If we could do this for various broad subjects, I think it would not only help users have a better framework to ask questions from, but it would also provide something easy to reference when the subjects came up. This is most likely beyond the framework of what the refdesk is supposed to be, so I don't imagine it happening; however, maybe someone can distill something useful out of it that can be done.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about having another board, but what I think would really help is a well organised list of previous questions and answers rather than just saying do a search. Possibly also article talk ages could have links to questions and answers relevant to them. This might also encourage people to give better answers knowing that the answer would be saved and classified properly.

As to the people who go around attacking people, yes I really do wish they would address the issue rather than the person. An option is to go for a system like slashdot for rating contributions but they seem to have just as many or more silly contributions as here.

I suppose there could be a link to the reference desks from the list on the left hand side on article pages but I think I would like to see some ideas that might actually improve the desks first. If we had answers classified properly google would probably start serving those as possibilities for some queries as well. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I really like the idea of articles linking to relevant questions and classifying things for google; how hard would these be to actually implement? Is it something users here could be a part of or would it need to be done by the folks who run/manage wiki itself?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd have editors doing it. It's the sort of thing WP:GNOMEs like doing. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone define this lowering of quality? A random walk through the archives tells me not much has changed. Mingmingla (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but, relative to a few years ago when I became active here, there does seem to be a bit more debate and more jokes that can be distracting or confusing. Imagine if you went to a physical ref desk in a library, and the staffers pretty much ignored you while heatedly debating the finer points of arcane theory, which they may or may not be qualified to do :)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the recent lack of traffic at the desks: Many (most?) students in the Anglosphere are on break for the summer, right? Even when it's not a "homework" question, many of our questions are obviously related to something that came up in class. So I expect to see a natural uptick in questions once more classes are in session in September...

As for improving the desks: I don't the state is that horrible, but we all have room for improvement. Some time back, an editor posted here, with the question "am I doing this right"? Several editors then looked at the recent answers given, and gave constructive feedback. So, I'd suggest that anyone who habitually answers more than a few questions a week partake in this process; it would help build our skills, and perhaps help us feel less debate-y and snarky with eachother. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One big black eye is the tendency of some regulars to attack other regulars in front of the original poster, which can't help but make Wikipedia look bad. If someone says something that's factually incorrect, it should suffice to say "that's not correct". Any comments beyond that should either try to answer the OP's question correctly, or be brought to a talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My idea was to draw readers with a banner on an article's talk page. But I agree with the argument above that this would end up overwhelming the desks at this point. In any case, the problem of silly questions and side discussions was something I thought more traffic might actually help. If one checks the contribution histories of RD users, it is apparent that a large number of our repeat questioners are single-purpose accounts. I don't know what combination of these are trolls, shy people in good faith, or regular contributors who like to generate material when times are slow. I suspect that when there are several good questions at a time on the desk, running-joke-type side discussions and single-purpose account generated questions will lessen as people's attention is on more substantive matters. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I said above that I was interested in a discussion on the future of the Ref Desk, so here goes. There have been a number of comments above that I think are particularly pertinent:

"The Reference Desk (the Science Desk at any rate, I don't much look at the other desks) is going down hill. Poor questions, silly topic questions, poor quality answers, and far too much going off topic, and far far too much debate, & personal attacks." (Ratbone)
"Can someone define this lowering of quality? A random walk through the archives tells me not much has changed." (Mingmingla)
"I can only speak for myself, but, relative to a few years ago when I became active here, there does seem to be a bit more debate and more jokes that can be distracting or confusing." (SemanticMantis)

This discussion chimes with something I have been considering for a little while, and has been addressed tangentially in recent talkpage conversations here. There is a feeling that the 'quality' of the RefDesk is gradually declining, although to what extent (if indeed that is the case) this is true is debated. It seems to me that, although there are many excellent suggestions given above for solving the problem, if we are not sure what the problem is it will be difficult to tackle it.

Therefore, I would like to propose a short research project to be carried out on our archives. It should not be too difficult to categorise the volume and topics of questions, and we could probably also come up with some way to assess the 'quality' of questions and answers as well.

The aim of the project would be to produce statistics that would show how well used the desks have been, how relevant the questions are, and how well we answer them. Tracking these over time would allow us to see if, and in which areas, we should work on improvements.

Unless there are any strong objections, I would be happy to start to plan out such a project. However, I suspect that it would be much quicker, and of higher quality, if there were a few others working on it as well. So, any volunteers? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cucumber Mike, please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 97#Discussions (good and bad) (January 2013).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember that discussion. I think part of the reason the idea didn't take off was that it was seen as reducing the RefDesk to the level of scoring 'points' for good answers. I'm proposing that we do a scientific analysis of the questions and answers in the archive for the purpose of improvement. The questions and answers could be anonymised before use in the analysis if it's felt that would help to remove personal bias. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking in the archives there were more than twenty questions being asked per day with regularity on the science board [11], and this significantly dropped during and after the fall (Northern Hemisphere) of 2008 with twenty or more posts to the board being more the exception than the rule [12]. Perhaps the quality of this board went downhill that fall or perhaps the decrease in visitors was due to something else such as less exposure on other pages making it harder for people to find these boards, or perhaps, and this seems just as likely, it happened simply because Wikipedia now has far more information than it did, thus users are satisfied with what they can now read about for themselves. Any or all of these are possible reasons. In addition, there are also plenty of amicable mathematicians watching the math board despite the sparsity of questions there, thus I don't quite see low volume being a problem or more volume helping, but I would certainly welcome more exposure, questions and volunteers since we have policies and procedures in place to handle significant problems (and we tend to be only as good as our last ~~paychecks~~ posts anyway). -Modocc (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You would need to look at all the ref desks, as they grew from one to the six or so they have now. That is, some questions previously in science might have been split off elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All seven desks were present and active during 2008 and later, see my links to the May 2008 and May 2009 science board archives to see the difference. -Modocc (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RD regular feedback?

