Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

"Homework" Questions

I don't think people should be so quick to call out "homework" questions. I mean some questions may be written a unique style that suggest it is an assignment. But for the most part is is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a homework question and someone genuinely interested in a topic especially if it is esoteric or academic.

The rules state "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point."

So people should only be called out if they have obviously done no research. But that is the case whether it is "homework" or not.

--Gary123 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think helping with homework questions is necessarily outside of the ways in which the reference desks should be used. I don't think the work should be done for them. But if in lesser ways we can serve to direct the person to be able to do the work themselves, that should be acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the disclaimer is there because we don't simply do other people's work for them when they have access to all the information they need. This almost always relates to it being a homework question. Certainly, I've seen plenty of people ask for, and receive, help with homework questions when they've demonstrated a lack of knowledge or understanding with which we can help. We just don't do the work. I can't say I've ever noticed people being called out just because it's homework - if someone's done the research and has perhaps missed a point, or doesn't get it, they'll normally be helped, from what I've seen. Perhaps you could provide examples?

I would also disagree with the statement "for the most part is is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a homework question and someone genuinely interested in a topic". If someone poses a question in short question format, outside of any clear context (as would normally be provided by having had lessons on the subject previously), it's a reliable bet that it's a homework question; why else would a questioner pose a question so inefficiently? Vimescarrot (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's potentially a source of great satisfaction to those of us who respond to questions on the Reference desks to field questions from students. I think it holds all the potential for satisfaction that being a teacher in a classroom has. I almost think we should welcome and encourage "homework questions."

The key is of course what sort of help we provide. As in so many other teaching involvements, the key is in stimulating interest in the subject at hand. And we should hope to instill confidence in the person we are relating to. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to think about homework questions in this way. I begin by stating what we do not do. We do not answer multiple-choice questions by simply stating "The answer is 'C'". We do not answer arithmetic questions by simply stating "The answer is 42." We do not answer history questions by simply stating "The answer is Thomas Jefferson." We don't answer such questions, because knowing those answers is entirely independent from having learned the material. What we do is provide references - we provide contextual information, guided by our experience with the subject matter and aided by our ability to find relevant links (both inside Wikipedia and in off-site reference material). This helps the student learn the material - possibly from an angle that their closed-form textbook education cannot - and whether they answer the multiple-choice questions correctly is irrelevant from our perspective. It's not that we want people to fail their quizzes - it's that here on Wikipedia, we have a much more open-ended definition of "learning." The burden is, and always will be, on the student to both learn the material and to demonstrate that learning to their own teacher in whatever way necessary to make their own grades - that part really isn't our problem - but we can help them by providing free access to knowledge and subject-matter experts. Nimur (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And I do think it's okay to tell people who have just copied out questions from their book that we don't really consider that acceptable. We are not computers and should not be treated as such. If someone cannot bother to say, "oh, I'm having trouble with this" or "here's what I'm thinking, what do you think?", then I don't think we should bother to answer. I find it rather offensive and (in my experience as a teacher) do not see much reason to give such questions a benefit of the doubt. The student in most cases is almost surely not looking for an enriched learning experience—they are being lazy. The non-lazy student knows a bit better about how to ask a question, how to do some preliminary work themselves, and so forth, and I am more than happy to work with them. But the lazy student deserves nothing. And if the Ref Desk ever earns a reputation as being useful to the lazy student, things will get pretty unpleasant around here! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to read into these questions somewhat, and to sometimes require feedback in the form of clarification or some other type of dialogue. There is no formula for teaching, but students asking for help with homework questions seems to me to be the quintessential teaching situation. Teaching is of course not about providing "answers." Engagement in some kind of dialogue would seem to be an important key. But just showing a way of thinking can be helpful even if dialogue fails to materialize. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But this is a Reference Desk, not a Teaching Desk. We are in the business of giving answers, not giving tutoring. There are, indeed, other sites for that. We are, indeed, a fish market. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References are categorically not the same as answers. In fact, if we were only about giving references, our answers would be much shorter than they usually are... "See article." Search engines can do that better than we can. So, we provide references along with a value-add - we assist the OP in evaluating context, relevance, and pre-requisite knowledge. Nimur (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think there can be "teachable moments" here and is part of our mission. But if someone comes here and copies the question right off their assignment sheet and expects someone else to answer for them, then I think the teachable item is "that's not how the world works". Franamax (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.homeworkhelp.com/. It says "At Homeworkhelp.com, we don't feed students the answers to homework questions. Instead, we show them how to learn." -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindented since this is a general comment) I think we all pretty much agree that we don't ever say "the answer is C", I think we all do agree that if we can help someone over a conceptual barrier to their understanding of a topic, that's a good day on the desks. Where we may disagree is how to respond to questions along the scale of tjhinking you copied this right off the sheet didn't you? and the Q being I've read six different things on this and I'm getting nowhere, plz help!!. One note I'll make is that I avoid templated or template-style responses wherever I can on Wikipedia. In the few times I've used a no-homework response, I've tried to use the standard phrasing followed by some hints on what to look at or how to come back with a followup question addressing the specific barrier to understanding. When it's a "I searched Google for this and got nothing" and I try the exact same bloody words and get dozens of hits, I'm less sympathetic. But schoolkids, I would prefer to help them in the process of learning. When they come back with "just answer the question" - I think we have a fairly unified response for that. :) Franamax (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gary that sometimes RDers are too quick to attack a question as "homework." Sometimes I read the "We don't answer homework questions" response to a question and think, "What makes them think that's homework?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes for me thats the main problem. I wouldn't mind if the official policy at wiki refdesk was to simply not answer any questions that are obviously homework questions. But the problem is most homework questions are hard to tell from questions stemming from genuine interest. In cases where the questioner asks a question that shows he has done no independent research, then he should be called out on lack of research regardless if it is for homework or not. But that should be the grounds, NOT accusations of HW. Where it is a clear case of "the answer is C", then it should be treated as HW. --Gary123 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do y'all like this treatment of what I considered a reasonable question for WP:RD treatment, which after [my] rephrasing elicited relevant and informative responses (which I appreciated reading). As opposed to, for instance, this piece of non-work – which I'd considered rerouting to the Science RD but in the end preferred not to touch, deferring to how Kainaw handled it.-- Deborahjay (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality of answers

Pnina Shachaf studied the quality of answers on the Reference Desk, and reported that "on all three SERVQUAL measures quality of answers produced by the Wikipedia Reference Desk is comparable with that of library reference services." You can read an abstract about it on this page. I have edited Academic studies about Wikipedia by adding an external link to the same page. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've bee looking and waiting for something like this for a long time (proof). Excellent find! Thank you, Wavelength! I'd love to read the results of her study in detail. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Does "The generalizability of the findings to other similar sites is questionable." mean we're better than Yahoo Answers? ;o Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally! Recompense for all our collective efforts, in the form of anonymous recognition in an academic publication! The Reference Desk has made it to the big-leagues - we're playing by normal academia rules now! Nimur (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the actual article. Claiming to be just as good as a library reference desk is good, but I'd like to see where the RD didn't do well to see where improvements may be made. -- kainaw™ 14:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a full PDF. It costs $38, (we don't have a subscription to the Journal of Documentation), but I'll see if I can get a physical copy at the reference library by library-loan or some other means. Nimur (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I got a electronic copy of the paper (haven't read it completely yet). Can send it to the first 5 RD regulars who email me their email ID (since wikipedia email doesn't allow attachments). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't pay for the article. In a perfect world all journals would be open access, but until then you should be able to get it through interlibrary loan, and I also have access to the pdf and can e-mail copies. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can also help with stuff like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More details are here. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NB: That's just an abstract, not the actual paper. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As a partial answer to Kainaw, in the brief look I had at the paper, one thing to stood out to me: of the questions they studied, a large percentage were answered with good online references; however the percentage of individual answers that contained references was abysmally small. e.g. A single question might attact five answers, but within that five answers there'd be only one that contained a good reference. The other four answers could be valid but non-referenced, attempts at jokes, arguments about the font used in an editor's sig, or just about anything. --LarryMac | Talk 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think this is unacceptable. we're all going to have to put in some determined efforts to give crappier answers in the future, otherwise people will ask more and more questions, and we'll never be done with this. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used a library reference desk in many years, but, geez, they must suck, because offhand I'd say 50% of our answers on Humanities, Entertainment, and Miscellaneous are a link to one of the first 3 Google results from an acceptable list of keywords. I'd like to see a study whether Googling is as good as a library reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You underestimate the skill involved in Googling things. First you need to choose good keywords, then you need to find the useful results. Both of those require significant skill. Ref Deskers generally have a lot of experience with Google and are very skillful in that area. People asking questions often don't have that experience and skills. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bigger issue is that it's easily possible the type of questions that go to a virtual reference desk are of different character to the ones here, quite a few of which are ones which even an idiot should be able to Google. Looking at [2] it appears most of them are IM, SMS or chat therefore comparing the types of questions is not easy. Perhaps someone can find reference which provide sample questions. Also it's possible virtual references services have a greater tendency to reject questions which violate their guidelines or which they feel are inappropriate, which may negatively affect their completion rate. (Particularly since we sometimes delete completely OT questions which given the methodology may not be picked up by the study although I can't recall what things were like in 2007.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I read the abstract, and I agree with myself that they must suck, because the abstract uses the word "dyadic". Library reference desks are clearly dead. Actually doesn't she miss the major benefit of social reference desks, that many questions here are answered by experts in the field? (I'm less sure about this being the case on Yahoo Answers.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] 03:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.158.139 (talk)

Details

Not confident this is fair-use comment on a copyrighted work
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The study is based on 77 reference desk questions receiving 354 responses in April 2007 (about a 4% sample of the questions asked that month). I think the following sort of summarizes the bottom line, from page 987-988: The Wikipedia Reference Desk provides answers that are as accurate as those that traditional (and digital) reference librarians provide. Both provide reference services at a 55 per cent accuracy level (for comparison see, for example, Hernon and McClure’s (1986) classic study). In reference research, “The 55% rule was established after a series of reference accuracy studies consistently indicated that just over half of the test questions were answered correctly” (Saxton and Richardson, 2002, p. 35), and studies of digital reference services reported similar results (for example, Kaske and Arnold,2002). Answer completeness rate at the Wikipedia reference desk is better than library reference services’ completeness rate. Wikipedia volunteers provide complete answers for 63 per cent of transactions and librarians completeness rate in virtual reference services is lower; for example, Ward (2005) report 47 per cent completeness rate and Arnold and Kaske (2005) report that only 38 per cent were complete, accurate, and verifiable. Further, the Wikipedia reference desk and library reference services receive the same amount of unsolicited thank you messages. Thank you messages were submitted on 19 per cent of the transactions at the Wikipedia reference desk. In libraries (including the virtual reference desk), the percentage of unsolicited thank you e-mails ranged from 16 per cent to 20 per cent (Carter and Janes, 2000; Janes and Mon, 2006; Mon and Janes, 2008). The Wikipedia Reference Desk is somewhat quicker to respond to user requests than library (asynchronous) reference services[7]. Response time at the Wikipedia Reference Desk is four hours on average for the first response. E-mail requests are likely to be answered by Association for Research Libraries (ARL) libraries within two business days (Stacy-Bates, 2004), by academic libraries in 21 hours, and by public libraries 18 hours (Shachaf et al., 2008). Answers at the Wikipedia Reference Desk are posted quicker than libraries respond to e-mail requests. Assurance measures (signature patterns and source usage) by Wikipedia volunteers are similar to those found in library reference services. For example, Signatures appeared in one third of the Wikipedia reference desk messages and on one third of the librarians’ responses to e-mail reference requests (Shachaf and Horowitz, 2008). The use of sources by Wikipedia volunteers and librarians follows a skewed bibliometric distribution with a few sources that are heavily cited and a long tail of other little cited sources. However, the distribution of sources from the Wikipedia Reference Desk is more skewed; only one source (Wikipedia) is heavily used, followed by sources that are rarely used. Given the fact that the Wikipedia Reference Desk guidelines recommend using Wikipedia pages to answer requests (“Guidelines,” 2007), the high use of Wikipedia (44 per cent of the sources mentioned) is not surprising. The major difference between librarians and Wikipedia volunteers is that 53 per cent of the librarians’ responses mentioned sources (Shachaf and Shaw, 2008), while Wikipedia volunteers mentioned them in only one out of ten messages. As the comparison between library reference services and the Wikipedia Reference Desk shows, both provide the same level of answer quality with minor variations and except for use of sources, the Wikipedia Reference Desk outperforms librarians. The comparison between the two services is summarized in Table V. The similarity in outcome measures between the Wikipedia Reference Desk and libraries is striking, because unlike library reference services, the Wikipedia reference desk is run and staffed by volunteers who are amateur, do not hold a professional degree, and who are unremunerated for their work.

Dragons flight (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How much have the desks changed since 2007? I suppose that signatures are much more common now, thanks to SineBot? —Akrabbim^talk 19:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

is there a copyright violation in reproducing so much information? -- Wavelength (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit (later reverted by the poster) certainly was, and IMO should be oversighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh yeah, drive-by-poster and refuse-to-signer, did you actually read that policy page? Is your opinion the "advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel"? Our oversighters have lots to do as it is, please don't bother them with frivolous requests. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not call people "drive-bys", it is offensive. And yes, I did read the page, specifically the part which states "and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations". By User:Rjanags own admission the material he posted is "copyrighted and shouldn't be reproduced anywhere". Hiding copyrighted works within the edit history with the intent to enable others to access the work without paying is clearly a massive copyright violation, akin to piracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And please don't mischaracterize other users' edits. I did not intentionally "hide" the edit, I second-guessed myself and then undid myself. I would have deleted the revisions myself, but this page has a large edit history and can only be deleted and restored by stewards and I didn't think it was an urgent enough problem to bother asking one of them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You did intentionally hide the edit by using the <!-- --> tags, so that the material you posted would not be viewable on the actual page, and only viewable in the edit window and edit history (away from more public attention). I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting this, but it really does seem like you were trying to hide the sharing of copyrighted material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were trying to hide my actions, then why would I have announced it in the exact same edit? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you weren't trying to hide it but still it's a massive copyright violation which is still available to everyone to view. No one here is going to go through the proper channels to access that paper now; you've deprived the author of income and recognition since there'll be no official record of the countless people who read the work. Anyway, I won't push this point further since I've been told off previously for arguing on this page. I'm sorry for any disruption I might have caused by bringing this up, I just felt it was an important point that needed to be raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not lie. You have not been told off for arguing. You have been told off for stubbornly refusing to sign your posts just to be an asshole. Those are two completely different things. Many people here argue. They just sign their arguments. -- kainaw™ 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

82, the author is not being deprived of income or recognition. The author doesn't get income from journal or database subscriptions (if anyone does, it's the journal itself), and the author gets more recognition the more people read her article. I have never met an author who would be upset for their journal articles to be freely available; authors are excited about getting read and getting citations, not about making money from journal articles (which they don't—in fact, they often have to pay a little, for things like figures and use of color). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok then. If everyone here is content with the copyright violation to remain and there's no damage being done to the author, I'll drop this. I admit I don't know much about how journals work, so I'm sorry I over reacted, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The author isn't going to be harmed, but the journal potentially is and, without journals, academia in general will be harmed. I would suggest it be oversighted or, at least, let an oversighter make the decision. --Tango (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately it doesn't really matter who would be harmed. While ethical considerations do come in to it, we don't simply follow copyright because of concerns of who may be harmed. In any case, I have requested deletion of the diffs containing the copyvio. I don't know if oversight is needed but anyone is free to request it if necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, really? For the avoidance of doubt, I assert fair use in reproducing about 1 page of a 20 page academic paper for the purposes of our discussion of the results. Dragons flight (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to state that the RD is staffed by volunteers with unknown degrees and/or expertise. Some are experts. Some have degrees. Some claim to be experts - and are clearly not. Some claim to have degrees - and do not. -- kainaw™ 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the participants who self-identified their educational status on their user page, the paper reported somewhat more than half claimed a Bachelors or higher. But only 20% made any claim about education at all, so it probably not a meaningful metric. Dragons flight (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We give sources in 1 out of 10 responses? That is embarrassing. That figure seems low. Presumably she didn't filter out jokes. I wonder if she didn't count a link as a source. Actually, she might have been rigorous and said: If an answerer makes 5 claims in an answer and gives a source for one claim, then that answerer is giving sources for only 20% of the answer. I would support that view, I suppose. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For any given question, we give a sourced answer 75% of the time. It's the chatter that brings about the 10%. I'm not sure why she would filter out anything, although I still wish we would self-filter a lot more. I wonder if her sample included any questions like today's "how do I attract a girl?". I also wonder what an actual reference librarian would do with that. --LarryMac | Talk 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For an example of the 10% phenomenon, just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Right_turn_on_red. I admit to bias because of having given the first and only sourced answer (as of the time I'm writing this), but beyond that, at least a third of the other ten or more responses aren't even answering the question. Sadly, I believe this is exactly what the researcher saw. --LarryMac | Talk 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does she say what questions were used in the study? It'd be interesting to look at those threads and compare them to what's being posted today. Buddy431 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