The request above from SemanticMantis makes me wonder whether we begin to address the perceived decline in quality at the RD (discussed at great length above) through a voluntary peer review system. If done in a constructive manner, periodic review on a user's talk page might put them in mind of feedback when responding. I realize that problematic editors won't engage in such a process, but the rest of us could still benefit and might become less prone to getting drawn into counter-productive exchanges whether here or on the RD proper. Requests could be placed here (perhaps with a template) to invite feedback on a editor's talk page. The editor would be free to remove unconstructive (or all) feedback, if desired, but the exercise would give them some sense of how they're perceived (I, for one, don't have a clear sense of how I'm perceived - perhaps I don't worry about it as much as I should). -- Scray (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful simply to tell people, "that's a great answer!" on the desk itself. That rarely seems to happen. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot more issues with the quality of the questions than the quality of the answers. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't force people to ask better questions, but we can improve our answers so as to demonstrate we are capable of answering better questions. Mingmingla (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I'm alone in having watched a teacher turn a terrible (sometimes intentionally disruptive) question from a student into a great educational moment. I've seen this done from time to time on RD/S as well. -- Scray (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example of an intentionally disruptive question that was turned into a great educational moment (for the questioner, not for the person who tried to answer it!). I've never seen that. Anyway, the real problem is not individual bad questions, it's the cases where somebody pops up who asks one frivolous question after another, day after day. Looie496 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a more than a few attempts to turn a bad question into a great educational monent on Reference Desk. But, there is a fine line between that and going off on a tangent - only the most skilled can do it successfully. While I could see the good intent, it only encourages a culture of going of on tangents, sounding off, and having discussions. The culture on Reference Desk to have discussions not directly addressing the OP's question is now well established, and needs to be controlled. Reference Desk is vulnerable to trolls asking deliberately bad questions - I've seen a lot of troll-like questions that triggerred discussion going on for pages and pages. Great fun for trolls and the persons posting discussion I suppose. If done politely, it is more helpful to the OP to just explain why his question is not so good, and it provides less incentive to trolling. Ratbone 120.145.206.211 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Scray and Medeis here. I posts responses/thanks when I ask questions, but I rarely respond in such a way to questions I didn't already participate in, despite often thinking "Wow, that was quite informative." I guess part of it is simply human nature: it's easier to articulate what's wrong with something than what's right with it. Part of it also is that it seems almost... out of place for that kind of thing, like "If it was wrong, I'd tell you, but it's not, so I won't say anything." But I suppose that's just the way it's been here for so long that I think of it as natural. Well, the carrot works at least as well as the stick, so I shall attempt to balance my criticisms with praise. Matt Deres (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, my thinking is more in line with Looie496 (although my answers could use a ton of work, I don't argue that). But on the subject of providing good answers, could we put up a guideline/page that covers what exactly a good answer should be and, maybe, gives a few examples of great answers from the actual desks? If possible it could be linked from the welcome box at the top. I know that until I started reading through the talk pages, this wasn't 100% clear to me (the specifics of what exactly answers should be; obviously I know they should answer the question.) Just like any internet locale, this place has a culture and an expectation, I think it would make it easier to attract new people who might provide quality replies.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a draft at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guide for answering questions. I think it is relatively complete, and covers just about every single possible eventuality, but other contributions and fixes are always welcome. --Jayron32 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know, if all we're allowed to do is provide links, I for one would have no interest in participating here, and I suspect that applies to just about everybody who does (including you). It's useless to set up a "perfect" system if the result is that nobody wants to use it. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently when I said "other contributions and fixes are always welcome", that didn't make sense to you. What I meant by that was that other contributions and fixes are always welcome. I started a skeleton of an idea. If you want this, make it happen. If you don't, then don't. --Jayron32 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, your original version was a little snarky. I added an intro/overview. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I never took you for an irony-meister, Jayron, but you're right up there with the best (it ... covers just about every single possible eventuality). Lovely. Keep up the good work. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly though, is there ever a time when we should provide answers to an OP where we cannot back up our answer with an authoritative source of some sort? I'm struggling to find one. I always try to direct the OP to at least a Wikipedia article or two, if not an off-site source for further reading. It is not an unreasonable standard that every answer should provide at least one quality reference. That's all I said, even if I was a bit snarky about it. Seriously: come up with a situation where it's OK to shoot from the hip, or answer questions based on vague remembrances and never try to provide references at all. --Jayron32 00:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to cover that with "refs are always better". And I don't think anyone should shoot from the hip or vague remembrance. But there are times when I have knowledge of a topic, and want to share with the OP. I can easily pepper in wikilinks, but they don't necessarily have all the info that I gave. For instance I recently answered a question on plant care. I gave a good answer, based on years of experience. If I had been challenged for refs, I could have given some, but I was on break at work, and just wanted to get a good answer out. Not so much that I could not provide refs, just that I did not. The ref I would have just been a random book on plant care, but it's actually rather hard to use those books to make decisions; advice based on experience is much better. Another example where refs might not be strictly necessary is on the math desks, where proofs can be given that have no need to rest on any external authority. I don't want to get into a debate here, because I think we can both agree that "adding refs always makes answers better". However, many of us would strongly oppose a policy that said "you cannot answer unless you provide a ref". First, this would discourage many otherwise excellent answers, and second, it's trivial to game such a system without really adding any credence to the answer! Finally, I do look forward to developing that document with others, and maybe eventually linked to the front page. We can certainly come up with better advice than "must have refs full stop" SemanticMantis (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like. Keep going with that. --Jayron32 20:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I've tweaketted it ozically. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Approving and implementing proposal

I suggested under 'Underutilised' above that if we had a good classified index of previous answers and had links in the talk pages of relevant articles it might help to improve the quality of answers and get them linked from google more. Is this the right place for proposals like that or should one go to WP:VPPR or WP:CBB for approving things like that and if passed how does one go about implementing changes like that? Is there yet another WP: about it all? I see just above another proposal for editor feedback, I'm getting the idea that proposals on this talk page won't progress far without something else happening. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, re my own proposal above. I'd personally suggest that we just get down to work on the classification, and worry about where to link the answers later. Also, having a sample of the proposed classifications might help to gain support for approval when the time comes. I'm happy to offer up my talk page for discussions if any are needed. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh phooey, I was working on that and somehow completely forgot about it! I made a Lua script to output monthly archives like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua/Science/January 2013. Plus I rigged it so you could put a tag <cat xxx> into the archives and have that come up in the output table. I should finish setting up the index page and figure out where I put my example categories, or make new ones... Wnt (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks pretty good. Is there anything we can do to help? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually my categories were bugged - I think I just got them working. The hardest part to organizing the categories is that somebody has to go through the archive files for every single day and put {{Rdcat|some-category}} somewhere in the text of each question (I've been doing it at the top for the first three days in January). But it is also desirable for people to work out a consistent set of categories to use! I've been preferring very old fashioned categories: biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, engineering rather than materials science, life science, etc. I think it would be best to declare open season on one month - might as well be January 2013 which I have started - and have everyone involved look over the output list to spot any potential issues before going on to a broader dataset.

Note that getting a month index is very simple - it takes the parameters from the page name, so if you go to a page that isn't done yet, like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua/Humanities/January 2013, and enter {{#invoke:RDIndex|month}}, the index will automatically appear. I've avoided doing that for all the years just yet because it multiplies the overhead on the servers if I make a lot of edits to the module flailing around trying to kill a bug (like I just did...) Wnt (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also possible to run the template with a category parameter so that ONLY pages in that category are returned, but I think limitations on script running time prevent you from doing much more than a month anyway (haven't tried recently though). More likely all this needs to get cut and pasted into an OpenOffice spreadsheet. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a good start to getting some thought about the matter. It certainly does look like categorization would be the main problem and requires a bit of thought. My first thought is to associate wikipedia categories with the questions. Finding any links from an article might be useful as they would point to related articles and previous questions of the same sort. I think we'd be better off with a page per category and make sure there is not too many entries on each page. This would help google figure out the topics and index them rather than them just being a mash mash, it would also help people on the reference desk point to a number of related questions an answers. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to implement this. There are so many categories in Wikipedia that I'd think there'd be an average of one question per category. I don't trust the overall organization of the category tree enough to extract supercategories from them - besides, I can't touch the categories with a Lua script - there's simply no way to access the data displayed by Category:X with it. I appreciate the idea of a page per category, but I'm afraid it will be necessary to compile it somewhat manually due to the limits on script time. (Which reminds me - I need to set a nowiki option in the script so that you can get source output from running each month with a category restriction, then paste them all together. Also that I need to write a /doc file! And then there are unit tests. Sigh... I'm afraid I put off doing all the dull parts, and now they want to catch up with me.) 22:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I suppose it's not totally impossible - I could look up a mentioned article, look up the category at the end of it, access the category page (not the contents) to see what category it is in, etc. But I would break the 99 expensive parser functions count in much less than a month of data, I think. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason why categories are really needed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea was that you assemble a bunch of questions about one topic, say biology, maybe subcategorize those in a few further divisions, and pretty soon, you're ready to lump all the related question sections together and then extract out a polished, professional FAQ quality answer, which can stand, beside various keywords, as a permanent resource on the topic. Eventually we want a database of all possible questions to follow up on our ideal Wikipedia as a database of all possible answers (nod to Douglas Adams) Wnt (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor update - the index page at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua is now started, and I've activated the monthly index for January 2013 for all the Refdesks. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the index looks great, Wnt, and I have no idea how to impliment or help with any of this, so just let me say it looks great! μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Thank you for the effort you've already put in to this. I'm planning to spend some time helping out, but probably not before Monday, when I should have time to sit down and work out what's going on. It certainly sounds boring enough for me to be interested though! :-)

A quick question/suggestion: Is it possible to further categorise the answers, especially with regard to 'quality' (if we can agree on what that is)? Maybe it could be done automatically - I see you can already extract the length, which is at least somewhat a measure of how many replies a question has, but maybe you could count the number of links (article links, external sources) that are provided? That might give us an idea how many sources are being provided in the answers. How possible is it to change things like this after the fact - should we do it now to save effort later or can we try it first and see how we go? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lua-generated indexes are updated whenever the script or the source page changes. So if you go and add a category to any one of the archive pages, it will show up in the index. More to the point, if I follow up on your suggestion to index or number the links in a new field, that will show up. Now once I have an index page for all the months of all the desks, I'll feel a bit guilty about changing the script too often because all those pages have to be regenerated, which puts some load on the server, but still not as much as changing the most popular templates; the proper thing to do then would be sandboxed development, but the very concept fills me with fear and loathing. :) Anyway, probably better to tamper with it now. :) Wnt (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the questions

I find myself commenting on questions that are visible on the reference desk but transcluded as archives as the bot sees fit. As I fully understand that the questions come and go, could it be possible to somehow keep open to comment those questions that are still visible on the page itself? I might very well be an idiot, but I would like to have a reason why this is so. --Pxos (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: keep off the back stage. --Pxos (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you can edit the ones that are archived, and your edits will be transcluded along with the other content in the archive as long as that one's being displayed on the RD. -- Scray (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is not unusual for discussions to continue for a while after a given question has been archived. I think he's asking why we auto-archive after a fixed time, as opposed to other archives which only go off after they've been unedited for some minimum time. However, I think that could cause some logistical problems here, as the archives are grouped by date rather than by topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So far as I know (and as I've treated it) the appearance of the archives on the main page is an invitation to edit, and it seems absurd to deter someone from adding answers to even long-closed questions. Wnt (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something that is obvious to you - where's the deterrent? If the deterrent is the realization that one is editing an archive, that's hard to fix. -- Scray (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually, people are told not to edit Wikipedia archives (on talk pages and such) but clearly those rules don't apply here. The refdesk is just different from the rest of WP - really, it's a misplaced piece of Wikiversity. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Pxos, I've occasionally constructed an answer only to have the bot archive the question (or I didn't notice it already had) and my answer might not be read because it wouldn't show up on the page's watchlist so the OP and others might not realize it was posted. I've learned to check the page(s) for late additions but all this trouble wouldn't be necessary if we simply archived when the dates are completely removed like other pages. --Modocc (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the watchlist problem here. While I never use my watchlist, as I understand it, and a check of my watchlist seems to confirm, by default the watchlist will only show you the most recent edit to the page. Given how frequently the desks are edited at times, particularly science and humanities, unless you check your watchlist every 10 minutes or so, the chance you will see it when someone happens to edit some specific question (presuming they kept the subject in the edit summary) is not that high. There are various ways to customise the watchlist, e.g. hiding minor edits etc but I don't see how this helps much here. There is also the option to expand the watchlist in the editors preferences but I don't see how that helps as it just shows the name and just the subjects. Now there may be gadgets, which can further expand the watchlist perhaps to show something similar to the entire contrib history for the desk, but again considering the number of edits, I'm not sure that this is any more useful than simply checking out the question manually, in which cases whether or not it's been archived is largely moot provided it's still appearing on the main desk. (I guess if the gadget concentates edits with the same subject anchor.) The only real issue would seem to be if the question has been extensively replied to, in such cases even a glance at the contrib history or occasionally checking out your watchlist has a fair chance of seeing this if the question has yet been archived but obviously not if it has unless you either watchlisted or check out the contrib history of the specific archive. Does anyone here actual primarily use either their watchlist or the page contrib history to keep an eye on a specific questions? Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Off topic question