She looked at the first question of the day on each of the seven boards for each of 11 days in April 2007. It isn't entirely clear which 11 days in April she chose as far as I can tell. Dragons flight (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference to RefDesk sourcing being heavily skewed towards Wikipedia itself (44% of all sourcing) needs a little unpacking. I assume we knowingly link to Wikipedia articles in part because the articles themselves are (hopefully adequately) sourced. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For the RD, linking to a Wikipedia article is usually much better than referencing the actual source material because each article (typically) contains many references. For us to link to 100 references instead of (maybe) 5 internal links would be painful. It would make responses hard to read and even harder to write. SteveBaker (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A funny thing... well, not funny as in ha-ha, but funny as in a strange coincidence... well not a strange coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless... I asked for a reference on the RD today. On the way home, I stopped by the library for an entirely different reason, but thought I'd ask the lady at the reference desk the same question. I still haven't received a hint of an answer here, but the lady at the library's reference desk told me that the reason I couldn't find a reference online was because "Raum und Zeit" is not currently being published in English, only in German. With the title, "Raum und Zeit", I found the entire German text online and Babelfish is more than capable of making the text clear enough for me to read. -- kainaw™ 04:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting factoid is that we do sometimes get additional useful answers weeks after the question. I'm not sure if the article accounted for that. Not intending to boast, but nearly a month later I provided some IMHO useful refs (to wikipedia articles) for this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 19#EADS Astrium orbital power which while interesting had prior to that largely lacked any references discussing the general topic (it did have some supporting some of the points made). Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Based on this delightful paper, I, Comet Tuttle, assert the notability of the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and I invite everyone to contribute to Wikipedia's newest article, Wikipedia Reference Desk. Especially those who have access to the paper and can add sourced data with inline citations. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hmm, one source doesn't make it very notable, I think this is a little premature. Other areas of Wikipedia like the admins noticeboard and checkuser pages have received significantly more third party coverage and still aren't really notable enough for their own articles. It's a nice idea though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Reference Desk. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. The article didn't mention my username, so it's obviously not notable. Plus the reasons I put on the AFD page... Franamax (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A dedicated academic study is about as good a source as you can get, though. Multiple sources are preferable, but Wikipedia:Notability doesn't require it. --Tango (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, but the article risks being a bit masturbatory, so I suggest we put a higher standard on sourcing. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the article that is currently cited as the only reference pretty useless, but this one sounds much more interesting, and I hadn't noticed it before. Seems like it would be part of any alleged Ref Desk article. Unfortunately the paywall on new articles defies even my institutional subscription. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that's the article we've all been discussing. --LarryMac | Talk 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. 98, did you see this external link? -- Wavelength (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, see, I read the one cited in the External Links section (the one Wavelength cites), which doesn't have much of interest on the Ref Desk at all. I didn't realize they were using the other article as the main citation. Which I do find dubious if nobody has actually looked at it! --Mr.98 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarification there are at least 2 articles that mention the RD. [4] which is the one referred to at [5] and [6] which Wavelength linked to above (and cites the first article). The first article requires subscription but if anyone is interested in it, email me. It's possible this article may refer to the RD as well (since it's used as a reference), I've been unable to view it [7]. (Edit: Found it from a potential copyvio site, doesn't mention the RD.) [8] briefly mentions the RD as well. Also if you look at the references some of them may further refer to the RD, I haven't looked carefully and Wikipedia is a research interest of Pnina Shachaf so perhaps there's more from her (she's also written an article on trolls I think). I agree with the above though, I don't think this is enough to mention it in a seperate article although there may be merit to the main Wikipedia article. Edit:For further clarification this discussion started from the thread above. As a note to editors, it's helpful to ensure you either mention you are referring to an earlier thread or make your thread into a level 3 (or whatever) so it's clear what you're referring to since until I read the thread above, Comet Tuttle's post didn't make much sense. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The author can be contacted. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely she is reading all of this. And quite possibly contributing. 63.164.47.229 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, if the articles are coming out now, that means she probably did the research at least a year ago (looking the extract above, finally, I see it was done three years ago, in fact!), and has moved on to bigger and better things! The academic publishing process is slooooow. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people commenting both here and the AfD are really confusing what "significant coverage" is supposed to be about. Other than the new Shachaf article cited, the other articles people are looking about (like the older one Wavelength pointed out above) are not really about the Reference Desk. They are using it as a data point within a study, which is not at all the same. Trying to twist journal articles around to be something their authors never intended them to be is not a good way to argue for notability. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-01/Reference desk. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Skip to the top

At the top of all the desks (and the top of this talk page), we have a little tag for people to click to zip down to the bottom of the page. I never use it myself, but I was thinking the other day that it would be handy to have a similar link at the bottom of the page to bring you back to the top. Normally, I navigate a desk by clicking in the TOC and then hitting "back" on my browser, but that doesn't work if I've edited a section (hitting back on the browser would re-open the editing window). Hardly a issue of epic proportions, but it's a nicety I would use. Any kind of support for this? Matt Deres (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I press the "home" key and it jumps to the top of the page. To make a link jump to the top of the page should be trivial - just a link to the page without an anchor specified. However, Mediawiki disables links to the current page by default. So, there will have to be some trick to make it work. Further, it will have to be in a template that is forced to the bottom of the page so new sections don't appear below it. For me, pressing "Home" is much easier. -- kainaw™ 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This idea might have some value for readers who aren't using a computer, such a smart phone or video game system. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned! I never thought to try hitting the "home" key. Er, "Never mind." (ugh, speaking of non-notable article that need merging...) Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't use the end key either then? Anyway there's no need for special tricks. Just do something like we do for skip to the bottom, e.g. #top or Click me if you don't know how to use the keyboard or don't have a keyboard. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the use for people using their phones and game systems. Personally, they'd be useless for me as I use the 'home' and 'end' keys quite a bit. Dismas|^(talk) 11:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Correcting typos or grammar

I recently scolded Cuddlyable3 for writing two grammar-nagging posts (e.g. "Don't you mean "their" instead of "thier"?"), particularly because one was aimed at someone whose native language was obviously not English; but after some reflection, I wonder whether other Refdesk people think it's OK to edit other editors' questions and answers to fix obvious typos and grammar problems. I would venture that silently correcting "thier" to "their" is always OK, whereas rephrasing a problematic phrase — that is, actually moving around words — is never OK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed before, and some editors feel extremely strongly that nobody should edit another user's posts, ever. (Except for formatting when it disrupts the page.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That stance is what I'm challenging for minor typo and grammar fixes; so if anyone actually has this extremely strong feeling, then I'd like to hear from them why it's important and why minor, single-word typo and grammar fixes harm them or the Refdesk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_51#RD.2FComp_copy_edited, User_talk:SteveBaker/archive9#Comment_editing_at_the_RD -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, SteveBaker from the past convinced me that it is a bad idea to allow most editing of other editors' Refdesk posts, for fear of inadvertently changing the meaning of the post. (I only say "most" because I suspect that allowing the changing of "thier" to "their", and apostrophe fixes, is harmless; but I don't like the path of creating a list of allowable word changes.) I remain in dislike of Refdesk posts that do nothing but point out grammar or spelling errors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think SteveBaker of the Past is persuasive, you should see SteveBaker of the Future! (I share your opinion of posts that correct minor errors, BTW.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been known to de-ALLCAPS posts on occasion and fix egregiously bad formatting (which I assume is just a factor of knowing how to use MediaWiki), but that's it. Grammar and spelling I would not edit, though I might edit the spelling of a header if it is distractingly off. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Even if posts are full of painfully obvious spelling errors and misplaced or missing apostrophes, changing any part of another person's post has changed what they've written and therefore it isn't truly their post anymore. I suggest people who want to nag others over spelling errors make an attempt to answer the question first, and tag the spelling issue towards the end of their post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you care about something being "your" post when you don't sign your comments? Matt Deres (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm speaking generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're a hypocrite, then? Matt Deres (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Deres I see no reason not to Assume Good Faith on the part of unsigned contributor 82.43.89.27 (and signing is not a litmus test of that). I also agree with what they said about never changing the words of another editor's post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of not altering someone else's post. However, asking me to abide by rules while failing to do so himself is hypocritical. Hypocrites deserve no account of "good faith"; in fact, just the opposite. The fact that I happen to agree with this particular point in no way changes that. Matt Deres (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Deres you are required to abide by rules and advised to follow guidelines. Exactly the same applies to everyone here. This thread as its indents indicate responds to the particular post made by fellow editor 82.43.89.27. I won't reiterate the premise on which there is such clear consensus. I do dissociate myself from the kind of name calling such as "hypocrite" in which you are indulging repeatedly. In your own words you have abandoned WP:AGF. In my opinion your post here was incivil. I offer to User 82.43.89.27 my apology FWIW for that treatment having taken place on this page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The posts are signed by SineBot. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to SineBot's opinions myself, when they keep popping up over and over in the same threads. I offer no apology to editors exploiting a revolving IP scheme offered by their ISP so as to remain unidentified and uncontactable. What do you call something where the numbers change regularly? It's almost like driving by houses and reading the address numbers, like driving by... C3, you just keep on apologizing to whomever decides to adopt that particular exploit, sorry but I won't be with you on that. Franamax (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The 82.43.* user has made it clear that he/she is not working "in good faith." The user only makes posts to disagree and purposely, rudely, and stubbornly refuse to sign his/her posts. The user is not actually presenting any sort of opinion. The user is only using this discussion as an excuse to not sign a post just to try and get others annoyed and pull them into an argument. I do not see any reason to apologize to such an asshole. In my opinion, the 82.43.* range should be banned from Wikipedia. I have no use for a user who gets his/her kicks off of trying to lure other users into an argument just for fun. -- kainaw™ 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. There's clearly an opinion being presented, but you refuse to see anything beyond the lack of signature. This incessant bitching about 82.43.* is far more disruptive to discussion here than his unsigned posts. Either try to get him blocked if you think it's so intolerable, or take it up on his talk page, but stop derailing thread after thread here. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Coneslayer. The 82... IP has made several valid points in recent threads which went unaddressed while respondents focused on his non-signing instead, and even called him a "drive-by-poster". I too find this more disruptive than the unsigned posts. That being said, O IP-adress starting with 82..., please sign your posts for heaven's sake (you can even hit "~~~~" in the Wiki markup setting, if typing tildes is impossible on your keyboard), and we don't need to read these nasty exchanges following your valid points anymore. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You agree with Coneslayer that I am the one who called 82.43.* a hypocrite and derailed the thread? You agree with Coneslayer that my response to Cuddlyable3 derailed the thread? I was stating that 82.43.* only disagrees. The user does not work in good faith. Regardless of the topic, the user only chimes in to disagree. The obvious goal is to see if anyone will ask the user to sign his/her posts. You fell for it and added another notch on the 82.43.* belt. -- kainaw™ 15:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I specified which part I agreed with (the part where focusing on the non-signing has arguably become more disruptive than the non-signing itself). I don't care much about belts. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

2 posts by Matt Deres and Cuddlyable3 removed by agreement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had a good solution to all this, using SineBot, so I asked slakr about it, but I'm afraid that he has been pretty inactive here on the wiki (his last contrib was over a month ago). So I don't know if there is a similar solution we could enact with a different bot or what... —Akrabbim^talk 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this last night. So many users fail to see the double standard: if you have an account and don't sign, you can be banned. If you are an IP and refuse to sign, you are accepted as always acting in good faith. Since so many users fail to see the double standard, I am employing civil disobedience to bring attention to the double-standard. Since 82.43.* is being praised for his absolute refusal to sign his posts, I will behave in the same manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another lie. Nobody is "praising" him for not signing his posts. We're just not going apeshit over it and (as you now admit) willfully disrupting this talk page. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously: why would you ever think you had to edit someone else's post for spelling or grammar? If you could figure out what that poster meant, probably anyone else could too. So if you presume to edit, what you're really saying is, "Not only is my English better than this writer's, it's better than all you other readers, too." So it's pretty much doubly arrogant. Just leave the bad grammar alone, and spend your time answering the question or improving some other part of the encyclopedia. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly stick to the don't-touch-my-posts rule, but I would like to point out that there are instances, where a typo or other error, if left uncorrected, could do a disservice to the querent. At the language desk, I have seen answers to foreign language questions including typos that render the answer grammatically or orthographically incorrect. Since language is the topic at hand, leaving these errors isn't helpful to the original poster. At the humanities desk, I have seen mangled keywords (particularly, again, when the keyword is in a foreign language) which, without correction, would have sent the original poster on a wild goose chase. Unlike the querents, I happened to speak the foreign languages in question and my being able to figure it out didn't mean that "anyone else could too". I used to correct this type of error directly, and never got any complaints from the posters. Now, I will point out these errors in a separate post, thus drawing an unnecessary amount of attention to a careless mistake in an otherwise excellent response. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this thread about fixing OP-posts or fixing responder-posts? Both range from almost-never to never-ever-ever but have different considerations. Franamax (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's about both, and the original post referred to both. I can live with the almost-never to never-ever-ever. I merely wanted to answer Steve Summit's question ("Why...?") and give a rebuttal to his suggestion that correcting bad grammar was "doubly arrogant". On those rare occasions in the distant path where I did correct a respondent's typo, I did so in good faith, with good reason, without any complaints, and, as far as I remember, without arrogance. Two examples I remembered which illustrate what I am referring to above: language desk, humanities desk (both are from over two years ago; as indicated, I don't do this anymore). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If the meaning of a post is unclear, then a respondent should ask the OP to clarify. One editor modifying the post, based on what that one editor thinks it means, is a risky business. Regarding signing, I would add that perpetual refusal to sign posts is basically an all-too-typical "up yours" attitude by an IP toward the other editors, followed by all-too-typical "poor little me" whining by the IP when they get criticized for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary amounts of attention to careless mistakes in an otherwise excellent response should be pointed out, yes. I don't re-read old posts to check if they've been edited! So if someone made a mistake, I won't know it unless it's pointed out - be them my own mistakes, or a mistake made by someone responding to a question I've posed. Having a mistake pointed out might be a little embarrassing, but it won't do any harm. On the point of signatures: take it out of the Ref Desk. It's not a Ref Desk issue, it's an issue with the user. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for pedantic grammar correction, unless it's important to understanding either the question or the answer. Ribbing a regular for a misspelling is harmless, though. Regarding signatures, I've seen regulars taken to RFC's for improper signatures, while IP's are allowed to skate by - just another double-standard favoring IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

-headdesk- Sorry, I just realised I left out the most important part of my response. Pointing it out is what should be done instead of editing an old post. The alternative is to ignore it, of course. Basically, if you feel it's important enough to make a change to, then point it out - or even better, ask - instead of just editing posts no-one may look at again. I think, in future, I'll stay out of this kind of thing. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Although it's hard to resist snickering when a user says something about having larger "protests" than his other male classmates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I protest this statement. in the largest terms possible. :) Being Canadian, I'm rather used to people who have atrocious pronunciation, grammar and spelling in English but turn out to be pretty damn fine people anyway. When they don't understand me I try to talk slower and more clearly rather than louder. I definitely try not to make jokes about their use of English, unless I'm sure they'll be laughing too. Very definitely not. Language boners by someone I consider a childhood friend, otoh, that's just a race to see who gets there first. We're somewhere in-between, familiarity breeding contempt and all. For someone who's just walked into the schoolground though, please, no snickering and no pranks, funny though it may seem. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing against the OP personally. I just thought he was maybe channeling Norm Crosby. Meanwhile, "boners" is a vaguely related topic, eh? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What the heck was this edit for? - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&action=historysubmit&diff=345771911&oldid=345770732 --LarryMac | Talk 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a citation tag in the hope that Comet Tuttle will produce diffs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit beside the point, but here is the diff of the edit I scolded you for; and I am out of time searching for the nagging of the apparent non-English speaker. My apologies if it wasn't you who did the latter nagging. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the diff. Comet Tuttle when you set out to scold me (or anyone) first on a main page and then again on this page you had better use diffs to verify what you claim. Diffs are not as you think beside the point. Nil Einne to whom my allegedly nagging questions were directed has made corrections accordingly. The wording issues, your scolding and your bad idea of silently correcting others' posts were mentioned in an exchange with User:Onorem and you may see what I said here. Comet Tuttle I am not ready to accept your apology for this post. The reason is that the second of your two accusations is still unsubstantiated by any diff whatever. You are reckless when instead of a diff you proffer a strawman example (e.g. "Don't you mean "their" instead of "thier"?") that I have never posted. Show otherwise or retract it! Your claim that I have aimed nagging at "someone whose native language was obviously not English" is an odious accusation. An apology that is conditional on whether you find out later whom you should have accused (if anyone), but you can't or won't take the time to do that, is trite and valueless. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I usually ask the editor, but I think in simple cases it may also make sense to just do the change and then alert the editor. I'll give it a try. — Sebastian 07:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted one of my statements above. While my opinion regarding the non-signer has not changed, I made some unfortunate and improper remarks regarding the user Cuddlyable3. I have a great deal of respect for that user and wish to make it clear that any slight was unintentional. All I can say is that the phrasing sounded differently in my head than when it came out in black and white. Yet another instance of where my final click should have been at the top right corner instead of the "save" button. My apologies for lowering the level of discourse here and again to Cuddlyable for my rash statement. Matt Deres (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Question removed

I took this section out [9] as it became clear the OP was using it as a forum to foment an argument. If someone wants to restore it, they could do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on review - good removal. If things get pear-shaped put them in a can. I see no need for a lingering removal notice either. Franamax (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove the section, fine, but don't try and blame the OP for the mess. You, Ludwigs, and Kittybrewster were at fault there.—eric 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good removal, but the section deteriorated because of the RD's unhelpful response. We got one link that addressed the OP's question, followed by some smack talk about Fox News and GOP desperation, then somebody asking incredulously if the OP is thinking of voting for Sarah Palin (clearly from the post the OP is thinking of it in some future election).

Then the OP got upset (rightly) and unleashed a rant (unrightly). OP's O P was not trying to argue at all-- the rant was triggered by the unhelpful responses. How about we answer the questions and try to resist editorializing? The question was perfectly legitimate, and actually sought to expose some negative press about Palin. It is unhelpful and likely upsetting to answer decent questions with jabs at the poster's political views. (And please don't try to tell me that Palin is a ninny GOP tool- I know.) Staecker (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they all fell for it, but that rant was coming all along IMO. It may have taken more prodding if necessary but in the event the responders fell right into the tarpit trap. Is Sarah Palin associated with the conspiracist mafia? Of course, don't tell anyone I said though and no she's not. (This is a mix of sarcasm and ABF) Franamax (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One question I was tempted to ask the OP is why Miss Shrink-the-Federal-Budget would be in favor of spending more tax money to redo an already-closed investigation with the expectation of getting the same result. Rather than heading off in that direction, I figured it was better to end it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call not to ask the question. Wouldn't it be nice if the poster asked questions and we answered them? Staecker (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Franamax that the OP was intending all along to post his ridiculous rant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this removal. The question was perfectly legitimate, as were some of the responses (well, one anyway. Thank you Mr. Tuttle). If we must, we can collapse the off topic responses and rant, but I don't see any reason to remove them all together. Buddy431 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The OP said "goodbye", which meant he won't be back, so he certainly didn't need the section anymore. If you think you can trim away everything but the original question and anything resembling a factual answer, and leave everything else out, then give it a whirl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c with that wascally wabbit) However I believe I spot a pattern here. It's tickling me brain that I've seen this tactic used before. "I'm sure this is unreliable but just wanted to check with you experts here". Unsourced but I've added it to my mental watchlist anyway. I suppose we might expect more penetration attempts, now that we're a subject of scholarly studies and all. :)

I personally wouldm't mind seeing more use of collapse boxes to close off unproductive discussions on the desks themselves but I certainly won't claim that's a majority view. Franamax (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to get a majority on anything here, so these things seem to be dealt with case-by-case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax about collapse boxes being a useful resort sometimes. They can serve to restore focus on the OP when it is in danger of being swamped by OT indulgences that are swelling beyond the traditional few small quips. The title on the collapse box must be neutral so that this does not become a way for a debater to grab the last word. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with both Franamax and Cuddyable, particularly about making sure that it's a neutral title to simply cordon off some extraneous stuff. The "archive and do not modify" thing isn't usually appropriate. The "I know this seems weird, but I just thought I'd check..." opening is very common and not necessarily indicative of troll behaviour. If you read enough of Snopes, you'll find examples of people emailing them all manner of items ranging from perfectly legitimate but peculiar to downright impossible, and they are often prefaced with a "This doesn't seem real. Is it?" that I assume is legitimate. Matt Deres (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the responses weren't helpful, I have no sympathy for the OP. Anyone who uses such bigoted and offensive pejorative language clearly has a mentality that has no place on the RD. If BB et al weeded out someone of that sort who would have continued to contribute to the RD, then that's a good thing even if it doesn't excuse their behaviour. If they made something worse from someone who would have never been here for long then that's unfortunate. But ultimately we'll never know. And to be frank all this means there's little point getting too worked up over it. Good ridance to the OP either way Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive refusal to sign

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive refusal to sign at the reference desks. Thank you. —Akrabbim^talk 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Love how our bickering here just spilled over intact into ANI. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with it? It is blatantly obvious that we have an unfair double-standard here and the users enforcing the double-standard are refusing to discuss it. So, take it to ANI and get it discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs)

Sorry, should have been clearer: I just thought it was funny or jarring that our "private" bickering over here basically got cut and pasted over to ANI, no change in tone or in our jabbering. I imagined the ANI regulars reeling at the onslaught, but then after browsing the page it looks like that's about what happens with any ANI dispute. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. What a tempest in a teapot. Just ignore the 82 guy. Seems to me our angst over his refusal to sign is far more disruptive than the refusal itself. (And I'd also suggest ceasing the whining over the alleged "double standard". It sounds like a pretty artificial construct.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the ANI bottom line. He's a sock. Hopefully they will implement a long-term range block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They did. I was actually surprised to find out that 82.43.* was the old Avril troll. Just a couple years ago, he couldn't restrain himself from asking tons of highly personal/offensive questions about Avril Lavigne. Now, he is capable of being constructive in his content, just disruptive here on the talk page. I expect him to return again through a different IP and, hopefully, be constructive everywhere. -- kainaw™ 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The AvLav Troll! There's a blast from the past. I'll be expecting questions about Tim Cahill soon ;) Fribbler (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many left-handed Pakistani men of the Sikh faith in mixed marriages living in Toronto will be annoyed by that question. --Sean 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good questions!