What is the immediate temptation to answer and comment on this request "Ages" for debate and opinion rather than hatting the whole question" Please look at the last 500 edits by this user. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked through some (albeit not all) of that original poster's last 500 contributions), but fail to see the problem. Do you have an specific diffs or could you explain how those last 500 edits might be problematic?

I do disagree that the question was requesting debate or our opininon, and interpreted it as asking for what psychologists etc might have written on this topic. That's how I would approach it anyway. The solution to the problem of us giving our own opinions and speculations, and then debating them, is to stop doing this, not to hat or remove questions that could easily be addressed with reference to studies, papers, books, reports, etc. (In other words, I agree with SemanticMantis's approach here). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So, disregarding the user's editing pattern of 50 comments a day on talk pages and half a dozen edits otherwise, assuming good faith means we should make up according to Semantic Manti what we think the OP is asking and answer that only after hatting the thread has been suggested? In any case, your bottom line is that if someone answers this with anything other than a reference to a book or paper you support hatting it? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No. First of all I actually read some of the comments on talk pages, and the ones I read mostly involve co-operative editing and improving the project. Moreover, no I don't think we need to "make up" anything, though of course we do need to interpret (most) questions to a certain degree. I interpreted this one as a genuine request for possible explanations of what the original poster sees as widespread seemingly irrational behavior. And finally, no, my bottom line is not that I support hatting if someone answers with anything other than a reference to a book or paper. I actually don't like hatting at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem here. My interpretation of the question is the same as the one that led to the answer given regarding puppy love. Perfectly answerable with a reference, and it was. As for an editing pattern restricted to mostly talk pages? I rarely edit mainspace. I'm pretty sure that doesn't render my questions suspect. All that said, bringing the complaint here is a good start, Medeis. We might not agree with your sentiment in the case, but it goes a long way to solve the 'problems' we've allegedly been having: you're bringing it up for debate rather than hatting all willingly. Mingmingla (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I answered the question (and am in ongoing discussion with the OP) because it's unclear to me that our OP has considered all aspects of the problem. In a sense, the question needs to be backed up one step. First, our OP needs to be sure that these crushes are indeed age-based. I'm not sure that they are. Until we're clear that the correct question has been asked, we're not in a position to decide whether it may reasonably be answered. It's surely premature to "hat" it - and in any case, under what RefDesk or Wikipedia rule would we drop it?

I echo what Minmingla says - it's good that we're able to discuss it here before jumping in with a snap judgement. This isn't like a medical/legal question where there might be an urgency to closing the thread. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing inappropriate in the question. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RDS Meta-discussion

I moved the following, with a link pointed here, because this doesn't belong on RD/S. I don't disagree with Looie496's initial point, but the snowball effect was disruptive. -- Scray (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're also supposed to link to the original discussion when you do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Biology. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(***start of content moved from RD/S***)

This is exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said that the worst problem with the reference desks is the editors who ask nothing but one frivolous question after another. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, don't be frank. Titunsam probably won't appreciate his question being called frivolous. Would you appreciate it, Looie? There is a way of saying it, without 'saying' it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How are we going to stop it without being frank? I'm all for being nice, but not at the cost of the abuse continuing indefinitely. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Start with giving the person advice on how to formulate a proper question, and why it would benefit them. If they obviously ignore your advice, then tell them that their question may be removed, if that is an appropriate course of action. Or if it suites you, don't bother with the question at all. That is what I would do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't like obnoxious obtusively, but that is different from naïve obtusively. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you do when you see a "contributer" with this edit history:

14:02, 2 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+58)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Biology: new section)
14:39, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+125)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Biology: new section)
14:35, 31 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+82)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Biology: new section)
08:42, 27 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+121)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎ELectrostatic Energy: new section)
13:46, 22 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+99)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment ‎ (→‎cricket: new section)
07:03, 22 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+75)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Biology: new section)
07:06, 8 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+85)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Arthritis: new section)
13:21, 28 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+134)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
12:41, 28 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+107)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
12:08, 28 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+119)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
02:39, 26 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+86)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎physics: new section)
10:33, 24 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+55)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎medicine: new section)
14:09, 17 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
14:25, 12 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+121)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
14:25, 12 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+120)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
14:28, 9 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+82)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
13:19, 8 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+124)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
13:19, 5 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+100)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎biology: new section)
13:22, 4 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+70)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎physics: new section)
15:13, 2 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎chemistry: new section)
14:07, 31 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-96,355)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (←Replaced content with 'give complete description of law of symmetry in solid stateμηδείς (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)')