Since this page (wp:rd/t) is generally for problems with questions and/or posters, I'd just like to put in a comment to the opposite effect: I think the quality of questions these days is very good. (The answers are brilliant as well, of course, but we knew that). Two random recent examples are the slavery economy discussion and the immigration form decipheration on the Humanities desk. I learn a lot from these things. The Reference Desk clearly has a bright future. Keep up the good work, both askers and answerers! Jørgen (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your post is appreciated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jørgen, the reference desk is analogous to a large, continuous, multi-topic discussion room, in which many of the answerers are present much of the time, and most of the askers are infrequent visitors. On the other hand, an article is analogous to a lecture hall. A person can learn a lot from both.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm constantly impressed with both the breadth and depth of answers the desks are capable of. The advanced chemistry and physics stuff that regularly gets done on the science desk is really great, for example. I've also wondered how many languages we have could potentially translate to on the Language desk; it seems that no matter what language someone needs translated, someone pops up within the first couple of days with at least a rough go at it. Matt Deres (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question removed 2

I removed this question (diff) because the OP has not responded to justify their request. Nimur (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be removed in any case, I think. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Jenkem. The banner at Talk:Jenkem says You may wish to ask factual questions about Jenkem at the Reference desk. Apart from their spelling "Jenkum" the OP is following that advice. I think our best response is to allow the question to stand, to answer it with a simple No and to hide a note on the question's edit page that advises users not to discuss further. (I congratulated Kainaw on showing this way of dealing with a troll question.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nimur before removing the question commented that it seemed to be an attempt to lead people to shock sites. I don't see that happening unless one calls Wikipedia a shock site.

Guidelines state: The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits. Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question. The subject of the question is distasteful but our obligation is to answer it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this question was removed? This person has mentioned two topics with similar sounding names that are both closely related to reusing human waste, and asked if they were related to each other. A little odd, but people come to us entirely serious about sillier questions.

Why should someone be asked to "justify" their curiosity on this topic?

Unless I'm missing something I strongly disagree with this removal. APL (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Obvious trolling, and a weird one anyway - set up last May, 2 edits then, and then nothing more until December. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's trolling, and I don't see how the user not editing between May and December is relevant. I agree with APL above, the question should not have been removed. --kv7sW9bIr8 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the answer to the question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly "no". The word "Jenkem" seems to have originated in Zambia. Whereas the Joseph Jenkins of humanure fame is from USA.

It would be a really bizarre twist if Jenkem turned out to be not just urban legend, but complete hoax designed to parody Joseph Jenkins. A bit too obscure of a gag, though.APL (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, why is it 'obvious trolling'? That's what I'm asking. APL (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are diffs. OP posts question [10]. (A misunderstanding by the OP [11] is handled by Tango[12]). An unsigned refers to the OP as troll [13]. Nimur asks OP to elaborate [14]. OP responds [15]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I too don't think the question was trolling, though I can understand how it can seem that way. I'll restore it back since it can be addressed as APL did above (I would have consulted Nimur before restoration, but he hasn't edited in 2 days, and may not see my post in time). Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

APL, I also copied your reply to the question thread. Hope that's ok. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's wonderful what we learn by answering what seemed an unlikely fertile question. Can Nimur (I mean the savvy internet-jockey Nimur) tell whether any jenkem (or jenkum or Jenkins) shock sites exist? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned IP ranges

Just in the last couple days, I've found that two IP ranges are commonly used by well-known banned users, 79.76.* and 82.43.*. While I eventually recognized the behavior of the users as trollish (however you want to put it), I did not know immediately that these were well-known blocked users. I know we don't want a leaderboard where trolls can compete to see who's on top, but is there a list somewhere that shows which IP ranges are mainly just banned users avoiding the ban? It would be nice because some very good users initially defend the anon IP users only to be made a fool when it turns out that the IP user was just a troll trying to stir up trouble. -- kainaw™ 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually started compiling a list of sorts a month or two ago to help recognise common problematic users, since I was annoyed by continually forgetting who was who and having to check the archives or wasting time trying to work out who a user was when it was already in the archives and also for other reasons. I've thought of offering the list but never did partially because I never got very far and it only has 2 people. However I'll send it if anyone wants it. Having said that, other then the two I already have and the above two there's only one or two other people I'm aware of that I'd bother to put in such a list. I've thought of such a list on wikipedia before but ultimately decided it would be a bad idea for the reasons you mention and I believe similar things elsewhere have tended to be deleted. My list would definitely not be allowed since for one of them, it contains personal real life information I collated from wikipedia and other websites. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been going back and tagging the ip accounts with ipsock templates. The think I don't like about that method is that it is VERY easy for one of them to remove the template. -- kainaw™ 16:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My proposal[16] to semi-protect this page instead of imposing a limited IP range block came too late to change the resolution at AN/I. An advantage of what I proposed is that it would place a visible padlock icon at the top of this page. That would both 1) save time for newly registered and non-vandal IP users, and 2) serve as an impenetrable barrier to a determined IP troll who can change IP address. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That would also lock out sincere IP's (they do exist) from editing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Baseball Bugs, that is the price of semi-protection. The range ban incurs a similar collateral effect, not necessarily a lesser one because we already know that the target IP range belongs to one or more potential users. It may be unwise to specify exactly what IP range is banned but if it is 82.43.xxx.xxx that means potentially 65534[17] hosts. BTW your term sincere IP is a better than my term non-vandal IP. They exist so let's do our best for them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone create a list of IP ranges corresponding to banned users active at Ref Desks ? Such a list can be created in some user-subspace so that it can be consulted by interested regulars, without giving undue publicity to the trolls (which would happen if we added such a list to this page). Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I can explain some things that can help people understand what happened in this situation. Firstly, the list of banned users you want is available at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Secondly, I would like to point out that I have never been banned (note the difference between a block and a ban), and since the last block on me expired over 2 years ago, I was hardly "ban evading" in our previous altercations. You can verify my claims by asking User:Thatcher, User:KnightLago or User:Newyorkbrad who I have spoken with about this in the past and been given a "fresh start". I would also like to point out that your labeling of several ips as "Freewayguy" is incorrect [18], [19], [20]. Thirdly, I have made every effort to be constructive on wikipedia in the last 2 years. Every edit I have made as been at least in my mind constructive; I never intended any harm or disruption. The signing issue was not the bullshit misunderstanding about "baiting" which you seem to think it was, it is brought about mainly by OCD on my part. Also, the fact that I have only ever been asked about the signing issue in the middle of unrelated discussions came across to me as a deliberate attempt to divert and side track the discussion and ignore the point I was making. If you had asked me on my talk page, or made a dedicated section for it here on this page and asked about it without throwing words like "hipocrite" and "asshole" around, I would have explained the issue to you, and if necessary refrained from posting on this talk page if you were likely to kick up a shitstorm over it. I am truly sorry that this situation escalated the way it did, and I extend my apology to everyone here at the reference desk for the disruption it and the reactions to it caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.76 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies are more convincing when linked to a change in behavior. If you'd signed your post it would have been more convincing. I say this as a previously uninvolved observer. -- Scray (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When an apology[21] has been answered by an apology with a fair explanation[22] then it is mean spirited to continue carping. "Bullshit" seems a fair term for unending recriminations now after everyone involved has had their say.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

An honest apology would not contain blatant lies: "If you had asked me on my talk page". I personally brought it up on this user's talk page. The threw up the old AGF defense and made absolutely no attempt to claim "I have OCD. I am incapable of signing my post!" Further, trying to say "I'm not Freewayguy" is simply stupid. The same user who is refusing to sign has also had discussions claiming that he is/was the Avril troll. Such trollish misdirection indicates that this apology is not honest in any way. It is just a ruse to garner support ending with a big FUCK YOU ALL - I WON'T EVEN SIGN THIS BULLSHIT APOLOGY! -- kainaw™ 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that 82.43's comment on not being FWG is almost definitely correct. FWG doesn't have such a good command of English (claims to be Asian), uses US IPs (a university one and what we think is a home range) and is interested in American highways, planet colours, and interacial relationships. 82.4x is the former Avril troll (with at least one account which was also blocked for being linked to that), nothing else that I'm aware of. P.S. I should also clarify I never intended to put 82.4x on my list. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it sad that this post brightened my entire day? "I like: American highways, planet colours, and interracial relationships." Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I like Avril Lavinge. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vranak

Is this really the sort of thing we want to encourage? I note that Vranak has been the subject of an increasing amount of criticism for such replies recently (and not-so-recently, looking at the user's talk page); is it time to take more active steps to stop it? Or is the user's behaviour acceptable? Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem friend? This is honest advice. The cheapest place to sleep is outside. And I do not ignore local customs in my answer, as silly as they may be. I will admit a certain bias against the City of London, implicit in my answer. It seems the only way to have a good time there is to bring in loads of money. It is a sinful city, suffice to say. But let us hear your answer.Vranak (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally - I had been composing another complaint about this user at exactly the same time this was posted. So I backed off and did some research. I think I've been underestimating just what a force-for-ill User:Vranak has become. I'd seen a couple of complaints about his behavior before - but when I looked at all of his posts to the Science ref desk (there are others) and analysed them for quality - of the 24 un-archived posts on the Science desk at time of writing, only one of them contributed any value whatever to providing appropriate answers to our OP's question - and even that was a repeat of what a previous poster had said. Almost everything Vranak posts is either wrong or merely personal opinion. Three or four of the others were downright breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA as well as violating our Ref desk guidelines about no making fun of the OP. I won't bother everyone here with my findings - but I've posted them at length at Vranak's talk page. You'll note that this user has a history of this kind of thing dating back to last October: User_talk:Vranak#RefDesk.

IMHO, administrative intervention is only called for if Vranak doesn't listen to what we're saying. He should resist the temptation to post just because he thinks he knows something. Yes, we all do that from time to time (yes, I'm guilty too) - but 23 out of 24 posts suggests more than just an occasional lapse.

@Vranak: I recommend that you plan to spend at least 10 to 15 minutes doing research on your answers (either in books, within Wikipedia or on the web_ before you even start typing an answer to the question. If you can't spare that kind of commitment - then you shouldn't be posting answer to the reference desk. If you want to carry on doing what you're doing - then take it to someplace like Yahoo Answers where responses are peer-rated and the damage you can do is more limited. What you are doing here is more harmful to Wikipedia than it is helpful - and people who behave like that don't last long without getting kicked off the site. SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I think it is perhaps you who would benefit from some time away from the RD. You are taking things dreadfully seriously. But even if you wish to do that, I will back up my logic time and time again, but I don't think you really want that. You want to be rid of me. Well, we'll see how that goes. Not incidentally, are you familiar with Nietzsche's concept of the Last Man? Vranak (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed take the reference desk seriously. It's a serious matter so I make no apology for that. The precise problem here is that you aren't taking it seriously. We aren't asking you to back up your "logic" - because logic implies original research which is not what's needed here - what we need is for you to deal in fact and to back up the facts with references where appropriate. Given the extraordinarily poor quality of your responses to questions, I wouldn't be at all upset if you left - because if you did, then that would be a net gain in the quality of responses on the reference desk - which would be a good outcome. However, I would be even happier if you fixed up the quality of your responses such that they were a net positive and continued to contribute. What isn't at all acceptable is the way things are going right now. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vranak you are not being asked to back up your logic. You don't help yourself here by interrogating anyone about Nietsche. What is needed from you is reassurance about how you will treat Ref. Desk questions from now on. Having read on your page Steve Baker's post that I assume he can support by diffs, that reassurance should IMO come from you now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, we want you to stop making inaccurate, unresearched, subjective guesses at answers to legitimate questions on the Ref Desks. Your "logic", whatever that may be, is irrelevant - the factual content of your posts isn't. But, there's little point in continuing the discussion along these lines. Are we agreed that Vranak's behaviour is unacceptable? If so, he's been made aware of that fact - ANI and RFC await if he continues. Tevildo (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I too was concerned by the tent-in-a-park posting. Would we accept, or tolerate, that from a library reference desk? Of course not. Vranak also appears not to know the difference between the City of London and Greater London. Ignorance and opinon, unbacked by any references, make us less likely to be taken seriously. We are judged on our record -- collectively, as well as individually. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see anything wrong in anything I have posted. If you have outstanding grievances about any particular issue, just raise them here, on the desk, or on my talk page. I will be happy to discuss any issue of contention exhaustively. So, what's the beef? What is the most egregious thing that I have said, and more importantly, why do you find it so intolerable? Vranak (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you check your talk page - you'll see that I did exactly that for your most recent 24 posts to the Science desk. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the concern is not with any one particular post, and I'm sure that all of the editors here make the occasional boner. For that reason, I don't think that engaging in point-by-point discussion of individual posts is likely to be productive, and indeed misses the point that Steve (and others) have now raised. Discussing individual posts 'exhaustively' would be simply that — exhausting, and to no benefit. The issue here is a pattern of conduct. Your answers seem to offer a healthy dose of personal opinion and wild speculation, combined with some serious lapses in respect both for the individuals who come to us for assistance and for the other editors who volunteer here. We're trying to provide factual, detailed, referenced responses to readers wherever we possibly can, and your approach very frequently falls short of that aim.

While I have concerns about the manner in which SteveBaker wrote up his critique on your talk page – he would have done well to sit on a draft for a day or two so he could tone down his obvious anger – I find that his central point is well-founded. The vast majority of the posts he examined are decidedly unconstructive (and many are factually incorrect or abusive) and don't belong here. If you aren't prepare to cleave much more closely to the purpose and principles of the Reference Desk, then this might not be a good place for you to continue to direct your efforts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see how it is. So it's a collection of issues, but trying to resolve any particular one is just not on, is it? I wonder why that would be -- perhaps because Steve et al know they don't have a leg to stand on. But please, tell me I'm wrong. Also, I should like to know just how it serves Steve et al's interests, to not engage in full and open discussion about these issues. It looks to me like people have some secrets to hide, and have not been leading entirely good and honest lives. But again, I shall delight in being proven wrong on all these counts. Vranak (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. You are wrong. Finding faults in others does not make you right. You have been asked to put a little more effort into your fact-checking because you have made statements that were factually false. So, just put a little more effort into your fact checking and get on with contributing to Wikipedia. I don't understand what the problem is. -- kainaw™ 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I and others have tried previously without apparent benefit. -- Scray (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Vranak - No, it's two particular issues. (a) Your replies very often are inaccurate and subjective. (b) Your replies - including this one - are often insulting (WP:NPA applies). Multiple attempts have been made to resolve these issues with you, without success to date. Per WP:RFC, we now have sufficient material to make this official. I'm sure nobody wants that to happen, but only you can prevent it. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Vranak could you agree to provide at least one relevant reference source that is either on or off Wikipedia in every response you make to a question on the Ref. Desk? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I, too, have been thinking about complaining here about Vranak's unreferenced, inaccurate answers. I was going to suggest that Vranak, before clicking "Save Page" to post an answer here, take a moment to include reference links, and if there are none, don't post. I was hoping the research into the references would correct his or her incorrect assertions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what's missing is not the actual reference links (many of us do not make explicit links every single time) - but the lack of understanding that respondents here are not supposed to read a question and immediately fire up a response off the top of their heads. The idea is that you go off and find the answers online or in books and post the results of that investigation. That's why I recommend that Vranak undertake 10 to 15 minutes of research into the question before answering with whatever he finds. It would be nice if links to what he finds were included in the answer - but at the very least he should be ready to provide those links if his post turns out to be controversial. This kind of thing happens a lot - today I mentioned that pilots of the SR-71 spy plane had jet fuel pumped through their suits to keep them cool. This surprised another researcher and I was (very reasonably) called upon to back that up - which entailed me digging out the book I read it in from my personal stash and double-checking - then quoting the title. It would have been unnecessarily detailed to provide that information in the original reply because it wasn't really more than a tangential comment...but still, we value referencing and something you just thought up is at best "iffy". Posting an answer without a direct reference sometimes happens here - but it should be a rare thing - not something you do in 23 out of every 24 posts. SteveBaker (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that the ratio is 23/24? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve's analysis at the foot of Vranak's talk page. OR, of course :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope to avoid the need for more long exchanges of our impressions. Look at the length of this section already! It is good for everyone Vranak included to give Vranak a probation based on a verifiable numeric threshold. That can be: at least one relevant reference source in every one of his posts during 2010 starting now. I suggest we can tolerate "3 outs is OUT". Baseballers understand this terminology.

• Agree as proposer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - if providing references in every (or even a majority of) responses is a requirement, then several of the contributors to this thread would already be on double-secret probation. Has everybody already forgotten the discussion above about the academic paper published studying the RDs, and that only 10% of answers provide sources? Lead by example, not by fiat. --LarryMac | Talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - this would make some kinds of answer very difficult. For example, suppose someone misreads a source and you want to correct them, you shouldn't have to re-link to that source - or suppose someone looks up some numbers from sources, and you wish to merely point out something mathematical in nature from those numbers. On the Language ref desk, it's almost impossible to reference a translation you do for someone. On the computing desk, it's almost impossible to source advice like "You need to click on the such-and-such button in the so-and-so dialog box to fix your problem". There are just too many exceptions to make this a rule. SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Break the first

Comment. I don't think that a hard-and-fast restriction (in the vein of 'you must have a source in every answer' — or every third post, or every post you make on a weekday, or what have you) is necessary a good step here. As SteveBaker notes, there are some pretty broad classes of constructive comments that aren't easily sourced and which may not require sources. While I understand – and agree – that in some cases it is worthwhile to restrict the conduct of an editor in order to discourage problematic behaviour, I don't think that the proposed remedy is sufficiently narrowly-crafted. It will suppress too much of the potentially-useful (and desirable, from the Desk's perspective) contribution that we hope to allow Vranak – or any volunteer – to make here.

However, continuing with the status quo obviously also isn't tenable. SteveBaker is not the only editor who has raised concerns with Vranak, and unfortunately Vranak has not been responsive to the requests and comments from the other Ref Desk volunteers. We cannot and should not be required to ignore harmful conduct indefinitely. Perhaps a framework like the following would be best?

Vranak is reminded:

• to treat all editors at the Reference Desk – regulars, occasional volunteers, and questioners – with courtesy and respect;
• our aim is to provide concise, factual responses to questions;
• to that end, we strive to provide references wherever possible, and to limit guesswork or speculation to the minimum necessary; and
• to review his/her responses in light of our guidelines before clicking 'Save page'.

Vranak is permitted to continue to edit the Reference Desk without explicit restrictions, but is expected to bear in mind the above points at all times. If editors find that s/he is offering responses which fall short of those standards, they may choose to politely raise those concerns on Vranak's talk page or open a discussion on this talk page. In any but the most serious cases, these discussions should not take the form of a 'request for sanctions', and their focus should be on remedying troubling conduct, not reaching for blocks.

One month(?) after the announcement of this framework, any editor may open a request for review of Vranak's conduct on this talk page. If the consensus of that discussion is that Vranak's pattern of contributions shows substantial adherence to the points above, this framework will have done its job. If there is improvement, but concerns remain, this 'probation period' can be extended and a subsequent review scheduled. If Vranak's contributions do not improve in overall quality (or worsen), then s/he will be asked to leave the Ref Desk for a period of time (one year minimum?)

Ultimately, we aim to provide a specific service here. If editors are interested in doing things that don't contribute to that aim, they should avail themselves of one of the many, many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Reference Desk duty may not be for everyone; there's no shame in that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have read your discussion, and it sounds quite reasonable. But Ten, I would advise you to be less of a pocket dictator and ruleslawyer. It's bad for the soul. But let's forget about that. I know that personal change doesn't come from being nagged. :) Vranak (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you come willingly on board the probation? It all depends on you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Probation? Everyone is already on probation, all the time. Vranak (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you continue to resort to namecalling, even though I'm trying to come up with a way for you to continue to participate here — despite your extremely unproductive history. I am the furthest possible thing from a Wikipedia "ruleslawyer", and calling me a "pocket dictator" is just a personal attack. Coupled with your weird and unsubstantiated "people have some secrets to hide, and have not been leading entirely good and honest lives" conspiracy accusation above I do wonder if the framework I've proposed (or any sort of parole that would let you continue to edit here) would be worth the effort.

As I say on my user page:

Wikipedia editors are generally generous and helpful people, as one would expect from a volunteer-driven project. The average Wikipedian will bend over backwards to help — until he gets the impression that you're asking him to bend over forwards.

You're getting well into the latter territory now, and it's not amusing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You have obviously had a great deal of success in coercing people into towing your line Ten. I am however, unmoved. Still, I have nothing else to add, in the interests of getting along. Were this a less formal setting though, rest assured I would be quite frank with you and your... questionable ethical practices. Vranak (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, I don't know who you are, and I hadn't noticed any of your posts before (so I have no particular axe to grind here). But it's my observation that when someone's behavior is questioned (as yours is being here), the someone's reaction tends to fall into one of two distinct patterns:

1. "Gosh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I'll try to do better. Let me know how I can."
2. "What are you guys talking about? I've followed all the rules. Show me where I've broken a rule. I haven't done anything lots of other people haven't done. Why are you picking on me?"

And, needless to say, when the pattern is the second one, things never seem to go well. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right of course, and I appreciate your concern. Still, if Ten thinks it is acceptable behaviour to intimidate people, as sly as it may be, I would like to offer some helpful criticism on that unfortunate approach. You have to give up the sword if you wish to be at peace. Vranak (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no occasion of Ten intimidating you at all. He merely made a proposal, based on his understanding of the consensus, and asked if everyone was okay with it. You then proceeded to say the proposal was fine while calling him a dictator. —Akrabbim^talk 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Riiiight. Of course. The truth will out, friend. Vranak (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any more dishonest, immoral gambits? Anyone? For a place of learned men, there is a conspicuous absence of honesty around here. Vranak (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one here is being dishonest or immoral. That's a personal attack. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm willing to leave it at that then. And citing regulations, come now Vimes, aren't you better than that? And besides, it is not a personal attack. I am critical of a few people's worse natures, but I know they are at heart good people. Vranak (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Better than that"? We've never interacted before. Why would you presume to know me? And why do you always say you're willing to leave something, and then sign off with a last word? And lastly; attacking the person instead of the content is the very definition of a personal attack...whether you think so or not. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a cool name, so I presume you are capable of being cool. :) Vranak (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I shouldn't have left that sentence on its own. Do you believe that these people are "out to get you"? If so, why are you staying around? Assuming you don't change, they won't cease to "harass" you (from your point of view) until you leave. If you don't believe that, what do you think they're trying to do? I think if we find out exactly what you think the Ref Desk users are trying here, we may be able to draw a conclusion more quickly. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is out to get me! I just want everybody to be happy. I guess I am trying to confront, and thereby disperse, some of the over-seriousness I know that can appear from time to time on Wikipedia. Vranak (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think, then, that you want Wikipedia, or at least the Ref Desk, to be less serious than it is - while the other users disagree with you. Might I suggest, instead of trying to change us, you simply use something that is already the Ref Desk's less serious cousin? WikiAnswers and Yahoo Answers immediately spring to mind. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears, after you've changed your point multiple times, that your point is now: "I don't take this seriously, so nobody else can take it seriously." Is that the final point or are you going to change it again in your next post? Please note that repeatedly changing your point to keep an argument going as long as possible is very trollish behavior. -- kainaw™ 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again with the gruesome seriousness. I will happily change tone as I see fit. The demand for consistency is the hallmark of a shallow, inflexible mind. That said with the horrifically intolerant people I see all around me, perhaps it would be best if I took my leave for a time. You guys are real pieces of work, but I am sure you are well aware of your conditions. Vranak (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a lot of fun on the ref desks. We frequently make jokes (often in small type) and we have running gags (search for "vagodynamics" sometime!). However, we recognise that all that is secondary to our primary purpose of providing useful answers and references for people's questions. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I have no quarrel with you Tango. :) Vranak (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading the above, I move for a one-month block of Vranak from the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And why on earth would you do that, praytell? Is your life so steeped in gruesome seriousness that you cannot handle any new questions or perspectives? Vranak (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the lack of a viable alternative. We have considered your perspective and we respectfully disagree. You are apparently unwilling to abide by the consensus viewpoint, so you have to go. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read above I have reached the same conclusion. You lads are too simple to understand me. Vranak (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are agreeing to leave voluntarily? --Tango (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Our attempt to convince him/her to change has clearly failed. I don't think we've ever actually blocked someone from the ref desk before, so there isn't really a process. I think we should establish a consensus here and then go to WP:AN/I to get it ratified. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Vranak doesn't seem to understand that he can't just ignore the parts of the Ref Desk he dislikes. And he's not tried to convince anyone that he's going to change; I see no alternative. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. (and I didn't even pick a fight with this guy!) It is not (to my knowledge) possible to block a user from the reference desk. Only a Wikipedia block is possible. At this point, the psychology appears to be "I do what I want and you can't stop me." The realization that there is such a thing as a block often changes that psychology. In other cases (ie: The tree trolls that returned recently) it doesn't and you end up with permanently banned users. -- kainaw™ 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no technical means by which to block someone from a subset of pages. It would involve Vranak being told "You are not allowed to edit the reference desk." and then being blocked from the whole site if he disobeys. This is analogous to a Wikipedia:Topic ban in the main namespace. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I will still be here, you wicked souls. Vranak (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to state that I have found nothing problematic in Vranak's input. Bus stop (talk)

If, as it seems, we want to make this official, let's do it properly. User:Tevildo/VranakRFC is my first shot at a draft RFC, but this is not an area in which I'm experienced, and any assistance would be welcome before it goes live. Of course, if Vranak were to voluntarily withdraw, this won't be necessary. Tevildo (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I improved one bullet point. Sorry you have had to put so much work into this. I am not seeking to derail this when I ask whether an AN/I post is a simpler path to a warning. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and it's not a problem - this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I don't mind doing the donkey (gnome?) work. If ANI is an appropriate venue, then by all means raise the matter there - however, I don't think that this is an _incident_ that needs immediate admin intervention. We just need to ensure there's some sort of official basis for any action that may need to be taken if Vranak's behaviour persists. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:BAN, topic bans go to AN rather than ANI. Count me in as an editor who would support this, although I hope it won't prove necessary. Tevildo (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you all consider this a bad contribution to a discussion? There are many more like it. But I just grabbed this one at random. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RFC. Topic bans can be agreed just an AN/I, I think and, if we have a consensus here, I would expect AN/I to concur. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've "officially" asked Vranak to drop the denigration and innuendoes in this conversation, since I'm pretty much fed up watching this unfold. Tango is right about AN/I. I think Ten-o-trades has a pretty good suggestion above though, maybe that should be the focus of your discussion for now rather than an immediate topic ban? Franamax (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what was TenOfAllTrades' suggestion? This section has become rather large and I can't find it... --Tango (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I now regret my suggestion. All I've gotten is abuse for trying to let the guy continue to edit here, and I no longer feel that it's worth extensive effort to bring him back into the fold.

His recent responses on his own talk page further worry me:

• "...I am not overly interested in citing facts, if I am quite certain of my position...."
• "My overall impression though, is that there are at least some people here who do not put a premium on truth. There are some things they would rather not discuss, presumably because it challenges their conception of the world. ... I will be as polite as I can be with these people, but I will not roll over and accept a half-correct way of looking at the world."

The Reference Desk just isn't the place for crusades. He's badly falling down on the very first (and possibly most important) point in my proposal, which emphasizes a basic respect and courtesy for his fellow editors. Unfortunately, I have to believe that a topic ban (perhaps with a three-month expiry to see if he can/will mellow) is a better way to go. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Vranak, your input is not appreciated, your personality is generally disliked, and most everyone on here either thinks you are a troll or a fool. Surely you have better ways to spend your time than hang out with such ungrateful people? (Please?) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Personal attack stricken after wait for response from editor. Franamax (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)> Mr.98 — I don't get it. Are you actually calling someone a fool? How do you justify something like that? Are you trying to antagonize him? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) He refuses to take things seriously (by his own admission). That seems like a decent definition of "fool" to me. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Tango — the word "fool" is a broad insult. It may have specific meanings. But it is also a term of disparagement. That is clearly unacceptable. This same person (Vranak) is also being told to "drop the denigration and innuendoes in this conversation." How should he "drop the denigration and innuendoes" when he is at the same time being called names? Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The whole point of this discussion is to tell someone their contributions aren't appreciated. That is disparagement. Disparagement is not automatically a bad thing. Ad hominem attacks are a bad thing when they used to discredit the person's arguments, but the problem here isn't Vranak's arguments, it is Vranak, so of course there are going to be personal attacks. They should, of course, be civil, but I don't think calling someone a fool, when it accurately describes them, is particularly uncivil. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Listen, I'm just trying to summarize what has been said so far. People are in debate about whether he does it on purpose or whether he does it out of ignorance. People on here don't seem to appreciate him or his input. I think this is established as a fact by the lengthy preceding discussion. That's all I was trying to point out. I would hope that Vranak could see that and figure out that there was a better way for him to spend his time. That's all I was trying to communicate—admittedly bluntly. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't spend a lot of time trying to evaluate people but in the course of my casual participation here I have not noticed anything off-putting in the contributions of Vranak, and looking over the complaints — they seem mild or not what I consider problems at all. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly collapsed an unfortunate derailing of the thread, caused by a personal attack not initiated by Vranak. Sorry for stepping on anyone, but it was offtopic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support TenOfAllTrades's last proposal of a topic ban for Vranak (the Reference Desk and its discussion page) with a three-month expiry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilute support 4 Weeks topic ban is enough to make Vranak take note. This topic ban should not seem to be driven by TenOfAllTrade's irritation arising from Vranak's rude reception of TenOfAllTrade's first proposal that was, depending on the viewer, either "a salutory reminder", "an unnecessary reformulation of existing guidelines" or "an excess of Instruction creep". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell where to add a comment here, so I'll just tack it on at the end. I usually don't notice names on the ref-desk unless there's some reason to, so I don't often notice this sort of pattern. But I just wanted to point out that I found his dismissal of the stirring salt question really irritating. I still don't really understand what vranak's problem with the question was, but he seemed quite angry about it. APL (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that Vranak's replies (so far) today have been reasonable and (most importantly) adequately sourced. I hope he's taken our comments to heart. However, let's continue to monitor the situation. Tevildo (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Typically late NE reply

Wow, I saw this before any replies but didn't bother to reply and I come back less then a day later and (okay it's more then a day later now but wasn't earlier)... Anyway I'd been meaning to say that I don't consider the specific reply (about Hyde Park) that started this that bad. If it was serious, it was a dumb reply, but either way, it's not really that different IMHO for some of the joke replies that are typical and wasn't the first reply either. It's the sort of thing that may annoy the OP, but particularly since the OP is British, is unlikely to be taken seriously. Some people have pointed out bigger problems and in fact I noticed on the same desk Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Aloe Vera which is perhaps a better example Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, at least it wasn't a typically long NE reply! (/me ducks for cover) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically I had thought of mentioning that... Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nil Einne. I replied on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_February_25#Aloe_Vera. Vranak (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's the same kind of nonsense post that started this whole debate! APL (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand where you are coming from APL so I will leave well enough alone. You are a student of medicine though, perhaps? Vranak (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not. I fully concede that I have no expertise in the subject. APL (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

speaking of troublesome anonymous-IP participants

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

Is 88.112.56.9 a known troll? He's showing what's starting to seem like a willfully persistent failure to understand the points being made in the "Physical exercise vs. E=mc^2" thread on the Science desk. (But perhaps I'm overreacting.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After 11 posts on the subject he/she is still posting "I find it remarkable that turning 0.6 grams of matter into energy levels a city". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is remarkable.. but irrelevant. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to apply Hanlon's razor to this one. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recognise the IP or ISP and it appears to have been static for 3 months or so without any obvious signs of major problems (althought it does look to me like they're not new to wikipedia) so I'd agree with Tango. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The fruits of your labour

Anyone remember this question, asked nearly a month ago? Well, I got the video shortly after I gave the presentation, but due to issues with Youtube (who would have thought Youtube would have such a problem with PAL format videos?) it's taken this long to upload them.

Anyway, for those interested, here is the end result, which was only possible thanks to all of you!

• Part 1
• Part 2

The quality is apalling, though it's still processing, so it may improve. I doubt it, somehow. Thanks to everyone who helped me out! Vimescarrot (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The native format of YouTube is Flash Video so I assume one gets fullest control over video quality when uploading in that format. Only Part 2 has the 360/480 buttons that don't seem to do anything. You made a nice presentation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! It even had drama - the part where you said "save page" and I was shouting "no, show preview -then- save page". I couldn't find the edit button to fix it though. :) Franamax (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that I had ten minutes (I went over the alloted time anyway) and I'd never teach them any more, and they probably wouldn't use it, I tried to focus on the most interesting bits. "Show preview will show you what it would look like..." seemed to be some fairly unnecessary filler. :p Vimescarrot (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did notice the last question was "can we go now?" so don't take my kibitzing as criticism, I do realize that your "time-over-target" is limited when teaching. It was just something that popped out in my head while watching it, one of those oh-god-no-don't-say-that moments. :) Really though, ten minutes to explain Wikipedia, you did a pretty good job. It took me at least a year to really start getting a grasp on it all... Franamax (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, me too. How much quicker it would have been if I'd had a teacher... Vimescarrot (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate about over-frequent questioning moved here:

User:71.100.5.197 asked what seemed like a perfectly reasonable question entitled "TV Color" over on the science desk - and the thread rapidly spiralled out of control into terratory that either belongs here - or nowhere at all. I have moved the non-relevent part of the thread here: SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

IP, that makes seven questions from you in two days, and that's just on this reference desk. Could you slow the pace a bit, please? Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For your benefit of for the sake of not adding any more information or missing information to Wikipedia articles? 71.100.5.197 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? His or her questions are good. They are not 7 questions in 2 days about Avril Lavigne. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule limiting the number of questions you can ask here. There is also no guarantee we'll answer them all. But so long as they are good questions, I don't see anything wrong with asking lots of questions. If this upsets respondents - then don't answer, but don't be rude to our OP either. SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or poorly disguised rants about GM, lawyers & eBay/Microsoft or spam about optimal classification, rapid sort, meal planners... I agree as long as we aren't getting that sort of stuff there's probably no harm. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know I haven't worked on optimal classification in a long time except that the other day I did use it to classify meals only to discover that to be useful I need a lot more foods or to transpose the table. As for the meals if you do not need to loose weight or be concerned about diabetes then you don't have to utilize them. Rapid sort, well I forgot you changed your user name there ah.. Demo or something like that? Oh and the GM classification thing... well since last speaking of it and without your help I discovered that the Price look-up code incorporates the prefix "8" for GM produce while using the prefix "9" for organically grown produce. So I don't spend all of my time here and still learn stuff. As for the legal system and the polychotomous key guess what I recall an idea I had about Exception Theory which utilizes the file system sub directories to provide a workable structure to implement the polychotomous legal plan. The eBay/Microsoft thing stands now with my bank cutting off PayPal and Microsoft reviewing the software to determine if it meets the level of counterfeiting necessary to justify issuing a complementary copy. This news bulletin rant brought to you in good faith by your's truly 71.100.5.197 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, I've only ever had one username unlike your 5+ blocked ones. And it's good that you got over your need to randomly complain about GM foods, hopefully you've likewise got over any need to complain about Jewish people, Arabs, Iranians, females etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you rode a bike through dog and street gangs infested neighborhoods to get groceries or do other errands you too might appreciate the problem of not always being able to avoid riding across someone's lawn. You might also appreciate the need to be and the value of being inconsistent so as not to get infected with rabies or made more holey with lead. Such needs you do not get over until your no longer have to do errands by taking the same route. However, your point is made that since the ref desk is an ivory tower such real world needs for true to life responses rather than imaginary responses makes it pointless to inquire abut real word experience fashioned by superior learning is rarely available and therefore should not be expected here. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a perfectly valid question. The desk isn't being overwhelmed with questions at the moment, so there is no reason to limit people. --Tango (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a rant about a conspiracy of retailers, in addition to another similar question, which has been deleted I imagine by the OP. 78.151.88.21 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean [23]. I saw this question but wasn't aware the OP continued it after SB had pointed out it was a rant with a question at the end. I also now see [24]. So yeah maybe the OP hasn't been as good as I thought... Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this idea... actually go out in the world and expose yourself to some of the pitfalls of real everyday life in the 21st century to the degree of selling off all you possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor. Then return to the reference desk and try not to rant. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, you have my full support. You can use eBay to sell your stuff since you like it so much, see you in a few years. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Suspected case of 'asking just for the sake of it'