posting endless nonsense to the ref desks under identical headers and nothing else? μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as I said above. Everyone deserves a chance to correct their behavior. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(***end of content moved from RD/S***) -- Scray (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We've gone for quite a few days without these barrages of nonsense posts, and now a whole wave of them. I don't think most people pay any attention to user contributions, but when you see a one-purpose account like this is it quite obvious we are being gamed, and unless it is in people's faces we will get calls for tolerance of flat out trolling. There is no point in brining it here unless the user is going to be blocked as an obvious sock, in which case the thread could have just as easily been hatted. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The user's most recent question was, "If a cat smells petrol ,what will happen?" Maybe the next question he asks, he should be told to explain what he meant in the previous question, if he expects any more questions to be addressed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Our top priority should be the mission, so whenever we get something that we can interpret as an interesting question, we should answer it and be happy. It doesn't matter who it is or why; we're not here to do somebody a favor that gives us a right to be offended when we are taken advantage of; we're here to create a public knowledge base, and our edits are driven by the inherent desirability of the goal. That leaves only a few of the other kind to worry about, those that seem pointless, which can then be ignored and/or deleted without loss as they would be for anyone else. In an encyclopedia anyone can edit, trying to track and "do something" about contributors is a tremendous waste of effort. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The ref desk alleges to be like a library ref desk. If you're working in a library, and someone asks you that cat/petrol question and then walks away, why should such a question be given any consideration at all? And if they come back and ask a new question, why shouldn't the librarian say, "First explain what your previous question means." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Frivolous questions interfere with the goal of creating a useful public knowledge base, by adding noise that makes it harder to detect the signal. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt obviously being a lot wiser than the rest of us, maybe he can provide a useful answer to the question about cats smelling petrol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that the right to do research to determine how cats smell gasoline (specifically) is the private property of Richard Axel et al.; see http://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_2002_0064817_A1 . The sensitivity to gasoline odor, but not its desirability, was shown to be heritable in a human study [13] so knowing more about it in the cat might help to identify a candidate gene. Gasoline is one of the specific odors whose detection is severely impaired in Parkinson's disease (PMID 12707068) - I don't know if this is true in a cat model system.

Biology has no respect for vanity. The things it is too embarrassing to talk about, whatever is too trivial to think about - these are exactly the things which, by design, can ultimately kill people or save their lives. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to post that information under that question in the ref desk, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Looie496 et al here. Plasmic Physics claims we should try to teach the OP how to ask questions. Except that multiple people have told the person not to give homework questions including on their talk page User talk:Titunsam and in the questions themselves including explanations of the problems with their questions yet they're still doing it [14] and [15]. Far simpler then that, I've asked (perhaps others as well) them to do a very easy thing to do. Provide a more descriptive title. I even have an example Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 17#biology. English may not be the first language, but if they can formulate the questions as they have done so, they could surely give a better title then the continuous 'biology' with the occasional 'physics' etc. In fact they even did so once or twice. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This question hardly qualifies as homework. I don't find it plausible that a mentor would normally ask such a vague question, and expect a valid response. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What's 'this question'. I posted two examples of recent apparent homework questions, long after multiple commentators queried their posting of apparent homework questions. The question about petrol may not be homework, but I never suggested it was nor that all their questions were, simply that a number of them appear to be, and they've been asked lots of times not to do it but persist in doing so (along with not posting more useful headings). And what 'mentor'? The homework questions they appear to be asking seem to be the sort of thing more likely coming from a teacher, lecturer, tutor or someone similar rather than a 'mentor'. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This thread is about a particular question, and those like it, being asked by a particular user. So, please excuse me for assuming that you were continuing the same thread. I was using the term 'mentor' in the general sense, as to include the range of person, which you listed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'those like it', I would personally consider those homework questions like the examples I gave as being 'like it'. But regardless, this thread is clearly about the editor involved and not just the subset of the editors questions you consider like the one which started it. If it was just about the questions you consider like the one which started it, apparently excluding the homework questions, there would not be a long contributions list posted by μηδείς. Nor would Looie496 have said 'who ask nothing but one frivolous question after another' (and other comments about frivolous questions), to which you replied to. Nor would μηδείς have said 'posting endless nonsense to the ref desks under identical headers and nothing else', to which again you replied to. Nor would Baseball bugs have said 'The user's most recent question was....'. And all the others posts clearly referring to the contributors contribution history which of course include the homework questions like the recent examples I have.

In any case, even if I was the first person to raise the issue of said contributors general contribution history which as I stated includes their tendency to post homework questions and the same subject headings (the later of which seems to have also been raised by μηδείς when they said 'identical headers') after multiple requests not to do so; I don't see how my comments above could be confused to only be referring to the subset of the editors questions you think like the recent question since I never referred to the question in particular, but instead gave specific examples of the behaviour I was referring to.

But anyway, back to the question. Now that you finally understand that me and others were in fact referring to the editors other contributions as well and not just the subset you consider 'like it', can you kindly explain why you believe we can 'Start with giving the person advice on how to formulate a proper question, and why it would benefit them' when we have already done so several times, and for far more simpler things and the editor still has not taken this on board? Could you also explain how many more chances you would propose we give under your policy of 'Everyone deserves a chance to correct their behavior'? And where do you draw the line between 'obnoxious obtusively' and 'naïve obtusively'? Because in case it still isn't clear, I'm saying that based on the evidence we have, this editors already crossed all those lines and doesn't seem to be willing or able to take onboard any suggestions for reform, even simple ones. (Note that I'm not saying that we need to consider blocking them or banning them from asking questions. Simply that the others had a good point about the clear problems with this editors contrib history, and that the editor is not some sort of ultra confused newbie who's never been told better as you seemed to be implying.)

P.S. I wouldn't call many of those people mentors, particularly not the ones giving some of the the questions we've seen, but that's a bit beside the point.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looie496 called the particular question, "frivolous". Before you explicitly introduced the concept of a homework question, we were discussing Titunsam's habit of asking "frivolous" questions. Homework questions may indeed be a subset of frivolous questions, but you focused specifically on that subset instead of the parent set of "frivolous" questions, which is why I answered your homework post in the first place. My policy is not indicative of the next steps that I recommend, only the chronological order of steps. There is no need to repeat the first steps. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding link formatting

I'd just like to leave a note about a format problem that comes up frequently -- the use of <ref> on the Reference desks. That's almost never the right thing to do, because the structure of these pages does not allow for a {{Reflist}} at the bottom. In many cases the best solution is simply to remove the <ref> and </ref>, leaving a bare link such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wiHALV-Ck. The advantage is that such a link is easy to use, and a user knows where the link is going to lead. Source citations that are formatted using <ref> can be handled the same way (by removing the <ref> and </ref>), leaving the actual contents of the reference visible to the reader. If a resulting external link is too long or awkward, then the best solution is to use something like "<nowiki>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wiHALV-Ck this youtube video]". Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would go further and say that if anyone is foolish enough to post a "ref" link on a ref desk, someone should convert it back to a bare link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that editing another's comments to replace a <ref> with a regular link is acceptable - per Talk Page guidelines on editing other's comments, this counts as a "format fix" or a "syntax fix." It is best if the editor who makes the fix also leaves a comment indicating the change. Nimur (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. It's also something that doesn't happen very often. But when it does, it can be a nuisance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've used <ref> in my answers, since often the references I find are from library databases, and don't have direct links. When I've done so, I've included the {{reflist}} as a part of my answer. I was not aware that this was causing problems although in retrospect I can see how it would. I can certainly stop doing this and come up with some other way of providing the references within the answer. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite easy: do exactly what you were doing, but just leave out the <ref> and </ref>. It works fine. Looie496 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the reflist solution work, even for multiple reflists, but sooner or later someone forgets. My solution is to use <sup>[ ]</sup>. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone

Contributions from an IP[16] abused these boards with a personal attack [17] under Wickwack and made comments here as Ratbone. I suspected socking earlier for other reasons (such as their contributions to this thread[18]) and this confirms it. Any contributions from their IP range should be suspect and be removed and/or blocked when appropriate. --Modocc (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack, and the "Ratbone" moniker is attached to 120.145.203.206 on the page you link to, not 121.215.10.7. Anyways, WP:SPI is this way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack is inviting a sock puppet investigation with his provocations, including the personal attack another editor removed yesterday. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the editor that removed it after some fruitless discussion [19] -Modocc (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that Wickwack did not make "Derogatory comments about other contributors"? Did the recent IP not use the same multiple monikers and sock? Not to mention the earlier disruptions? The earlier IP[20] used the same monikers to sock with. I submit that the evidence is clear and compelling for a community ban of this user. -Modocc (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a little complicated, because editors have a right to edit as IP users. And WW is voluntarily identifying himself. But there is enough disruptive behavior to raise the question why the user finds IP addresses and signing manually more convenient than a registered account under his desired name. The effect is to make it prohibitively difficult to track his behavior. The solution seems to be requiring he use a registered account subject to normal discipline or face the immediate blocking of all his IP addresses or both. I am not sure if admins have tools that will let them easily identify IP posts with the ww signature. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This user, who's IPs geolocate to western Australia, has no right to sock and cause disruption. If we want to begin improving the boards, per all the other discussions, we had better start with stopping blatant policy violations and Wickwack has already made it clear in previous discussions he is unwilling to register. -Modocc (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, to make my position perfectly clear, I think an admin should put him on final warning for disruption, and advise him to register an account and cease the IP face dancing. If he registers an account and then misbehaves small normal blocks at first would be reasonable. If he doesn't register an account and continues to disrupt he should be hunted down and rooted out as an intentional troll. But a caveat is that we need diffs of actual disruptive behavior. The last thing we need is suggesting ser blocks based on intuition and feeling. I don't keep enemies lists (I don't see WW as an enemy, either) so someone else is going to have to make a list of his most grievous sins. The best case scenario is Wickwack registers and accepts the same discipline as everyone. PS, WW should be notified he's the subject of discussion--but how does one do that with an IP face dancer? μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues here: Whether Wickwack has misbehaved, and whether he engages in sock puppetry. I see no strong evidence to accuse Wickwack of sockpuppetry as Ratbone or vice versa. I also don't think Wickwack's lack of registration is any reason for suspicion. To the contrary, it is helpful that he at least uses a handle, unlike many IP contributors. Same goes for Ratbone. Remember when some IP came here accusing Baseball Bugs and StuRat of being socks of eachother? That was pretty funny to me. Like those two, Wickwack and Ratbone seem to have some similarities (e.g. I suspect they're both male Aussies of a certain age, and likely retired engineers), but there's no rule against having similar opinions and knowledge to another editor. It is true that the diff you posted shows some poor wording, and perhaps deserves chastisement. But banning seems a bit much (not to mention unenforceable). SemanticMantis (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack might benefit from taking a metal file to his tongue once in a while, but his contributions overall are a net plus; I've seen him answer questions. Wikipedia is too quick to turn a valid personal complaint into some Process. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Doing a bit of untangling, it looks like Modocc's complaint has merit.

First off, there do appear to be threads in which editors signing as Wickwack and editors signing as Ratbone both participate and are mutually supportive.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 February 8#Forms of energy (noted by Modocc) involves heated debate between Wickwack, Gandalf61, and Modocc. At one point, Ratbone interjects a remark endorsing Wickwack's position (and referring to Wickwack in the third person several times) and deriding Gandalf61, saying in part "Gandalf61 is, at best, very confused, and at worst, just a troll. Wickwack says sound, light, waves etc are forms of energy. This is consistent with reality...". This thread also includes another IP editor siging as 'Keit' who again agrees with Wickwack. Wickwack, Ratbone, and Keit are all editing from the same ISP (Telstra), and all three sign their posts in the same manner (a plain-text name, followed by the standard IP address and date generated by four tildes).
On this talk page, just above at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Baseball Bugs and Medeis (permalink), we again have Ratbone jumping in to defend Wickwack "In any case, Wickwack only seems to attack personally when he/she's been attacked personally. Wickwack does post when he/she thinks someone else has given an incorrect answer, but surely that can be tolerated?" when it was mentioned in passing that Wickwack might be sanctioned.

By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.

If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.