Not sure about this, but I have a funny feeling that on all of our reference desks we are getting a large number of joke-type questions, all from a number of accounts that all have a number of contributions posted on 4th March and never before. I suspect we have someone making a bunch of accounts then spamming us with questions. Anybody care to investigate? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this and this? This one points to a potential motive. Matt Deres (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that blocked user shortly after writing this thread, and there appears to be a lot of accounts, not just two of them. Can someone get a checkuser to make sure, just to be on the safe side? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:R22elial, User:Aject8886, User:Velderon4 fit the pattern as well...close creation time, immediately ask a few plausibly-viable-on-their-face questions that actually seem kinda fishy or obvious. My limit of WP:AGF is some schoolkids learned about this and are just testing with the first thing that pops into their head. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to User talk:Kainaw, User:Delvenore is an incarnation of a banned user, so CU for socking/ban-evasion is a viable starting-point. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to him also. I removed the rant he left for me that identified who he was. This particular troll has used hundreds of socks. He is technically not banned. He is indef. blocked. As such, he is not allowed to use Wikipedia. A check-user will locate him and block his current socks easily. He will make more. I've been told by multiple people that he has never left Wikipedia. He is a permanent troll. So, the only real way to keep his antics down is to CU every day and block his new socks. He's had so many CU's and has had so make socks and IP addresses blocked that the CU guys know exactly who he is and you don't need to give them tons of proof. (And he makes it easy. I strongly expect him to use a sock to post a complaint here.) -- kainaw™ 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He's pretty good at inventing names. It's too bad that creative energy can't go to something useful, like providing the power needs for a small Puerto Rican village or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: This particular troll is easy to identify. If you see a user making a lot of posts that are borderline "good" and refusing to sign any of his posts, it is highly probable that it is this troll. Just ask for a CU and indicate that you have been told that this behavior is that of a well-known troll. The CU guys will know exactly who you mean and quickly block his new socks. Until he gets smart and starts signing his posts, the refusal to sign posts is a very easy way to identify this troll. -- kainaw™ 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right guys, well, the list I have come up with is Kandorko, Marinada, Crockadoc, 701-DENT-SSU, R22elial, Lirvaerif, Aject8886, Olium jikki, Velderon4. I can't do a CU (and don't know how to request one), so if anyone can do that for us, I'd appreciate it. There is also another one, Ditreaium, of the same pattern, but used in answering questions, usually with an unhelpful answer, or with a very specific answer with no citations. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find strong evidence linking them, checkusers won't bother, as they don't go on fishing expeditions. So before going through the tedium of setting up a checkuser request and having it rejected in about 5 seconds, you might want to locate a user who has checkuser authority and ask if there's any point in it. Or you could raise this discussion at WP:ANI, where a number of eyes will likely offer some advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Curious Cactus (talk · contribs)—an account created today. Perhaps related; perhaps just an individual loose cannon. Deor (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Curious Cactus is signing his posts. If it is a troll, it isn't the same troll. The troll that gave us all the accounts listed herein (which are mostly all indef.blocked now) makes a big point of not signing his posts. He claims that it is a obsessive-compulsive based speech impediment. -- kainaw™ 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fire-drill discussion getting heated

Seems like we're spiralling away from ref-desk scope (and rational/polite discourse) in WP:RD/S#Fire drills. I tried one more time to answer direct question directly and remind that that's the limited purpose of the refdesk, but I probably came across too harshly (esp since I've been involved in the discussion). Just a heads-up someone else might want to step in and help moderate if things degenerate further. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I count 14 posts (so far) to that thread by StuRat. Your latest post was reasonable, not harsh. Consider putting a Resolved banner on such a thread if it turns to soapboxing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the OP for that Q, so it's reasonable for me to respond to others who comment there, especially when asked a follow-up Q. Unfortunately, most of the responses I got early on were of the form "prove the assumptions in your Q", rather than actual answers. I am finally getting some actual answers there now, although it's not yet fully resolved, so I'd like to keep it open for the time being. I also find the idea of putting a resolved tag on a Q that isn't resolved, just because it has gotten long or heated, to be inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, Dmacks, I've looked at your responses, and the last one did seem a bit heated. Your earlier responses weren't heated, but were slightly off-topic, such as being about the reasons for fire drills. That wasn't quite what I was asking, though, as we all know the reasons for fire drills. Perhaps you misread my Q as being a suggestion to cancel all fire drills ? I was asking about what accommodations are made for fire drills and evacuations in cold weather. And those are the Q's that I'm only now starting to have answered. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous purchasing help

I think at this stage I'd really prefer it if Bugs would take a holiday. His conduct in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Anonymous porn help is just not what any questioner needs. In short, it starts off with Bugs determined to refute the need for the question and/or turn it around so that the OP has to answer it (WTF), and then degenerates into utter chippyness. This is not how RDs work, it is how forums work. I suggest Bugs talents would be much better employed at such places than here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it's the above user who should take a holiday. There's a one-entry user raising a question that sounds like it's asking for help in accomplishing something illegal or unethical. I don't think that's what the ref desk is supposed to be doing. Meanwhile, some interesting questions and answers have arisen about gift cards and the like. Just because you want to keep the ref desk in a box is no reason others should do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Purchasing pornography anonymously sounds neither illegal nor unethical to me... Vimescarrot (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop attacking the OPs, bug. Really, just stop it. It is positively offensive to have RDers treat questioners like this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop applying a double-standard. IP's are allowed to say and do almost anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone walked up to you on the street and asked you a question like this, are you seriously saying you would give that stranger advice on how to hide his identity, without asking a few questions of your own first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an incredibly poor analogy. Why would someone at a reference desk treat a questioner as if they were simply a stranger walking up to them on the street? —Akrabbim^talk 13:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain the practical difference between the two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

About the same as dropping your drawers on the street, versus your urologist's office. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So if a question from a stranger is on the internet, it's somehow different from a stranger on the street? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a Reference Desk, which our guidelines explicitly state is intended to work like a reference desk in a library. If you want to participate here, you should be willing to answer all sorts of questions, including those that would be unseemly if asked of a "stranger on the street." -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like a library; and if a librarian were asked a question by someone unknown to them and that sounded suspicious to them, I'm sure they would ask a question whose essence is, "Why do you want to know?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely not the case, according to Aaronite below. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When random people on the street start asking me questions, my first suspicion is that they're trying to get money off me somehow. Otherwise, If someone was honestly asking me about Internet anonymity on the street I'd probably briefly mention proxies and re-mailers and tell them that Wikipedia was probably an excellent place to research the topic.

Then I'd wander away chuckling about people who do Internet research on the street.

I suppose It's possible I'm just naive or something. Maybe if the questioner was obviously ten years old my reaction would be different, but I don't see the slightest sin in giving people publicly available information. APL (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And the American Library Association says: Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. In this library the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for help in how to commit fraud is the problem. One thing I've noticed about this talk page is the constant visiting by certain editors who are always looking for scapegoats to hassle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At what point does a reasonable privacy related question "can I buy things online without disclosing my identity" become prima facie evidence of fraud, immorality and whatever else you've accused the OP of. Meanwhile you are not the victim in this affair, you are the problem. Appeals to scapegoating cut no ice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. And it's your nannyism that's the problem, which is why I don't usually have this page on my watch list, since it's typically useless. When you're done with me, you'll attack another editor who won't kiss up to you. You're not as bad as Malcolm XIV was, but you're definitely in his territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently fraudulent about wanting to remain anonymous. See Bruce Schneier's essay Privacy in the Age of Persistence or Daniel J. Solove's article 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When a stranger asks you a question, "Why do you want to know?" is a perfectly fair and reasonable question to ask back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I would suggest that a Reference Desk is not the best place for you. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, maybe the ref desk is not the place for you. We are not robots here. If an editor, especially a one-shot drive-by like the one immediately below, asks a question that looks fishy to you, you don't have to blindly try to answer it. Or maybe they're not teaching critical thinking in schools nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the responses by Baseball Bugs in that thread and is this discussion it's pretty clear he's trolling. I see no further point is discussing the matter with him; inform him to discontinue the behavior and if he continues take it to WP:AN/I for a swift block of this insidious troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.211.122 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is only one participant. He does not determine the course of conversation that follows. I think it is ludicrous for find fault with input that is relevant. The framework of the question posed obviously pits opposing values against one another. One value is to prevent crime and the other value is to maintain personal privacy. He (Baseball Bugs) provided relevant input. That is what many of the participants did — they provided relevant input. It's a little bit loony to start this section with purpose of attacking Baseball Bugs for merely presenting a part of the overall picture. A word or two of disagreement within the original thread would suffice. That would allow all sides to express themselves. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Bugs is being singled out for substituting his question for the OPs, and then demanding that the OP answers it. That's just a bollocks way to start. His further actions - such as implying that the OP is a sock with no basis whatsoever adds insult to injury. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon — no one "demands" anything around here. We are participants. When we behave civilly we are welcome. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what Bugs has done: demanded to know why the user wanted to ask the question. And that's the big problem I have with his behaviour. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't "demand." He asked a follow up question. You are overlooking that this is a human conversation. Human conversational interactions are not as clearly defined as machine conversations. In my personal assessment Baseball Bugs' participation was civil. In fact his input was merely a stating of the obvious. The framework of the question (by the OP) obviously involved competing ideals. I think it is pollyannish to pretend that we are machines that answer questions without providing hints of wider context. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reading and mine vary, then. OP asks a question, gets told "what's the problem?" "Unless you're engaging in illegal activity of some kind". As APL picked up on the spot, that's an insult, not a constructive contribution. It's like asking for some yellow paint and being told that you really shouldn't want to buy yellow paint. We are not in the business of insulting our questioners and denying the validity of their question. Of course we can discuss the nuances of the territory of the question as a secondary aim, but the primary aim should be to answer the OPs question without questioning or impugning their motive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an American of a particular generation, so I question anything that looks peculiar to me, rather than accepting it or answering it blindly. The failure to ask questions can get us into trouble. It's possible this idea of not questioning is a generational thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

APL took issue with Baseball Bugs' input, and Baseball Bugs responded to APL in a civil way. This is the way human conversation proceeds. At no point was the OP's question in jeopardy of not being answered. A productive conversation flowed forth. In fact you might consider thanking Baseball Bugs for helping to see that a lively and informative response transpired. It is a little bit myopic to single out someone for improper input when the overall conversation is productive. In my conception of human interaction, if the input is within the bounds of civility, then I think it is dubious to try to pin blame on someone, especially after a productive conversation has transpired. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The failure to ask questions can get us into trouble." Explain how. APL (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, while other participants made an effort to actually answer the question, Bugs just challenged the OP for asking it. People asking questions on the reference desk don't need to justify their reasons for asking.

@Bugs: You mentioned a "one entry user". Please stop drawing inferences about OPs based on the fact that they only have one edit. Rather deal with each case on its merits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do. Meanwhile, stop hassling registered users, and start paying better attention to what could be behind the OPs' questions. You are not a robot, and you have a brain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to hassle you (or any other users, registered or otherwise) and I'm sorry if I implied that you don't consider the particulars of each case - I know that you do. I disagree that we should be paying any attention "to what could be behind the OPs' questions". Pretty much anything could be behind the questions - we should just answer them within our "approved" guidelines. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is where Malcolm XIV came in. He eventually retired under that ID because he "lost" his battle with me. That resignation was entirely unnecessary. If he had focused on the right things instead of trying to suppress outside-the-box thinking, he would have been OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

section break

Bugs, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus, both here and at previous similar discussions, that your behavior towards IP editors is improper. Since you don't seem inclined to alter your behavior, I'm curious: do you dispute that consensus exists? Do you just not care that it exists? Is it something I haven't thought of here? Is there a course of action (straw poll, mediation, RfC, etc) that we collectively could pursue to find a solution? I'd like to see a non-escalatory resolution, if possible. — Lomn 14:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a WQA. The admin said that it "seems an abuse of WQA" and I got the impression that Bugs' treatment of "drive-by" users on this talk page was not considered as unacceptable as I thought it was. This is a bit different, though. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like for someone to explain two things to me: (1) What's wrong with asking the OP why they want to know, when they could be asking us to aid and abet in some illegal activity (such as the purchase of child porn, or just general fraud); and (2) Why are IP's supposed to get privileged treatment, compared with users who have bothered to register and establish an identity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Because it sets up an arbitrary threshold test which the OP must pass before they get an answer. We're not here to test the OPs. We're here to answer their questions (2) No one has suggested they should get privileged treatment, merely equal treatment and specifically no insults like being labelled as a sock merely because they are an IP. Your whole question 2 reeks of contempt for IPs, yet the vast majority of wikipedia users are IP. It makes no sense to hate your users. Really, you are in the wrong place. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) There is no "threshold test". If they don't feel like answering my questions, they don't have to. In my observation, they seldom come back anyway, regardless of the response they get. And you're not a mindless robot. If they ask something that looks fishy, you or I have every right to ask them why they're asking. It is not the ref desk's job to aid and abet potential criminal activity. Pleading ignorance is no excuse. You're worried about wikipedia's reputation? How would wikipedia's reputation improve if someone were arrested for illegal activity, and he said, "I found how to do it from an editor on wikipedia"? (2) I'm going by what I see here and elsewhere. IP's often make good edits. Just as often, they commit vandalism, because they know they can get away with it: IP's have to be warned multiple times before being blocked even for highly offensive activities, and they can't be indef'd. They often hop from one IP to another and take their shots at many registered users, not just me. So they can't vote in AFD's. Big deal. They can get away with a lot of stuff that registered users cannot. I don't hate any users. But that doesn't mean I have to kiss up to them either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss the original questions before shifting subjects. — Lomn 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The original question was, "How can I buy something anonymously on the internet?" The only reasons I can think of for buying something anonymously would be: (1) fear of identity theft; or (2) fear of being identified. The former is a reasonable fear, but I doubt it's the issue, since the question wasn't really cloaked that way. It was about porn, so the latter seems more likely. That leads to the next logical question: Who is he afraid of? The law? His peer group? His mother? If it's the latter two, that's his own problem, as he's engaging in deception, but who cares. But if it's the first one, we need some assurance that it's not about illegal activity, so wikipedia editors should be off the hook if the cops come knocking. Ya follow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not the "original questions" I meant. Do you dispute the consensus that your behavior is unacceptable? Or do you disregard the consensus that it is unacceptable? — Lomn 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec times 3) Well, for starters, if they were planning to engage in some illegal activity, they'd hardly be broadcasting their intentions here, now, would they? So, your question will not elicit such an answer, and it is therefore a pointless question. Secondly, as others have said, it's incredibly rude for us to set up a service like this, where anyone in the world is welcome to come here and ask any damn question they like, and then turn around and want to know why they're asking. That's their business. If they want to provide the broader context of their question, they'll volunteer it. This sort of response on your part is in the same camp as the "Who cares?" or "Why does it matter?" response we've been seeing a bit of lately (not from you, though). As for privileged treatment, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You really MUST stop this distrust of people who are unregistered, and people whose first edit is here. What is wrong with asking a question here? It's not as if the Ref Desks are tucked away in some obscure corner of Wikipedia; their existence is broadcast loud and clear on the Main Page - and it obviously works. Rather than discovering potential trolls, you reveal yourself as a person with serious issues of trust when you operate like this, Buggsy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. I don't care if the OP is intending to break the law, as such. That's his problem. I care if the potential is there to drag wikipedia down with him. If he denies, in writing, that he's going to break the law, then we're at least somewhat off the hook. If no one asks, and he uses our answers to break the law, the Nuremberg Defense just might not work for us. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a realistic scenario? Could the Ref Desk be legally liable if we've helped someone to do something illegal? There would presumably be a difference between us doing it intentionally (a few months ago, we told someone how best to hide the body) and us doing it without realising, but I'd be interested in knowing if we're at risk either way. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, WP is safe. Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the Reference desk could be legally liable. I doubt it. But there is nothing wrong with conducting ourselves like responsible citizens (of the planet Earth). I simply feel there is a wide range of acceptable types of input. We are human beings. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be able to be held liable, but I bet an individual would. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But even if we're not legally liable, something like that could hurt wikipedia's reputation. I think we all believe in wikipedia and in defending it. The difference seems to be on specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this would affect our reputation. Maybe that's just me, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not lawyers, nor have we been given any instructions from the WP lawyers to protect WP by asking certain questions before we provide answers. Your intentions are noble, Bugsy, but your efforts are unnecessary; more than that, you can see the trouble it is causing, so please just stop defending it and accept that it's over.

I'd just make the point, Bugsy, that you have drawn far more attention to yourself, and created far more disruption, by your modus operandi, than any of the alleged trolls and potential lawbreakers you're on a quest to root out and eradicate. You've become the Torquemada-in-Residence of the Reference Desks. Or maybe you'd prefer to be the Joe McCarthy-in-Residence. That sounds all nice and grand, but it is not a good title to have, and I'd be doing whatever I could to be rid of it asap. I'll AGF and assume you're not intending to create disruption. But you are in fact creating disruption, and that's all that matters in the end. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe McCarthy was a good leader. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should not be endeavoring to hammer down "personality" when it is demonstrably civil and tends to be part of productive responses to questions posed by OPs. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to create disruption. I intend to raise questions that I think need to be asked. The disruption comes from users blowing a molehill into a mountain - like, for example, by bringing it here and weeping and wailing over someone who dares to ask a one-entry, never-heard-from-before-or-since OP what he's up to. If you don't like something I ask or say, then talk to me about it. I'm not perfect either, and my talk page is unprotected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You think they need to be asked. Does anyone else think they need to be asked? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who don't think expository questions need to be asked, are free to not ask them. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally. If someone asked us how to make and store napalm, and the requirements for renting a Cessna, I would have concerns. Googlemeister (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with asking motive is this: If the person is asking for information to support illegal activity, they are most likely not going to give you an honest answer about why they are asking the question in the first place. 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they're going to cloak it in something that sounds sort-of "innocent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made that point above. Bugs' response was that we should still be seen to have asked the question, regardless of the unlikelihood of getting a truthful answer (in the case where they really do have some nefarious purpose in mind). Where this bush-lawyer thinking comes from, I have absolutely no idea, but it certainly seems to have zero non-Bugs support around here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you're asking us not to make mountains out of molehills and yet you're worried that answering a question you - and only you - find suspect might "bring down Wikipedia". I picked a hell of a week to stop calling people hypocritical... Matt Deres (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lomn's original point that Bugs's behavior toward IPs has often been improper. It's puzzling to me, because nearly all of us are using pseudonyms anyway. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I avoid asking questions here as an IP for 2 reasons: 1) The abuse of IP's that ask a question that could even remotely be considered ambiguous thus setting off Bugs "always defendable" jabs at the OP. 2) The off topic forays that in my humble opinion are ore suited for chatrooms than ref. desks. My suggestion for Answering questions is easy to follow: a) If you understand the question, and have a referenced answer that has a high probability of being helpful to the OP, post it. If you think the question is loaded, if you do not have a well referenced helpful response, or you are not sure exactly what the OP asks, pass on it and let it be answered by anyone else that might better suited to research it or provide a relevant helpful response. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been blocked 3 times since November for vandalism and disruption, so you're welcome to dismount that high horse anytime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is looking into Bugs's mind, which of course is not for the faint of heart; but I personally think Bugs's claim that he is defending Wikipedia is false, and that he is arguing against answering the question because he wants to discourage behavior that he believes to be immoral or unethical. Similarly, I remember Bugs arguing against answering a practical question posed by a prospective client of a prostitute (sorry I can't find the diff; I don't think it was the guy who asked about brushing up his hygiene before visiting a prostitute), though Bugs was shouted down by people who noted that prostitution is legal in some areas. If I am right, by the way, I do not think we should pillory Bugs merely for discouraging the answering of certain questions. If someone asks us how to make ricin and poison someone with it, I would hope we would all act to remove such a question. Bugs's response to this "how do I buy porn anonymously" question is in the same vein, I think: he is just more paranoid than most of us, apparently. In a related vein, I discourage questions that help software pirates, even though software piracy is probably legal in Sealand or something. I don't think Tagishsimon is asserting that we should answer every question on the Refdesk, but in case anybody is, I think that's clearly incorrect, and I don't think we should be attacking Bugs for expressing concern about certain questions — even though most of us don't share his concern in this case. Maybe a better path for Bugs (and maybe me, too) to follow would be to recommend: Bugs, if you are concerned that a question should not be answered on moral or ethical grounds, then you should remove or collapse the question, rather than grill the questioner or complain about it in the thread. Or, if you feel less strongly, suggest removal here on Refdesk Discussion. If consensus is with you, then the question stays gone and your concern is settled; if consensus is against you then this is a way to decide, one way or another, without derailing the thread on the Refdesks themselves. I personally would prefer that a debate about answering a question shouldn't take place within the thread itself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If the OP had instead of porn said he wished to buy a computer, whould the response have been, why? If porn makes Bugs react in such a way then maybe their help on the ref desk is not needed. Mo ainm~Talk 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like too much anguish and drama here over someone asking why a questioner wants instructions for doing something which sounds shady. If someone asks "Where is a locksmith who will make a key from a wax impression?" "Where can I buy printer ink which exactly duplicates the green ink on U.S. currency?" or "How can I make my electric meter underreport usage" or "What food or beverage would cyanide be least detectable in?" it does not bother me for someone to ask for clarification about the questioner's intentions. Edison (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, is "shady" about wanting to buy pornography without revealing personal information? -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with Coneslayer, it is not illegal to but porn, and it is not illegal to want to buy it anonymously. The repeated inference that something illegal is being asked is BS. Mo ainm~Talk 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be factually correct, not everybody on Earth lives where you live. It is indeed illegal to buy porn in some places; see Pornography by region. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is shady per se, but, of course, we tend to be open about things we are proud of. Vranak (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, Vranak, this discussion has nothing to do with anything related to being "proud of" something. Anyway, I think the advice given above by 68.28. is actually quite good. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked 3 times in 5 months for vandalism and disruption, so don't put all your eggs in his basket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And why is it any of our business whether they're proud or not? This is a Reference Desk, not a confessional. -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, openness tends to bring good results, and secretiveness, not so much. But people have to learn that for themselves, you're quite right. Vranak (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because answering questions is boring. Putting on your Morality Police hat and saying "Unless you're a criminal and/or pervert you don't need to know!" is fun and satisfying. APL (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, I did it just now in the line above this one and it gave me a great smug and superior feeling for at least sixty seconds. APL (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now try it after you've had a few drinks. The sense of superiority lasts right until you nod off on the couch. The downside of course is clicking "You have new messages" in the morning. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Comet Tuttle's speculation on what to do if one is "concerned that a question should not be answered on moral or ethical grounds", remember, besides commenting in the thread, or collapsing the thread, or proposing the thread for deletion here, another excellent possibility to consider is: just ignore it. It may violate your morals or ethics, but that doesn't mean it violates everyone's. (Or if it does violate everyone's, and if the question therefore goes unanswered, perhaps that's fine.) Nothing derails a discussion faster than when someone too-quickly injects his own opinion where it wasn't called for. (And remember, Wikipedia is not censored.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for article content. Clearly, that principle does not apply to the ref desks, as per the frequency of deletion of questions asking for professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not censored, period. In particular, it is not censored to remove content that some people might find objectionable. There are a couple of exceptions having to do with other Wikipedia policies, and "the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted", but clearly, none of those exceptions apply here. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you've got it wrong. At the very least, BLP violations are "censorable" anywhere. Personal attacks are "censorable". Copyright violations are "censorable". And if you've been paying attention lately, deletion of frivolous questions is gaining support - like the deletion mentioned farther down the page, where some clown had asked how many car accidents were attributable to little Bart Simpson-types asking the drivers, "Are we there yet?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word censor. Nothing you have listed counts as censorship, in my book, with the possible exception of the "little Bart Simpson types" question, which I have not reviewed.

If you wish to continue to argue that Wikipedia is censored and that this justifies your public objection to the anonymously-purchased porn question, I can't stop you, but I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to waste any more time discussing it with you. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In defense of anonymous IP's

I haven't slogged through all of the above thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I think it's important to reiterate that we are honor-bound to extend AGF to all contributors, including anonymous IP's.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as this alleged "double standard" towards IP's. If a registered user feels he's being unjustly held to a higher standard than an IP editor (which is certainly possible), the merit of that injustice can be addressed, but nothing gives any of us the right to publicly berate anonymous IP's as some kind of second-class citizens. There are those who sling phrases like "drive-by IP" around with, it seems to me, more or less the same blind prejudice as a racist uses the term "nigger", and it could be considered analogously offensive.

Now, believe me, I've done my share of vandal-fighting myself, and I do understand that any given anonymous-IP contribution has a much higher probability of being vandalism or trolling. And if it is, you revert (or perhaps just ignore) it, just as you would any other vandalism or trolling. But -- and this is the key point -- you should keep your opinions about the general character of IP editors to yourself. The anonymity may help you form your decision -- i.e. that a suspicious edit is indeed vandalism or trolling -- more quickly, but in the end, you dealt with it because it was vandalism or trolling, not because it came from an IP editor. If you act as if "all IP editors are vandals and trolls", you are being prejudiced and failing to follow AGF, and that's not acceptable. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agreed and endorsed, especially at the reference desks. See also IPs are human too and Not every IP is a vandal. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Being anonymous and constantly shifting addresses should not give IP's any special privilege to attack registered users, yet that's what I see being argued for frequently. There IS a double-standard. IP's can get away with almost anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to any place where anyone argues for special privileges for IPs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The first posting in this section is exactly what I'm talking about. We're supposed to kiss up to IP's as if they were registered, established users, regardless of what they say or do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "kissing up" to IPs, and a) not being hostile to them and b) getting on with answering legitimate questions without hectoring them. Have you any other examples than this one? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When a one-entry IP's lone "contribution" is to take a verbal shot at someone, they have forfeited any right to assumption of good faith. As has been noted many times in various venues, "AGF is not a suicide pact." You want examples? Look through the archives for every time I referred to one of those malicious characters as "drive-bys" and the hand-wringers here were all over me for daring to speak the truth about them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you could find even one single instance of your assertion that anyone has argued for special privilege for IPs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you're either new to this debate or have not been paying attention. That argument turns up every time I call a malicious IP or red-link user a "drive-by". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have much trouble in pointing me at one of these, would you? Because right now, the only example we have before us is of you treating an IP's legitimate question with contempt and the IP with hostility. As normal, I'll put to one side your ad hominem attacks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "attack" you're referring to, and I'm not doing your research for you either. But you can bet it will come up again. The next time an IP or red-link posts in bad faith, and if I happen to call them what they are ("drive-by") you cats will be all over me for it. I don't recall that I even used that term in this case. I basically argued for not just blindly responding to something that to me at least looked fishy. If you don't think it's fishy, that's fine. But it doesn't make you right and me wrong. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You said "should not give IP's any special privilege to attack registered users, yet that's what I see being argued for frequently". Can you point me at any place where that has happened? It's your argument, not mine --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every time I use the term "drive-by" and get yelled at for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about empathy and kissing up. Using "Drive-by" labels attempts to deflect away from the topic toward the contributor. I'm not saying it's never acceptable to point out a particular user's history, I have done so myself when I was certain about mischievous alternate identities. Generally, I find this kind of deflection disruptive though. I don't appreciate it for registered users either. ("Look at his user name, need I say more?"..."Why should I listen to what you are saying, you are an admin."..."Why should I listen to what you are saying, you are not an admin.") Focus on what is being said, not who said it. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I only use the term "drive-by" when it fits. If an IP, a red-link, or registered user posts in good faith, I don't call them drive-bys. Your being apparently blind to this problem of malicious editors is your issue, not mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that you are unable or unwilling to back-up your assertion that anyone has ever argued for special privileges for IPs on wikipedia, and accordingly dismiss your argument as some unfathomable prejudice on your part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that you unable or unwilling to understand what I'm saying, as you all are making that very argument right here in this debate, so accordingly I dismiss your own argument as some unfathomable blindness on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In would dearly like to understand your position, but if you make assertions and are unable to evidence them, what is anyone to make of them? Remember, this is in the context of your biting IPs for reasons entirely unsupported by wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is not a frivolous issue and calls for your evidenced justification. It is not acceptable that you appoint yourself a bully of IPs in the way you have in this instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have vivid memories of being yelled at every time I use the term "drive-by", and I do not wish to revisit those annoying debates. If you want to search the archives, you're free to do so. Or you can wait until the next time. But as you may note below, I've tried to get away from "drive-by" by posting the SPA tag, as I was advised to do here (and, no, I'm not researching that for you either), and I'm getting yelled at again, even though the guy is a single-purpose, one-entry account. And I'm being yelled at here for daring to ask the IP OP a leading question (which he won't answer), and the IP is being defended as if he were some innocent lamb. You're right, it's not a frivolous issue, except you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing. My company has ongoing Code of Conduct training, and one recurring theme is "red flags". If someone says something that seems suspicious, then it's entirely appropriate to raise questions. You feel it's not appropriate to question anything a questioner asks. And you're free not to question. I don't agree with that approach, and if something looks fishy to me, I will ask. There are several reasons someone might want to hide their identity, and some of those possible reasons could put wikipedians in the position of aiding and abetting a crime. My guess is the user just didn't want his name connected with porn, which is understandable if a bit paranoid (as others have noted, most porn tends to be legal, though some is not). If it were furniture he was buying, fear of identity theft would be the more likely explanation. But your continual claim that I don't have the right to use my brain and question the questioner, is what I'm talking about when I say you want me to kiss up to the posters. If they were registered users, they could be more easily communicated with. IP's jump all around, so posting a question on an IP talk page may well be a waste of time. So the only practical place to ask is on ref desk page, where there's a chance the OP might see it, and possibly answer it, under possibly a different IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of SPA template

In light of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I'd be grateful if Bugs would outline his rationale for this edit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's what I was advised to do, on this very page, in lieu of using the term "drive-by". And in fact, 4 days later this [25] remains that user's lone edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, led you to conclude that this editor was one to whom scrutiny of the sort discussed in the SPA guide should apply? SPA is normally applied when there is some contention about an editors edits. What contention was there in this case? Why did you decide to so label the IP? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it was (then and now) the poster's only post, and it looked to me like a request for advice on how to do something questionable. And while all this debate has gone on, the OP still has not come back to comment on anything that anyone has said. So I am even more convinced now than I was 4 days ago, that it was a questionable and frivolous posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you were right about the anon/troll who was posting on this page earlier being a drive-by. I support your use of the term in that instance, in fact I think I used it too, I just didn't keep pushing the issue, instead I tried to indicate that I simply had no interest in whether they had valid points or not. However for the IP OP question that kicked off this latest, you are dead wrong. Do you seriously think someone worked through their ISP address pool until they found an address that hadn't ever made an en:wp post? If they can figure that out, would they really need help with buying porn anonymously? Your use of "single-entry", "SPA" or "drive-by" is simply unsupportable in this case. It is an anonymous editor asking a question and that is all. If you don't like a question, don't answer it. If someone else turns out to aid and abet a crime, let them take the heat, no-one here is asking for your help. WMF will not be threatened at all, read up on "safe harbour" provisions. This really does look like your own personal morality coming into play, combined with your idea that somehow IP's get special privilege. It's rather disruptive at the moment. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep wikipedia's broader best interests as a highly important factor. I hear people ridicule wikipedia all the time - not for its alleged treatment of alleged newbies, but for its unreliability. The average reader couldn't care less about this debate over IP's. And if an IP is trying to ask advice on how to do something that to me looks shady, then I think I owe it to wikipedia to challenge the poster on it. Contrast that with a discussion on a recent page about pot, in which the IP engaged in dialogue and it was a much more useful discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't be using the SPA template for IP users. Some people have internet service providers who have a VAST range of IP addresses and recycle them frequently - that's particularly true of dialup users who typically get a different IP address allocated to them each time they log in. So even a frequent and respected contributor might show up on an IP address which had never been used to access Wikipedia before. Therefore you know NOTHING about IP users. SPA is intended for named accounts that are created for a single use. SteveBaker (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. IP's have no identity. One IP could be a hundred guys, and a hundred IPs could be one guy, or any combination thereof. And you want them all treated as innocent newbies, even when it's clear they aren't. That's the double standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly Bugs, for one thing you know that a returning editor can be spotted by <beans> amd <beans>, among other <beans>. For another, you know that what you just said is equally, if not more, true of registered accounts, amd this can only be detected by <beans> and requesting a <beans>. You also know that casual detection of <beans> can be easily defeated by just doing <beans> and <beans>. I'm really quite sure you know all this, but I'll fill in all the blanks privately if you want. Sorry, but I question your very thesis here, you haven't carried the analysis far enough. Franamax (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The core problem is the difficulty of communicating with IP's, especially the ones that hop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you there. But the fact that I can't even expand on my agreement with reasons, 'cause of, you know <beans> - doesn't mean that all and sundry editors here who happen to arrive anonymously should be tarred with ahy particular brush. Spotting the patterns of malfeasance is more complex than that. Franamax (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Gevalt! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How intelligent are beavers

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#How_intelligent_are_beavers. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An actual reference desk employees here?

Given that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and that everyone has some degree of knowledge that others lack, I'm pleased that the reference desks gives anyone an opportunity to answer people's questions.

I do have a question, though: How many of our regular contributers actually work in a real library doing real reference? This is by no means a judgement on the quality of answers (I've been quite impressed, actually), but there is most definitely a parallel here.

In real libraries, for example, we give no legal advice, no medical advice, no personal advice. However, we do find relevant legal documents, health books, and self-help guides as requested. We also don't refuse questions or ask for any in depth motivation for asking beyond whether it's homework or simple curiosity. And simple curiosity is a perfectly valid reason for asking.

So, if someone asks is it illegal to x, we can't say yes or no, but we could refer them to the law books of their particular jurisdiction and tell them to read that and ask for a lawyer's advice.

Just some thoughts.Aaronite (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny, but that is generally what we do. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Generally is the keyword. I guess I'm just calling for continued AGF (of which there is an occasional lack).Aaronite (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, your concern is the occasional lack of assumption of good faith here? In the context of your edits above, am I also right to infer that you think professional reference desk librarians never have this problem? In my own experience this is simply untrue, and this is not surprising given human nature and the reality that almost everyone has a bad day now and then. Ultimately, your rebuke seems a little sanctimonious. -- Scray (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a real library and this RD. In a real library, if a person is kicked out and told never to return, it is rather obvious when they return. Here, there are three users in particular who have been kicked out and told never to return. They keep returning with different account names. It is not proper to AGF for a user who has been kicked out. -- kainaw™ 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF stands for Assume Good Faith which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do, sort of, although my job only rarely involves answering research requests. The biggest difference is that we could charge a crazily high fee for something that could be researched in a matter of seconds. I have also worked in a university library in the past but the reference desk there was free. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nearly all Ref. Desk responders are anonymous it isn't possible to answer how many have a library as their workplace. It is apparent from responses that many responders are accustomed to working with reference materials. Given the on-line nature of Wikipedia, and the comparative ease of citation, those materials are at least as likely to be on-line ones as paper-based ones in physical libraries.

Another difference between your real library and the on-line Ref. Desk is that interactions here are more volatile that your library could tolerate. I think your library workers would refuse a demand like (example) Write out the prime numbers between 257 and 51 in reverse order.. We would also refuse that because regardless of the motivation it is homework.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

251 241 239 233 229 227 223 211 199 197 193 191 181 179 173 167 163 157 151 149 139 137 131 127 113 109 107 103 101 97 89 83 79 73 71 67 61 59 53 (btw 51 is not). 68.28.104.229 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in total, the RD respondents actually have a much wider knowledge range than the average library assistant/ ref person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.242.68 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but all Kindergarteners, in total, probably also have a wider range of knowledge than any particular librarian. And, based on the number of Pokemon Q's we get here, their knowledge might be quite helpful. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that there is way too much questioning and far too little answering of the original poster. If someone said they saw a bear in California, and was wondering what kind it might be, a valid follow-up Q might be where and when they saw it, and what it looked like. Unfortunately, they could also expect us to ask them if it was a guy in a bear suit, challenge them to offer sources proving that bears are native to CA, ask what proof they have that it's a bear, if they were in a zoo at the time, whether they were hallucinating, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Crass nonsense by User:Googlemeister

I propose deleting this troll post: Given the fact that some people have died from allergic reactions to penicillin, there are no moral grounds for using antibiotics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a troll. It's just a poor analogy.

It is not intended to be read as a serious argument against penicillin, it's supposed to ridicule the somewhat absolutist anti-capital punishment comment by DOR(HK).

Forgive the logic, but does the phrase "somewhat absolutist" even make sense? I would think absolutist is binary, on or off. . Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your confusion is not very unique. -- Scray (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are either a moral absolutist, or a moral objectivist, there does not seem to be a middle ground. Googlemeister (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My use of small font, and the juxtaposition of the relative "very" with the absolute "unique", was meant to suggest that I agreed with you (it was meant to parallel "somewhat absolutist"). I apologize if that was not sufficiently clear. -- Scray (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stated clearly without the ridicule and sarcasm, Googlemeister is saying that he belives that a small number of accidental deaths is an acceptable loss for the gain that capital punishment provides to society.