...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good on ToaT. I have to say up until about 2 months ago I had always assumed they were the same person and weren't denying it. I never understood but ultimately didn't care about the different names before their signature. It was only 2 months or so ago I realised they were acting as if they were different people. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC

I have to agree with the comment that WW has made many good contributions. Nothing with having a registered account would prevent that from continuing, and I do not want anything other than a warning at this point. BUT, saying he is not a sock puppet, when he is by definition his own sock puppet is too much. There is absolutely no reason for a user to claim an identity but to refuse to register it. As far as we know, a bunch of trolls may be calling themselves Wickwack and posting under IP's while using that name. This sort of behavior is ipso facto gaming the system, and worthy of a block if it is not stopped. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I hate these imaginary expeditions. They rely on lack of imagination. Isn't it possible that there's a frat house with half a dozen people who click on a Wikipedia bookmark or follow the common browsing history? Or even just three roommates in an apartment, who sometimes browse using each other as an audience? Wnt (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And they all conspired to game us, write on the same subjects and take the time and effort to type monikers each time too and not use the signature buttons? -Modocc (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC))

What sort of retired? professional engineering living in Perth lives in a frat house anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation of Wickwack -- Please Contribute.

I have opened an investigation here. SPI will want documentation of diffs and user: PLEASE add documentation to this page to support the case. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion on how to notify the roaming IPs here [21] and apparently we can proceed by notifying the last known IP talkpages. --Modocc (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack/Ratbone/Keit/etc. monitors this page extensively, there shouldn't necessarily be any excuse that they are unaware of this current discussion. Also, there is not necessarily an obligation to notify SPI targets (unlike ANI and AN). --Jayron32 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This gets into the can-of-worms neighborhood. Checkusers won't publicly comment on IP's, and given that this guy or guys are IP-hoppers, site-banning them might prove little more than symbolic. But if the checkuser determines that they are from a single source, maybe he'll have a trick or two up his sleave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize this is problematic, which is exactly how the OP wants it. Rather than comment here, please comment at the investigation itself. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And they closed it already. And you wonder why I seldom start SPI's. They are too often a waste of everyone's time. You put a lot of effort in, and the checkuser dismisses with a short comment and shuts it down, totally ignoring the issue that was raised ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dammit. I advised someone only a day or so ago to just report another socking troll whenever they noticed them and to try and avoid getting worked up about them. And now I'm feeling annoyed by this one. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what did you think would happen? Is there even a policy about signing more than one name before your IP number? Even if you want to delete him on sight, that's not a SPI, it's something else, AN or something. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The policy violation would be IF this is one guy pretending to be two or more guys, and consequently compromising a "voting" situation, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that SPI won't deal with this for the reasons that Bugs notes: We don't need a checkuser because behavioral evidence on this is pretty clear, thanks to the detective work above, and a checkuser won't be run because checkusers will not, by policy, materially connect an IP address to a live person. So there's really nothing for SPI to do, since we don't need a behavioral investigation (that's been done above) and checkuser will not help us anyways. The next step is to start a formal ban discussion at WP:AN. It is a bad idea to hold a ban discussion here and expect it to "stick"; ban discussions should at least bring in some uninvolved eyes; even if everyone except the RD regulars ignore the discussion at WP:AN, people outside of this corner of Wikipedia will have had the chance to see and comment on it, adding some legitimacy to the process of banning someone. I'm not saying that is what we should do here, merely noting that IF there was a desire to formally ban someone and log said ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, we should do it by the book and hold the discussion at WP:AN, which by policy is the preferred location for banning discussions. If people really want this, I can draft the ban proposal, but I'm not going to move ahead unilaterally unless there's support for such a move. --Jayron32 00:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments. I have no idea if WickWack, ratbone, etc, are one and the same. The experts on the technical side of things and the amateur psychologists here can try to work that out, but I need to highlight that Telstra, their service provider, is Australia's biggest telco, with millions of customers, and it's not the customers' fault that their IP addresses change all the time. That's what Telstra does. But it highlights a problem for our policy that editors don't have to register. That's a lovely policy when IP addresses tend to be fixed, but to my mind it becomes quite problematic when IP addresses change so frequently. It's much more difficult to have mature conversation when we don't know if a player with one IP address today is the same as someone with a different IP address yesterday. I wish we could force editors whose IP addresses frequently change to register. Now, another perspective. Like WickWack, I'm a mature aged Aussie with a sometimes brutal approach to the efforts of other editors whose work I don't respect. That's a trait that would be common to quite a lot of people of our demographic. We come from a different culture from the dominant demographic here on Wikipedia. It's one where it is sometimes said that we call a spade an effing shovel, and we don't suffer fools gladly. I know the nicer people here insist that we just have to conform with the majority, and I do my best, but many of you will know that it hasn't always worked. (And you can read more about my views on this problem on my User page if you wish.) So, how much of this is a witch-hunt against someone who is actually doing some great work here, but whose personal style happens to be different from that of the majority. Do remember that being in a minority doesn't make someone wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Being rude is being rude, whatever your culture is. I (and I'm sure we all) appreciate your efforts, HiLo48, but surely you know that tone is everything on the internet, and even little comments that would be ignored or even considered positive when spoken appear very different online. WickWack may offer good responses, but the surrounding comments can come across less than positively. Mingmingla (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that one can call a spade an effing shovel without insulting the shovel. Being plain spoken and direct is not related to being insulting or unpleasant. People often confuse the two, but not in the way that HiLo48 seems to be saying; often people are directly and deliberately belittling, insulting, and disrespectful of others and cover themselves by saying "Well, I'm just being honest!" Possibly, but honesty =/= rudeness. Those are unrelated constructs, and it's entirely possible to be fully honest and not rude at all. Not suffering fools does not mean making yourself one in the course of pointing out their foolishness. --Jayron32 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think you've understood what I said, or meant. I'm currently working in a rather up-market school. There was just a discussion at our morning break which involved what many of us might call refreshing language, but some here would call abusive language. No euphemisms. It was blunt. Strong language was used. Language that would definitely not be approved by the niceness police here. A conclusion was reached. People will move on. Improvements will be made here based on that discussion. Now, I'm not asking that all here work that way, but you have to accept that not all cultures are the same as yours. Obviously some things that I see would amaze some of you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's curious, HiLo, how many of your co-workers, however blunt their language, use four different disguises, or more, as it fits them, while all claiming the same tax ID, yet refusing to fill in their job application, or show their driver's license? μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's a witty way of saying you wish these roaming IP editors would register, I agree 100%. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, more to the point, is how many of them involved in the heated discussion snuck out the back of the room, put on a fake mustache, and then showed up to the same discussion pretending to be a different person... --Jayron32 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm a good enough psychologist to recognise the patterns you see. Not saying you're wrong. I just don't know. It's just not something I'd be all that confident of claiming. And your analysis is not concrete evidence, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a community decision, we need experienced uninvolved editors at AN to look into the documented evidence of misconduct. -Modocc (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't think it was rude to report bodily functions, Jayron, I would respond <Snort!>, hehehe. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to be more helpful. I don't want to see Wickwack or his aliases banned, or even blocked. But I do want to see an end to the bad faith, and registering and using a user name would be a huge step toward that. In that case he should be treated with the same lenience all users would be treated with. But if he continues to edit as an IP user and engages in even borderline disruption he should be banned in all known incarnations. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Known" being the operative word there. It's not the same as "suspected". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack, if you look at my SPI nomination you will see 12 different IP addresses all associated with posts signed by Wickwack that are archived to a single day in Feb of 2013. Those are not suspected addresses, those are known ones, and we can expect there are dozens more, better identified by ranges than number. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think the issue is changing IP addresses - there's no rule against that (even though it obscures the problematic behavior). TOAT, Jayron, and others have appropriately focused on the use of "identities" (Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, etc) to appear to be multiple users then support one another - that's gaming is a clear violation of the spirit of our policies. -- Scray (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What does TOAT mean? google gave no good answer. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ten of All Trades. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And in this case the changing IP addresses are not the editors' fault. It what that (bloody big in Australia) ISP does. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find the evidence of gaming (provided by TenOfAllTrades above) so compelling that I would support a ban. You're right, HiLo48 - a spade is an effing shovel. -- Scray (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If ANI is correct, someone can copy my SPI report and post it there with the relevant changes. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering if I will post it to wp:AN, I can't right now, because its late here and I won't have much time to spend on this tomorrow. I will support a ban should Jayron or anyone else report this. -Modocc (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since changing IP addresses aren't a problem per se, I don't think copying Medeis' SPI report would be helpful. A report like the one from TenOfAllTrades would be more relevant at WP:AN, in my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But my report is simply Ten's cut and pasted with mention of 12 IP addresses using the wickwack signature manually added by the IP. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As several people said they would like to see this at WP:AN, I have done just that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses. Feel free to contribute to the ban discussion however your conscience leads you. --Jayron32 04:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a stupid question, but: can anyone support/oppose on the linked page? I ask because of the mention about it being for administrators when I clicked edit. (I don't know much about the management (guess that's the term) side of wiki or how it works).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. Yes, anyone can support, oppose or just leave a comment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To mirror what Jack has said, the rule is at Wikipedia, if you are technically able to do something, you're allowed to do it. That is, the only thing admins are allowed to do that ~~mere mortals~~ non-administrators cannot do is use their tools (block someone, delete a page, protect a page). Participating in discussions, and expecting your voice to be heard and your opinion to be treated equally to every other person so participating, is an expectation of every user at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 11:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Now we have proof; I always knew Jayron was bigotted aginst mortals. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron's point is well made, but in fact there are a few pages on Wikipedia where users are technically "able" to edits but are explicitly told not to. One example is Arbitration cases, where the pages are not protected in any way, yet users are told: "Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case." That's an exception that proves the rule, however. Matt Deres (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that prohibition applies equally to users that have the admin flag turned on as for those that don't. Thus, it is not an exception, because it does not treat admins differently. --Jayron32 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The rule that proves the exception. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I was commenting on your statement that "the rule is at Wikipedia, if you are technically able to do something, you're allowed to do it." That's true 99.99% of the time (for everyone, be they anons or oversighters); the ArbCom desk is one of the very few times that rule isn't followed. Matt Deres (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban enacted