I don't agree with him, and his comment is off-topic, but no moreso than the ones that came before it. APL (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be a poor analogy (since the death rate from execution is very close to 100%), but I see that as a legitimate "point on a graph". There is a continuum of desired and unintended consequences to any action, so approaching the idea from the "morality of <xxx>" standpoint can be useful. Death rate from vaccination against mortal disease may have been a better analogy. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the death rate from executions isn't particularly relevant, since the point isn't related to the injustice of people being executed (while some may feel that there's no justification for putting people to death, that wasn't being discussed). The comparison was to innocent people being put to death and while it's definite innocent people have been put to death, it's also almost definitely not close to 100%. However with something like penicillin, you can likely come up with somewhat meaningful statistics for the number of people died/number of people saved; whereas with the death penalty even if you could come up with some statistics innocent people executed/guilty people executed it doesn't mean the same thing. And trying to come up with statistics for innocent people executed/innocent people saved by the executions, is basically impossible Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a poor analogy. APL (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Thought you were replying to me. Didn't notice Franamax's post in between. APL (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a ref desk question a few weeks back asking how many innocent people have been executed. There's no way to know, since the cases of executed criminals are seldom re-opened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion of punishment and innocence

Nietzsche argued that everyone receiving punishment was 'innocent', insomuch as they are not the same person who committed the crime. Arguably true psychologically, though of course victims and those clamouring for justice will not be interested in the distinction. But this has nothing to do with Googlemeister. Vranak (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I take it he was an anarchist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

no, not an anarchist, precisely. Laws for Nietzsche were a bit like walls at a zoo - protecting the 'animal' from the 'human' as much as they protect the 'human' from the 'animal'. Anyone truly human would have no need for them, but the rest of the people need the comfort of knowing that they are protected from themselves. Did I mention he was kind of scary? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do tell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

“I know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful, of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite.” -- Nietzsche

So he knew he'd be scary to some people. Vranak (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not the best analogy (though certainly not crass nonsense). I was just trying to make the point that no human endeavor is perfect, and that a system that is not 100% perfect can still have utility. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Penicillin saved a dying patient's life in 1942 (see linked article) then countless thousands of lives during WW2, the urgency of which brought production by 1945 to over 600 billion units per year. Less than 1% of patients have adverse reactions to penicillin, almost none of them fatal. I don't see any cases of fatality due to penicillin in isolation. Penicillin is only the first of the range of antibiotics that are central to medical practice. Medical ethics demand best-effort actions. Yes Googlemeister, you posted crass mocking nonsense and I have deleted it. Answer an OP with verifiable facts and references not puerile sarcasm unless you think your humour will be appreciated in small print, which is not the case here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any support for your perspective that this is deserving of deletion, nor for your interpretation of its meaning. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bielle if you want to reinsert the claim be sure to let your family doctor know that you don't want to be treated with an antibiotic.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss Googlemeister's point. He is not saying that antibiotics are immoral (though that's what his post literally says), but rather that the death penelty connot be considered immoral simply because it kills some innocent people. His sarcasm works on the assumption that no one would say using antibiotics is immoral, even if it does hurt some people. Buddy431 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree I don't think the removal was a good idea or necessary and it's clear CA3 has either misunderstood GM's point or is unwilling to accept that it was a valid way to make the point given the tone of the discussion even if some may find it offensive, IMHO provided Googlemeister is fine with letting his/her modified way of making the point replace the original post, there's nothing to be gained by continuing this further. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If Googlemeister (or anyone) wants to say something about executions that does not involve sarcasm and belongs in this encyclopedia then I say welcome. I suggest Googlemeister muzzle the medical opinions. @Buddy431 there actually are people who have taught that antibiotics are ungodly so you cannot assume otherwise. I cite[26]: If the religious adherent withheld antibiotics from a sick person, either in favour of a divine healing, or in favour of traditional herbal remedies, is the religious adherent immune from an action if the patient dies? Cases... show the answer to these questions is far from clear.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just not listening? Googlemeister's post was clearly intended to imply that both penicillin and capital punishment are good things. Your continued rants here about the usefulness of antibiotics are puzzling, you're preaching to the converted.

I see that you've removed the post. Why? There is no consensus for that. In fact, the consensus seems to be that you are wrong here. Please do not remove other people's posts against consensus.

I've tried to undo your improper deletion on general principals, but the undo hit a conflict and I just can't be bothered to resolve it manually. APL (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact I don't believe GM was even intending to suggest that capital punishment was a good thing (he may think that, it's irrelevant to the point), simply that the fact innocent people have been killed doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing or indefendable. It is clear that GM meant that antibiotics are a good thing Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Children playing games?

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a number of redlinked accounts asking particularly numb-nut questions lately? three off the humanities desk: Kandorko (talk · contribs), Marinada (talk · contribs), R22elial (talk · contribs). I don't know whether this is one user socking to be annoying or a bunch of users playing a weird form of tag. Not a huge issue - the questions are stupid, not disruptive - but a bit of a time waster. is it worth trying to do something about?

I've seem some templates floating about that we could use to block out nonsense (they're normally used to deal with disruptive posts on mainspace talk pages); we could adapt one for use on the desks. --Ludwigs2 02:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-known troll was recently hit with a block of many of his socks and the anon IP address range he was using. As the blocks were being added, he stated that he was returning in full-force and very quickly started making as many accounts as possible. They are being identified and blocked. I've asked on SPI if there is a way we can easily list the suspect socks to the IP addresses can be checked and, if they are his range, the accounts blocked. -- kainaw™ 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked. Marinada and R22elial are already identified as the troll and blocked. The questions asked by those users should be completely removed. The user is indef.blocked and not allowed to post questions. Every question/comment we leave up is, to him, a score. He continues to make new accounts and tries to see how many questions he can get us to leave up. Kandorko is not blocked... yet. -- kainaw™ 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - the things that turn some people on. I'll do the legwork on the first two (if no one else has gotten to it); we'll see what happens with the third. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, most of the deleted questions were reasonable and not at all "stupid". Unless the troll starts being offensive or disruptive, I say treat his sock questionss like any other questions. Chasing him round and round the RDs only reinforces his attention seeking behaviour and encourages him to continue socking. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That used to be my opinion, but now I feel differently. He is not allowed to use Wikipedia. That is all there is to it. "not allowed". He isn't blocked "unless he makes a somewhat reasonable question." He is simply blocked. So, anything he does should be removed. Even if he asks the perfect question that everyone reads and suddenly achieves enlightenment, it should be removed immediately. -- kainaw™ 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having been a pest myself, I concur. He needs to reform his behavior, and there's no incentive to do that without systematic, implacable exclusion. It's hard for him but hey, it's worth it in the end for everyone. Vranak (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Every question/comment we leave up is, to him, a score. " to Kainaw as well, apparently. Oh well, if you're going to play his game I suppose you might as well play to win. (Minor Nitpick : In the future, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave the stubs. It's confusing when questions just disappear.)APL (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And if there's a little collateral damage, well, that happens in total warfare. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing this to total warfare is a bit obnoxious. The collateral damage here is fixed with a simple "undo". In total warfare is it really possible for the President to go: "Oops. My bad on bombing your town and killing a bunch of civilians. Undo." This is not a war. This is simply a matter of following policy. When a banned or blocked user uses a sock to evade the ban or block, anything that the user posts should be removed. -- kainaw™ 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See here and here for this discussion already in progress. Also, still more are being created and used. Rules are rules and he is blocked whatever he does, but, specifically, sockpuppetting is against the rules. Also, it is actually disruptive, because he is using upto 5 or so accounts per day and asking upto five or six questions from each. This is upto thirty or so pointless questions every day, all from the same person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another system-wide check is going. Those turn up ones he hasn't even used yet. This particular troll actually made me consider WP:RFA. Luckily, I know I'd never pass an RFA, so I didn't do it. Although, I did consider it once before - just to see how poorly I'd do, but then I saw that it would be closed right away due to WP:SNOW and didn't waste anyone's time. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of course he's going to post 30 questions a day if you chase him round in circles - just to show that he can. He's got you playing his game - every time you throw the stick he brings it right back. Now we just wait to see who gets bored first. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also the problem of him giving short and incorrect one-line answers to others' questions, with no citations (because he made the information up), from some of the accounts he is using. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of information - the source for some of the "reasonable questions" seems to be WikiAnswers. e.g. this, cf this removal diff. --LarryMac | Talk 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I have googled the complete wordings (complete with occasional typos and/or grammatical mistakes - for a reason) and found the exact same ones (with same typos/grammatical mistakes) on both WikiAnswers and Yahoo Answers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this un-answerable question, which I believe is related to all this. —Akrabbim^talk 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unanswerable factually, but at least showing some imagination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

technical problem with reference desk headers

Not sure where to post this - there doesn't seem to be a talk page for the reference desk header - so I'll start here. The desk header template contains a shortcut link at the far right of the main (first level 2) header - looks like WP:RD/L, where the final letter is different for different reference desks. unfortunately, when you have the 'Enable section editing via [edit] links' and 'Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page' options turned on in user preferences, the Edit link and the shortcut overlap badly. I'm not sure why this shortcut link is there in the first place, since it always leads to the page you are currently on. where can I post a request to get this fixed? --Ludwigs2 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the stylesheet is placing both links in the upper-right. The best I could do is completely remove the "skip to bottom" which cleans up my particular stylesheet. For you, if you don't want to see the shortcut, I can only suggest removing the shortcut in your style. -- kainaw™ 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And, if you don't already know, the END key (above the up arrow on the keyboard) will move you to the bottom of the page, so such a link is superfluous. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I've seen these problems crop up in other contexts (for instance, they used to have he same issue with the 'Featured Article' stars that appear in the same general vicinity), so I know it can be resolved by changing the CSS coding. and it's the shortcut link and the lead section edit link - it shouldn't have anything to do with the 'skip to bottom' link at all. let me go and see how they fixed it with the featured article stars, and I'll see if I can give a more cogent suggestion for improvement.

right now, though, I'm a little annoyed at the header designer - s/he used the header talk page as a content page for the talk page header, so there is now no place to discuss either the mainspace header or the talk page header. very frustrating. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So move it .froth. (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that many browsers do a poor job of enlarging text, such that it overlaps as you've described, when the text size is increased. View + Text Size/Zoom is typically where you go to change this magnification for most browsers, and some also provide a magnification factor in the lower or upper, right corner of the browser frame. Try setting it to normal size/100%, and see if this fixes the problem. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I use Safari with no magnification - Safaris has its issues, but it's obsessively W3 compliant on most rendering issues. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason the shortcut is there is to tell people what it is. Similar to the way done on other Wikipedia pages, e.g. WP:SC & WP:SHORTCUTBOX. You're welcome to change it to a more consistent format if that'll make things better. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk troll

Curious Cactus (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested earlier that this was the current troll that has been the subject of a lot of blocking and question deletions. Curious Cactus doesn't follow her procedure. Whoever Curious Cactus is, he/she is not copy/pasting questions from other question/answer sites while refusing to sign any of the questions. So, it doesn't appear that Curious Cactus is the same person. However, the troll who has been a bit of trouble has allied with other trolls through message boards and she will likely call on them for help. Therefore, it is not possible to say that Curious Cactus is completely unrelated. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing good faith (possibly naive edits). I realise we have a swarm of midges (recognisable by their red talk and user pages) - but they seem entirely innocuous, possibly friendly, and potentially even useful.

Perhaps some other website (forum?) has decided to join the ref desks en masse.

It's possibly that some of the new posters are 'doing it for the lulz' but on the whole why not just leave it. 87.102.67.84 (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are all the same person. See further up this page (in two places) for this discussion. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No - you're infering that - there are other possibilities - school computer, group of people acting in unison etc. etc. 87.102.67.84 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, believe me. It has basically been established that this is the work of one person (who may or may not have recruited 'friends' to help out), and work is in progress to ban this user for breaching of rules. If you are interested and want to comment further, I suggest you read the above discussions again, and click on any links within them before proceeding. Thank you. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So where did you work out that it was one person? ie actually establish that? (link?) (diff?) - no nothing - it's just typical ref desk talk page nonsense - User:Kainaw and others too busy "fighting the trolls" to actually contribute properly to the project.87.102.67.84 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please, you are right to ask for a relevant locus (or diff), but don't insult those who work hard to keep the desks manageable, even if you disagree with their approach. "Kainaw and others" do actually contribute properly and considerably to the project. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure how the registered editors here determined it was one guy, but I am inclined to trust their judgment. Those who study the work of weird users recognize the patterns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold it though. Kainaw is saying above that this probably isn't the same guy as the other new accounts (who I guess have been linked together?). Buddy431 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is some disagreement about observations, and probably an SPI would be good if someone wants to go through that effort. Fortunately, so far this little swarm are only gnats and not hornets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Curious Cactus is assumed to be a different user thus far. All of the above is related to the 'swarm of midges' that the subsequent IP posted after Kainaw's answer of clarification to Woogee's post. There is no confusion or disagreement. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was certainly confused. Buddy431 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, but no harm. There is something kind of familiar about CC's approach, but we'll see how it plays out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Well, CC did immediately catch my attention, but as you say, we can only watch. May be someone else entirely unrelated to this issue. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that its entire output so far was a "3 hour tour" on the 4th. So it might be reasonable to assume that it's part of the same cadre, and have it blocked. Its M.O. seemed to be a little bit like TrialicWave's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"He hasn't done anything recently, so we ought to block him." What kind of convoluted logic is that? Buddy431 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be up to an admin to decide. I don't see what the uproar about these redlinks is anyway. I've seen far worse from one-shot IP's who get defended by the hand-wringers here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, Bugs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You got a guilty conscience? >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm pointing out your incivility in the line above, and reminding you of policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the truth hurts. But thanks for the reminder. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, BB and Sluzzelin. Look, IP, I don't even know who you are, and I don't feel under any obligation to answer anything you say, especially when you are insulting people who are trying to do a job here. If you think this board is nonsense, you are perfectly welcome to take your IP and post it somewhere else. I did not come here to argue with you, and feel no need to. If you want to contribute to this particular part of the project, do something constructive. If not, do something else. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is TrialicWave one of these sockpuppets that were mentioned in an above topic? Seems to be a bit cranky to me. One to watch? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tammy, thanks for that. This username fits the bill perfectly, as, in addition to the usual similarities, it is giving unhelpfully incorrect answers to questions, in the same way as some of the other usernames we are blocking. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mentioned that AFAIK, some of the early accounts were identified as socks by checkusers, so it's almost definite that the user concerned is doing this. We obviously can't say for sure that all of the accounts are and I'm not saying it's necessary or wise to delete all these questions but as someone mentioned collateral damage is inevitable (for example, [27] while this is a homework question and would always be ignored, it's fairly typical and so may not be from the user in questions) as it always is (ironically the user concerned was always the one complaining about collateral damage) and this applies whatever we do. Perhaps I shouldn't say this but I personally am ignoring all questions which fit the profile, even if I feel I have something to offer. I'm sure I'm not the only one either not answering, or less likely to spend as much time on these questions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary advice

A question has recently been moved from an article talk page to the Science desk, where the OP is asking for advice about a chicken. Does our prohibition on medical advice extend to veterinary matters? See [28]. I note that "veterinarian" is listed among the professionals that should be contacted instead of asking on the Ref Desk in the page header. Tevildo (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If Richard NF is answering, he will know where to draw the line on veterinary advice. If a cosmologist chips in, well, hopefully they also raise hens. Chickens are a bit different than dogs or cats. It's definitely not an article talk Q. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal?

Why was my reply removed? A little OR-ish, I guess, but it seemed to answer the question. What up? 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably an inadvertent removal as a result of Ultraexactzz's edit conflict with your post. I've restored it. Deor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He has done the same to me. When he gets an edit conflict, it appears that he just deletes whatever caused the conflict. -- kainaw™ 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's really the lazy way to do things, unless he doesn't realize he's doing it. I've had it happen occasionally, from different users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possibly inadvertent; sometimes things don't register as an edit conflict, and the old version of the page is saved (with the editor's comments). Don't ask me why, but I've seen it happen a number of times. Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right it happens, I don't know if even the developers know why. Perhaps it's some sort of race condition. But if it's happening a lot with a specific user as suggested above, I would be concerned about that not necessarily because they're doing it on purpose (the specific user is an admin in good standing) but perhaps there's something wrong with their browser or internet setup that makes it happen a lot (and they may also be a good test candidate if the developers don't know what's wrong). However I'm not sure if it is, I looked at their past ~25 edits to the RD which given they stopped editing for a while and don't contribute to the RD that much reached October 2008 and I didn't come across any other examples Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"My computer has a virus" FAQ

Because we get queries from unfortunate virus-infected or other-malware-infected users every week or so, I started a FAQ at User:Comet Tuttle/Repair. Comments and fixes direct to that page are welcome. If another FAQ already exists I'm happy to defer and/or merge. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Humanities to Humanities and Social Sciences

Hi all. In the summer of 2009, it was debated whether the Humanities desk should be renamed to something like Humanities and Social Sciences: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_59. I'm only a single voter but I would propose that this be highly considered. My reasoning is that there is such an enormously diverse range of disciplines and subject matters encompassed in what we now call "Humanities" (military history, modern law, sexology, specific works of literature, social behavior, hardcore economics, theoreticaly philosophy, etc.) that it would make more sense to indicate this broad range in the name...Just curious if the time was right for this debate and whether there's actually a realistic chance of a rename this time (or a vote thereon)....--达伟 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the proposed renaming, because "Humanities" is adequate and the change would complicate searches in the archives.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wavelength. I don't see a problem keeping things as they are. The only change to the Desks I'm in favour of is to fold the Entertainment desk back into Humanities. Matt Deres (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I proposed killing the Entertainment desk a while back and I was shot down really hard. It's not gonna happen. I'd dig up the archives but I don't want to relive it :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, then you would have a space left in the main page, for the proposed Religion desk. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am against it as well because Social Sciences fall under Humanities (as does Religion). Entertainment was removed with great debate. If it is folded back into Humanities, I suggest filling the empty space with a Hedgehog desk. Sure - there aren't many questions about hedgehogs now, but if there was a specialized desk just for hedgehog questions, I'm sure we'd get plenty of them (yes - that is the argument normally proposed for "Can we have an fill-in-the-blank desk?). -- kainaw™ 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if we had a Troll & Sock-puppet Desk, wherein those sorts of folks could troll each other to their hearts' content? Any naughty questions posted to another desk could just be banished there. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A single-word title is apparently needed. Perhaps "Hosiery". Then the socks and trolls could go there and get hosed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Humanities" is just fine. "Entertainment" is just fine. Keep as is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Humanities and Social Sciences are not the same thing. Humanities are analytic like Art and Philosophy and Social Sciences are empirical like Economics and History but there usually ends being much overlap so one desk is better. I'm not sure whether a rename is needed but it might be.