Per [22], the proposal that "The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages." is closed with consensus support, and "The duration of the topic-ban is indefinite, but may be appealed on this page after not less than six months from today." Per WP:BAN, this means this editor is not permitted to edit on these pages, "anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule", others should not restore or respond to them, etc. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban enforcement

I started a discussion of enforcement at ANI: [23]. -Modocc (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing diff on Misc Desk

At 8:25 on 8 June on the thread titled "Wikipedia page appears to have been hacked...." I posted: "Elbert or L. Ron?".

Someone has replied with: "Wow, surprised I never heard of Elbert Hubbard. What a fascinating story!"

But there's no diff to show who the editor was or when it was posted. It was not there as at 14:18 on 8 June, but by the next edit at 14:24, it was there. But it was not added during that latter edit because it does not appear in the diff. It seems to have snuck in under the radar.

Does this sort of thing happen often? What causes it, and can the edit in question be nailed down somehow? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have been added directly to the archive:[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what happens when you edit items that are more than a few days old. They still show up on the main page, but you are actually editing an archive page. Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Come to think of it, isn't that how it normally works when you edit the transcluded portion? Like if I edit something that's older than the cutoff point, it updates the archive rather than the main ref desk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I just tested the theory here:[25] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. Wow, the little things one learns even after almost 10 years of lurking around here.

If I can put on my Jim Hacker hat: What else don't I know that I need to be aware of? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We can answer that, but first you need to list everything you do know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see now ..... Nothing comes to mind right now. I'll get back to you on that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Why is there a difference I cannot see? (version of 22:55, 8 June 2013).

—Wavelength (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

THE EDIT WAS MINE (god voice, not yelling). Jack's comment was indeed great. I have no idea why there's no diff. I checked my contributions and could find no record of it or any edit at that time. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The diff occurred on the archive rather than the active page. And another one appeared on the archive when you added your signature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Medeis. I suspected it was your good self, but I wanted to be sure. I am actually very surprised indeed that Elbert Hubbard hadn't crossed your path before. But then, the stuff I don't know that you do would probably fill an encyclopedia. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)