A major problem I see with the current setup is that we recommend Finance questions on the Humanities desk - that's just bizarre! E.g. understanding a change in a credit spread on a corporate bond is definitely NOT a Humanity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What is is then? —Akrabbim^talk 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "What is Finance?"? Well, we don't have a separate desk for it (nor should we since we typically get very few questions) so I think the Misc desk is the best candidate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Finance could fall under Social sciences. It could not be considered a humanity. The humanities and social sciences overlap in some places, but they not identical.--达伟 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Finance is a Social Science. In my experience, technical Finance questions get better answers on the Misc desk and mathematical Finance questions get better answers on the Maths desk - but we encourage OPs to ask on the Humanities desk.

Regarding the overlap: I was just using the point to argue against splitting the desks. There are some good reasons for renaming, though, but things don't really change round here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for either two separate desks or a renaming. I agree that it is bizarre to have finance and economics questions appearing on a desk titled "Humanities". If a single "Social Sciences" desk receives few questions, that's a plus. I've argued in the past that separating topics into different desks rather than combining into a single desk broadens participation. Wikiant (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my original point...the spread is far too broad. Technical finance questions alongside questions about painting alongside questions of sexology alongside questions of constitutional law? --达伟 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this "sheer speculation"?

I'm refering to this thread at the Humanities desk. The question was:

Subject - was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor?
Question - Was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor? If so, would Iraq have been justified in nuking two large American cities until America capitulated?

The first question is not speculative. One could explain whether the Iraq War is considered provoked or not and perhaps point out that certain people believe that Pearl Harbor wasn't entirely unprovoked. To deal with the second question, either simply state that (depending on the answer above) it could be considered justified or not depending on who you ask or explain that we don't speculate.

But I think that the OP asks an interesting and valid question about the Iraq War and its similarities (or not) with Pearl Harbor - it's not the OP's fault that respondents can't keep their opinions to themselves. For example, Baseball Bugs called the question "inappropriate" and "strictly speculation" and then proceeded one minute later to answer it (with a pretty weak answer anyway). I think the discussion about whether the question is trolling/soapboxing should be deleted and the collapse box removed. Of course, it is possible that the OP is trolling - but at this point we AGF. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree on this one. The first half has a non-speculative answer, if not obvious and quite complicated (I don't know the answer myself). I would refer them to articles and works that discuss the lead-up to the war, and then direct them to draw their own conclusions.

Would a physical library ref desk refuse this question? No. They wouldn't answer, but they would provide the means to draw a conclusion. Plus, we need to remember that not everyone in the world holds the same perspective on the matter. Western bias, Middle Eastern bias, I-don't-care bias... Leave it up.Aaronite (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison of the iraq invasion to pearl harbor is complicated, but I think the factual/historical answer would have to be 'no'. the problem with the question, however, is that it's not a historical question - it's a politically motivated question masquerading as a factual question. You can tell because there is no way to answer the question without invoking a value judgement (which is the intent, to try to trick people into expressing a value judgement which can then be criticized on moral grounds), not without an extensive digression into historical (dis)similarities. I generally think of these as gutless questions: someone doesn't have the guts to come straight out and make a direct moral condemnation, so they try to maneuver people into saying things that can be sneered at instead. waste of time, and I think removing it was probably a good idea. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the OP gutless and accusing them of trying to trick people is a clear violation of WP:AGF but you evidently see no problem with that. I think we should treat OPs like trolls AFTER they become trolls. Also, there's nothing wrong with asking a question that requires an "extensive digression into historical (dis)similarities", and value judgements can be avoided if respondents would stick to providing reliable souces - if you can't find reliable commentary from historians, that's fine. It probably means that no one has thought about this question - but don't sling mud at the questioner for asking. To me, this is a good example of a question destined to be ignored/deleted because refdeskers can't keep their personal politics out of their responses. Here's a crazy idea: let's answer questions as though this was a reference desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

you're right, I don't see a problem with that. I honestly would prefer it if the OP were more direct and confrontational in their approach (stating what they mean to say) rather than using this kind of indirect nonsense. it would be better for them and better for the board, since we wouldn't end up with editors trying to answer the wrong question. If the OP straight out asked whether the US was morally wrong in their invasion of Iraq, and whether that justifies later terrorist acts, I would certainly do my best to answer such a question. don't put the 'troll' word in my mouth; I respect directness. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. If it slides into pointless debate, we should can it, but I see no reason other than its controversial nature for it to be preemptively (ha) removed. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first question has an easy answer: NO. The second question is based on a false understanding that was revealed by the first question. The best course of action (for me and others) would have been to send the OP to an article about the Iraq War(s) so that he can get some insight into the matter, and possibly draw his own conclusions as to what the answers are to his questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

These kind of questions (speculative, historical, a bit loaded, and touching taboo themes), occupied my teenage mind for quite a while. Luckily I had a patient history teacher who would put things it context. Maybe the querent doesn't have anywhere else to ask. Mr. 98's answer was helpful. Dweller provided links with more context. I'm tired of seeing questions being boxed just because we volunteers can't control ourselves. We aren't WP:ANI. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this discussion useful towards editing the article? This is not a forum. Woogee (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand the purpose of this talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IP's and such

Griping about an ANI post unrelated to the RD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For those of you who consider IP's to be innocent lambs and who think I'm the only one who speaks out when they misbehave, please check this out:[29] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ?? Of course some people who use IPs do stupid things. But plenty of people with "real" accounts do them too. WP:AGF still applies, even if someone has not bothered, or does not know how to, or does not desire to, register an account. Generalizing on the basis of whether people have accounts or not is stupid. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) As the other editors point out at ANI, behavior is what counts. If someone acts like a drive-by, then that's what they are. If they act sincere, then we treat them with sincerity. And that principle applies to IP's, redlinks and registered users alike. The ability to IP-hop, coupled with the fact that we never indef IP's, does not afford unregistered users any special privilege to do whatever they feel like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No one thinks that all IP's are innocent lambs, if that's what you're insinuating. Nor are you the only one who speaks out when they misbehave. (Not sure why you're having such a hard time with this.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It's the double-standard I have a problem with. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You have not provided any evidence of the exercise of double standards. We are have not observed and are unaware of any promulgation of such double standards. That is why we are having a hard time understanding your issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I think he has tried to, actually. The IP-hopping gives less accountability and also makes it harder to communicate with this kind of user. This is a wiki-wide phenomenon, of course. So is sockpuppeting of registered users, and sockfarming etc... I still value it differently than Bugs does. Assuming good faith is the only valid modus operandi at the desks, in my opinnion. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. A major part of this double-standard is that IP's have no identity, and when they are IP-hopping they almost never say, "By the way, I'm the same IP as that other one." Yet we're just supposed to pretend that everything's fine. This discussion seems to be an endless loop. One-shot editors, whose sole purpose is to harass someone while having no identity of their own, have forfeited any expectation of an assumption of good faith. You all who complain about my standing up to them, must not have had to take these characters to the AIV woodshed very often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Neither IP hopping - unavoidable if you do not have a static IP address - does make it more difficult to communicate, yes. I'm not sure I agree on the accountability issue, beyond noting it is more difficult to get someone to account for something if you can no longer reliably talk to them. None of these things, however, are double standards, evidence of double standards, nor evidence of the promulgation of double standards. So I'm still not clear what the problem with double standards relating to IPs is, indeed I'm completely in the dark. I suspect most of us are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As noted above, you must be one of the lucky ones that hasn't had to deal with that ilk very often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know about anyone else, Bugs, but the reason I often have a hard time understanding you is that (a) you make such wild and unsubstantiated statements, and (b) you jump haphazardly around in the conversation, reacting to things that weren't said. For example: a. You said "[some] of you consider IP's to be innocent lambs" and "I'm the only one who speaks out when they misbehave", neither of which is true. b. When I pointed out that these two things weren't true, and asked why you had such a hard time with those two things, you dragged in a third thing which you and I had not just been talking about ("the double-standard") and asked out of the blue why I had trouble understanding that third thing. (Now in fact I don't have a hard time understanding that third thing, but that's beside the point.) If you want to be understood and taken seriously, you should try to act seriously, not keep hopping around slinging the same unsubstantiated statements over and over. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs and his continuing saga at the Ref Desk Proof that anyone can edit Wikipedia. 68.28.104.251 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I restored the above after an admin deleted it, because it illustrates the point perfectly. An IP with a grand total of 7 edits since July, and the above the first one since December. Seemingly one of the "Jersey Boys", although it could be Pioneercourthouse. But guess what? It doesn't matter. Chasing down these various IP vandals and their socks is a waste of time. It's much more instructive to think of them as basically just one guy. And by the way, if he were a registered user, he would be indef'd with no questions asked. But he's an IP, so he'll either not be blocked or just for a short time, like a day, because he'll be on to another IP address the next time anyway. Now, cease your lectures about how there's no double standard. The above IP is a benificiary of that double standard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Bugs, you're not making sense. (a) The comment "Proof that anyone can edit Wikipedia" (if that's the one you're referring to) was not worthy of an indef block. (b) An admin did delete it. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) My take on this thread Buddy431 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Doh, and ffs. You're arguing for Collective punishment and given that the dynamic IP user does not repeat their IP from session to session, your proposal is in any event futile and will not serve the stated aim of dealing with the rouge user. It reads like poor judgement allied with technical naivety. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter. I've demonstrated the double standard, and your response doesn't deny it. Q.E.D. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) What is this discussion supposed to achieve? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) To point out that there are, in fact, different rules for IP's vs. registered users, and the next time someone whines at me for calling a drive-by a "drive-by", I can point them to this section and then do the "told-ya-so dance". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile, I have had quite enough of this myself, and am taking this page off my watch list (again). Feel free to archive it, delete, expunge it, whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) The longest suicide note in history? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Why me, when it was an IP that was the OP?

About 12 hours ago, I asked Baseball Bugs to refrain from always having to come out with some supposedly witty remark, no matter what the subject of the thread is (see second-last para). I said I live in hope; but it seems my plea has gone unheeded. His latest “contribution” is sure to offend many, and has already produced a strong reaction and a demand for a retraction.

Does anyone have a clue about how to explain to him just how inappropriate - and now offensive - his remarks often are? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this particular comment of his is pretty bad, but I wouldn't say that his remarks are often offensive. —Akrabbim^talk 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor did Jack. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I ambiguously worded that. They're often inappropriate; and his latest one has crossed the line into offence.

I hate to provide fuel to someone whose main aim seems to be to draw attention to himself, but I couldn't let this one go without comment. If it's attention he wants, I guess he's got it now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I would like to recommend reading what BrainyBabe writes in this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that making such jokes as often as Bugs does is a little excessive, I didn't find that particular joke offensive. Inappropriate, maybe, but it was pretty funny too. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be an issue around whether humour per se has a place in responding to the queries in RefDesk. Personally I think it can do, but that needs to be caveated by recognising that humour itself is very different in various locations. I read a news article recently that talked about the perception in the UK that the US didn't do irony, concluding that whilst in the UK irony is the default humour in the US it was less common so needed telegraphed. An ironic comment was frequently itself caveated with just joking afterwards, something as a Brit I find really strange.

Personally I find Baseball Bugs approach to be pretty boorish, but my own sense of humour is very dry and dark.

I do think that there is a degree of aggression that isn't all that helpful, it may be worth recognising that queries on RefDesk may be from fly-bys who see no need to create an account, they're unlikely to come back so don't see a need for a unique identity. That shouldn't be penalised or diminished, which I get the impression is largely the issue here.

ALR (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find that particular comment from BB deeply unpleasant, but I doubt it was intended that way. To BB, it was most likely produced as something funny without social context. For me, it made me flash back to darker days on the desks (many, many moons ago) when certain editors gave deeply inappropriate replies to someone who presented as a teenage girl asking about menstruation. And it flashes me back to all the times I've seen discussion shut down in other places by "Ew, bleeding and vaginas". BB mostly likely doesn't have that context for this, and so meant to invoke nothing of the kind. Nonetheless, I think it's the sort of comment that you generally retract when people explain why they have a problem with it. Doing so will harm no one or thing. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Boring. Bugs does not harm except to those who have no sense of humor. Woogee (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

BB's joke was added rather early in the response sequence, and was one of his less appropriate ones. A "filter" between what is thought and what is said (or typed) is a wonderful thing to cultivate. That said, it is amazing that anyone pretends that "menstrual extraction" is something besides an early abortion. Edison (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

look, having spent the last few weeks getting systematically attacked by a manipulative, hyseteria-prone troll, I have to say count your blessings... Bugs may go over the line every once in a while, but at least he has a sense of humor of some sort. I agree, a little more tact would probably be called for in some cases, but on a scale of 1 to 10 of wikipeida "please-don't-do-that's" it ranks somewhere between 2 and 3. If you feel the urge to bitch-slap someone, I can point you to a few people who really need to be bitch-slapped; just remember to wear a helmet and athletic cup if you try.

Plus, that cherry yogurt thing (early abortion or not) really was pretty funny, even if it was tasteless. --Ludwigs2 05:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tasteless", Ludwigs? Curious choice of word, I think. I suspect "tasteless" may be funny to the same group who find "racist" or "sexist" forgiveable if funny, and thus "funny". Bielle (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sure they are different groups (though there may be some overlap). There is a difference between humor that demeans of degrades a group of people and humor that trips someone's gag reflex. If bugs were making blond jokes, I'd call him out on it myself (since blond jokes are usually codified misogynism). but the worst this joke can be accused of is being puerile and adolescent. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I do like about BB, even though he drives me a little nuts some times, is that he does seem to take criticisms to heart once they accumulate. His signal-to-noise ratio has increased appreciably over the last month or so in a way that I would not have assumed possible. I think he still needs to work on it a bit (and so do many of us, I suppose), but I think he does definitely have it in him. Unfortunately I think that once one has built up a reputation, people are understandably less likely to assume good faith. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: is that what made the comment funny, that it tripped a "gag reflex"? I had no idea what was funny about it, so I am now the wiser. Here I thought it just a puerile, knee-jerk response to a health-care matter involving menstruation, the sort of automatic clown act usually found (and generally discouraged) at the high-school level. Well, I live and learn. And the Ref Desk feels this is a part of a good response to a question about early term abortion, a topic likely to be very sensitive, does it? The response had nothing to do with the question and was only tangentially connected to one link. How is this a help to the OP? Bielle (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I advised BB of this thread, as a courtesy. His response was that he’s not watching this talk page and won’t be participating in this discussion. We can say what we like, but he's remaining deliberately oblivious to it. I also copped some personal abuse from a supposedly Veteran Editor for my troubles; that wasn't of Baseball Bugs' doing, but he did seem to condone it. He has in the past shown an ability to change, but on this occasion he seems to be treating this issue with complete contempt. He doesn’t think it’s an issue, so therefore, as far as he’s concerned, what anyone else thinks is irrelevant. I wonder how this goes in relation to his regular raising of issues about anonymous IPs. He wants the rest of us to sit up and take notice of his issue, but won’t do the same in return. That a regular would operate in such a manner is troubling; more troubling than the content of this or any one particular issue. Having raised this one, I can let it go and move on. But it has been very instructive to observe how Baseball Bugs operates. Sometimes people don't set out to be deliberately trollish, but end up having that effect despite themselves. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense questions

Moved from WP:REFDESK/S, specifically, from here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#is_it_possible_to_boil_water_through_the_power_of_the_mind_alone.3F. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm. The excessive number of nonsense question on this page is a real problem. It would be nice to have a separate page for them. Dauto (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we not repast them to a section called something like: Questions not yet meeting basic requirements. Then deleate after 48 hours.--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion does nothing for the OP... perhaps we should move it to talk? – ClockworkSoul 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just delete it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinks: When uploading a file one gets asked a lot of questions, how about a ‘Submit question form’ requiring the question to be properly stated and referenced?--Aspro (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You want people to supply references when asking a question on the reference desk? Huh?! --Tango (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really opposed to this idea. If a person asks a question based on ignorance or magical thinking in good faith (or even possibly in good faith), to dismiss their question as "nonsense" we would be depriving them of one a the few opportunities they have to have those magical beliefs challenged and (hopefully) corrected. It would be a terrible disservice. – ClockworkSoul 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often get the impression that those who answer Qs here (or refuse to do so) are only willing to deal with people of a similar background and world view as their own. If the OP doesn't speak proper English, or isn't scientifically minded, then they get more abuse than answers here. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing this specific question as "nonsense" at all, Dauto. It is quite the kind of thing someone young with a vivid imagination but not much scientific knowledge might ponder. (Did you and your friends never try to bend spoons?) And the question is well within the capability of the Science Desk regulars to answer, simply and thoroughly. I would agree that some of the current exchanges between the regulars are not particularly helpful to the OP, but that is hardly the fault of the question while being mildly entertaining to the rest. Bielle (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I tryed bending spoons with my mind when I was five. And my parents gently explained to me that it was just a magic trick. I don't think we should delete the question, instead we should gently explain that the question is nonsense. Dauto (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think it might be a good idea to open a 'Fun and Nonsense' desk, and be fairly liberal about refactoring questions over there. If someone objects to their question being moved, they can always ask to have it moved back, but most such questions would have a good chance of getting answered anyway (just for fun) and it would keep the other desks open for more serious kinds of questions. I don't see any harm in it, and if nothing else it might serve as an escape valve for people for people with a serious itch to fuck around. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, but that sort of thing quickly evolves into a "general bullshit" style forum. It's beyond the Reference Desk's purpose.

Anyway, one way to consider this is that there are almost no inherently bad questions, just bad answers. I have been enriched by many good answers to bad questions on here. They are often much more out-of-the-box informative than the questions that have straightforward answers.

I think we should spend more of our time policing answers than we do policing questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is a clear and correct answer: "No, you can't." What's annoying is people posting responses that try to find devious ways to not answer with a simple "No". They aren't helping the OP - if anything, they are encouraging more such junk questions. I'm opposed to a "junk" desk - and I'm fairly sure it would be frowned upon by the rest of Wikipedians and soon be deleted. It would drag down our high standards to create such a thing. What we really need to do is to stick with simple answers to simple questions. Trolls will soon get bored with such simple answers. SteveBaker (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just answer questions?

Okay, Aaronite here from a different IP (or does that make me a liar and a drive-by?): Is it too much to ask just to answer questions? I mean, if it's stupid or you somehow disagree with it, just leave it alone unless it specifically asks for the forbidden advice. Can you boil water with your mind? No? Then say so, and provide a link to metaphysics or something. Seriously. People ask this in real libraries, and they don't turn them away. I read this section largely out of curiosity. I'm interested in what people are asking, and when answered intelligently, I learn something too. We aren't here to judge whether someone means it when they ask a question. We are here to answer it. No questions asked, aside from appropriate reference interview-type questions. Who knows what people's motivations are. Maybe they really don't know. I don't care if they are being silly; real libraries don't either. Sure, it might be annoying, but they answer. Curtly, with less detail, but they still answer.

I know we aren't professionals, mostly, but seriously people, this bickering and refusing questions isn't professional. It's embarassing and provides no benefit to anyone. Gosh! 24.83.112.118 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Medremoval

Diff OP asks for treatment advice. Removed per Kainaw's criterion etc. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)